GWOT... Nope. Long War... Nope. Overseas Contingency Operation... Yes!

[J Wolfsberger]

If people are concerned about the funding and others think that the naming game is a lot of bluster over nothing, then I have a compromise suggestion: sell the naming rights (there's your funding) for the war to the highest bidder, just like you would with a stadium. For example, the Gillette War on Terror, or The Long War sponsored by Ford (built to last!), or The Overseas Contingency Operation, sponsored by Virgin Atlantic (whether you're flying overseas or fighting overseas, book your flight with Virgin!). Just a thought.

The U.S. Army has already officially licensed the use 1st ID marks and insignias to Sears, maybe we could also sell sponsorship of the units. 82nd ABN by Chevron? 24th ID by Ford?

As Tom points out, there's an awful lot of advertising real estate going to waste ...

[patmc]

"Sir, today's BUB is brought to you by Milwaukee's Best Light, Brewed to a Man's Taste!"

And Staff slides could have sponsorship logo's, like in NASCAR.



Note to my original post: On "Fox and Friends" yesterday morning, getting ready for formation, one of the guests made a pretty good joke. It was something along the lines of, "Our Soldiers are at war with the OCO. Beatles' fans tried that for years and failed."

[Schmedlap]

"Sir, today's BUB is brought to you by Milwaukee's Best Light, Brewed to a Man's Taste!"

Even the CTC's could get in on the action: "Sir, the AAR for this abortion is brought to you by Planned Parenthood."

[Bob's World]

Or Cialis:

"If you have a briefing that lasts longer than 4 hours, see a doctor."

[J Wolfsberger]

I'm not even going to try to top those.

Er, wait ...

[Cavguy]

From an contact of mine in DoD:

Colleagues:

The phrase "contingency operation" is a term of art in Title 10, United States Code, which is tied to the deployment of U.S. forces at home and abroad:

As outlined in the DoD definition (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/dod...c/01233.html):

"Definition: (DOD) A military operation that is either designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation or becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law (10 USC 101(a)(13)). It is a military operation that a. is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the Armed Forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing force; or b. is created by definition of law. Under 10 USC 101 (a)(13)(B), a contingency operation exists if a military operation results in the (1) callup to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed Services under certain Enumerated Statutes (10 USC Sections 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, 12406, or 331-335) (2) the callup to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed Services under other (non-enumerated) statutes during war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress."


To this definition, I would add that "contingency operation" has specific meaning and force of law in the legal area -- with respect to 1) the triggering of UCMJ jurisdiction, and 2) the triggering of certain federal acquisition authorities, among other things.

I would speculate that the choice of this phrase was deliberate -- to bring the policy and budgetary nomenclature in line with each other. Further attempts at exegesis, and other tea-leaf reading efforts to divine meaning from this, may not produce any more substantive explanation.

[Cavguy]

At today's pentagon press conference today, the issue was addressed. Apparently this is a budgetary/policy change and not a politcial one - yet. From a reporter contact of mine:

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell clarifies debate over GWOT term v. overseas contingency term.
Please see highlights.


MR. MORRELL: I've never received such a directive. I think the White House and OMB for that matter have been very clear about this as well, that they have never issued such a directive.

I think they've explained that perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little overexuberant and done so. But I can just tell you, I'm the one who speaks publicly about these matters. And I have never been told which words to use or not to use. So I don't think there's anything to the story.

Q You still use the phrase.

MR. MORRELL: I think I have used it. I think I have. I don't avoid it. I don't seek it out. If it's appropriate, I'll use it. I could be wrong, but I think the president has used it. But, so I don't -- I was surprised to see that story, as well, because I know of no directive prohibiting the use of that term.

Q What's your preferred nomenclature?

MR. MORRELL: I don't really have one. I mean, I don't think a whole lot about it. I think that we are involved in global operations to protect the homeland and the American people. And a large part of that is going after terrorists, seeking them out, wherever they are, wherever they're plotting, wherever they are training to launch attacks against us.

So --

Q (Off mike) -- GWOT, global war on terror, lumps together an entire -- you know, the entire Muslim faith and an entire region.

Do you see that as a concern?

MR. MORRELL: Well, I don't think there's anything in that term that identifies any particular faith or ethnicity. I mean, there are terrorists of all faiths, of all colors, of all races and ethnicities. And so perhaps a better -- another way to refer to it would be, you know, a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.

I mean, there's a variety of ways to describe this. But I don't -- the point is, there has been no mandate from anybody as to how we should talk about this.

Q How do you feel about overseas contingency --

MR. MORRELL: I think that is -- that is -- the new way of referring to war spending is that overseas contingency -- it's still new to me, so let me get it right -- overseas contingency operations budget.

So.

Q So more of a budgetary term, would you say, than a kind of broader term of the administration to describe the military campaigns and --

MR. MORRELL: No, this is a budget term. I mean, this is -- this replaces supplementals. But it's not just a -- this is not a matter of semantics. There is a difference here. And the difference here is that the overseas contingency operations budget will be sent to the Hill with the DOD base budget and considered with it so that the Congress will be able to assess it together and make determinations together with the base budget. So I think there is -- even though it is above and beyond the base, it is coupled with the base, it's part of the president's budget, it goes up there packaged together and they will consider them together.