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

[Bob's World]

GWOT was a lousy name. Separating Iraq and Afghanistan was a poor idea, and we did lose focus on the right problems. I'm all in favor of rethinking our Foreign Policy based on the recognition that we're not in 1985 any more. If I thought the name change was intended to address these issues, I'd be all for it.

But, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" That makes GWOT look like a good choice. The only way it makes sense is if the intent is to sweep things under the rug. I'll go back to my previous point. It's very difficult to gut the defense budget if you're fighting a war, and very easy if you're only "involved" in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."

My number one concern is the National Security of the United States.
An over emphasis on the M in DIME, and a resultant overly military and war-like face on our foreign policy arguably does not provide the most effective approach to National Security.

So, we can use alarmist terminology like "War on Terror" or "Gut the Defense Budget," or we can rationally sit down and ask "What are we really trying to accomplish here, and how do we best distribute a much smaller overall budget among the various participants across government that contribute to those ends."

It stands to reason that the DoD budget will get smaller. How could it not? I'm sure Soviet military leaders made similar arguments against "Gutting the Defense budget" all the way up to the point their government collapsed under the weight of it. Sometimes dropping the gut before it drops you is a good thing.

But I will say this, cuts without a plan that supports policy, that in turn supports an over-arching strategy, is just as dangerous as no cuts at all.