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

[Bob's World]

Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.

Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.

With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.

I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.

[J Wolfsberger]

Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.

Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.

With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.

I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.

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."

[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.

[J Wolfsberger]

"It sounds like your number one concern is DoD's Budget"

More accurately, my concern is repeating the mistakes of the Carter and Clinton administrations by using the defense budget as a piggy bank to finance social policy, leaving the US with an underfunded, under equipped and undermanned force. I don't think that addresses our shared number one concern.

I agree with you that an "...overly military and war-like face on our foreign policy arguably does not provide the most effective approach to National Security." To which I would add that a weak military isn't an effective approach to National Security, either. Being too weak to defend itself has worked out well for Costa Rica (for example), but I'm hard pressed to think of many countries through out history that were left in peace because of their weakness.

Furthermore, "...cuts without a plan that supports policy, that in turn supports an over-arching strategy..." is precisely what I expect. Time will tell, probably within the next week, if "Gut the Defense Budget" is an alarmist or an accurate phrase. It will be nice if I'm proved wrong, and I will put on my happy face in that event.

[Hacksaw]

Exactly...

In much the same as name changes involving Blackwater and AIG (in the future); I find name changes to be a tissue paper thin veil that implies a change/re-examination of Foreign Policy... "See we're charting a new course we changed our naming convention"... again TWADDLE!

What's in a name does matter, but this doesn't cut it... at a minimum it should include the term campaign so as to imply both the holistic and enduring nature of the endeavor...

I spent far too much time in TRADOC-ville, where name changes masquerade as change to be anything other than less than enthusiastic about trotting out a new name as evidence of a new approach

[John T. Fishel]

Any name that doesn't include the word "war" fails the "so what" test. When our enemy has declared "war" against us - not once but twice - and has killed more Americans on 9/11 than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor clearly indicates that a "state of war exists" between (at least) the US and Al Qaeda and its allies.

[Bob's World]

Any name that doesn't include the word "war" fails the "so what" test. When our enemy has declared "war" against us - not once but twice - and has killed more Americans on 9/11 than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor clearly indicates that a "state of war exists" between (at least) the US and Al Qaeda and its allies.

On 9/11 AQN (a non-state entity, conducting a regional UW campaign to incite and unite dissatisfied Sunni populaces around the Middle East to rise up in insurgency to throw off governments that possessed Western support, but lacked homegrown legitimacy) launched an attack against the perceived source of legitimacy of many of the worst governments in the Middle East.

The U.S. populace, rightfully angered demanded revenge against their attackers and a return of the perception of security enjoyed prior to the attacks.

Instead of looking at the big picture as to WHY these attacks took place, we instead colored it as "Muslims trying to destroy America" and launched a war against a tactic and a religion. The resultant operations have in large part legitimized the propaganda being spread about US intentions and have arguably put as far more at risk today than we were 7 years ago on 9/10.

I agree completely with Hack that meaningless name changes are of no value; but will argue even more vigorously that this country need a major, major strategic overhaul.

US Cold War policy in the Middle East worked. Continuing it 20 years after the fact contributed significantly to the current conflicts we face coming out of that region.

US similarly faces growing concerns of organized criminal violence coming out of Mexico. Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.

Being a good neighbor is a two-way street. Nothing wrong with strong fences, guard dogs and staying fit and well armed. But you still have to stop throwing your garbage over the fence and going around the neighborhood telling everyone what to do, and parking your oversized vehicles on the street in front of their houses, etc. The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.