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

[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.

[Hacksaw]

From a year ago, when posited that I thought we (the US specifically, western world generally) had reached a strategic culminating point and that it was time to transition to the strategic defensive...

Rob and his big ideas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As usual Rob has posted another of his intellectual hairballs that generates so much intellectual activity that it is nearly impossible to keep up and still do your job . A few thoughts that might already be accounted for above, but I don't have the time to digest...

Being on the strategic defense does not preclude offensive action. This is especially true if you consider STRATCOM/Info Engagement (IE) as part of the mix. Of course Clausewitz needs to be bent to fit generational changes, but he still fits in this era of fourth generation warfare.

All this gets a little hazy if you are like me and consider all actions/activities as having some IE component. I conduct a raid, I take physical action but I also convey a message to foes, friendlies, and neutrals alike based on how, when, etc...

However, if we bend our concepts of offense and defense so far that they no longer resemble their commonly understood definition (an example would be that Iraq was strategically a defensive action because it was pre-emptive of a presumed threat), then we probably just need to start over again.

As I continue on this stream of consciousness... I heard rumor (probably in this forum) that ADM Mullen proposed as food for thought that we ought to have an Info Order with an OPS Annex as opposed to the other way around. There is probably way too many cultural hurdles to scale with that idea, but that is the kind of big idea that I expect from a CJCS. If you get past your initial gut reaction, you can easily so why that is a far more useful mental construct. Unfortunately it took a squid... god help us if they are going to do all our thinking.

I suppose we are taking different avenues of approach to the same objective, I hope you lift and shift when I fire the green star cluster

Live well and row

[Ken White]

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

Nor do I agree with that -- if you use the caveat 'some of', I would agree but a bare "U.S. populace" implies most and I do not believe that's the case. The chattering classes certainly did and many who hang onto their every word (fortunately far from a majority of the populace) probably did but that's still a relatively small number.

In any event, the word 'war' wasn't the problem, the way the Administration of the day handled the media was the problem.

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.

The "big picture as to why" was of only marginal import. The 'why' was the issue you cite PLUS previous US actions around the world over many years PLUS the fact that the US, of all western nations due to our culture (or lack of it ) offered both the easiest target and the easiest to dislike. The first two issues could not be undone and the last issue should not be -- we may be flawed but we have far more pluses than minuses.

Then there is the biggest PLUS of all that many like to elide: Our failure for over 20 years to respond adequately to probes and provocations originating in the ME. That one factor contributed more to 9/11 than the others combined.

I'll grant that some did go the "Muslims trying to destroy America" route but in fairness, the Administration, bad as they bungled their PR effort, did not do that -- in fact they bent over backwards to avoid that. The mass media and a few voluble nutcases were the beater of the anti-Islamic drum and they were a minority. Visible and loud but still a minority. So "We" didn't do what you said.

There is no question the bad guys used that visible and loud minority's stupidity to reinforce their position. The current operations do give them some legitimizing clout but more people are becoming aware that said legitimizing is a charade.

I agree that it is arguable that our operations have placed us more at risk -- and I would argue they have not. Folks in the ME are very much into pride, honor and revenge. The phrase "An eye for an eye..." after all originated there. I'm firmly convinced that our failure to react to provocations for many years encouraged more attacks (there is a Mid Eastern way of war...) and our twin responses in 2001 and 2003 will in the long run prove far more beneficial than negative.

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.

Having served there during the period, I do not agree that it worked then -- I do agree that continuing the same ideas has not worked in the ME since 1990.

...Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.

Agree.

...The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.

I also agree with that philosophy but disagree that it is practical possibility. Further, I suspect it's not going to happen and I believe those things to be true for one reason.

We're the biggest gorilla in town right now and while we could turn the other cheek (as we did from 1979 until 2001) that would simply be seen as a sign of weakness by too many in the world. Rightly or wrongly, a big guy who's been a bully cannot get away with becoming Mr. Meeknmild. Sorry, Bob, everyone out there just isn't as nice as you are.

All that said, I agree with John T. 'War' should stay in there. If people are getting fired upon with regularity particularly by large groups of opponents with crew served weapons it's a war. Nation state involvement is not a prerequisite. Hard to justify all those CIBs, Purple Hearts and Combat decorations sans a war.

Not to mention that if the other guy strongly believes and says he IS in a war and you don't use the term, you can place yourself at a great disadvantage by not realizing how serious your problem is.

Lot of that going around...