The "War on Terror" is over

**Formative Years** · 16th August 2009 09:14 AM

http://washingtonindependent.com/541...r-on-terrorism

John Brennan, the Assistant for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security has declared the "War on Terror" is over. Instead we're now "At War with al-Qaeda."

Brennan annulled several key aspects of the so-called war on terrorism â€” starting with both the name and the idea that the United States was involved in any sort of â€œglobal war.â€ Brennan said Obama will subordinate counterterrorism to â€œits right and proper placeâ€ as a â€œvital partâ€ of the administrationâ€™s national security and foreign policies, but not the lionâ€™s share of them. Saying he was careful not to elevate al-Qaeda to a greater position of importance than it deserved, Brennan linked the rise in support for extremists to problems of global governance, economic crisis and social stratification and said the administration would make a concerted effort to address what he considers those extremist root causes.

While Brennan said it would ultimately be up to governments and civil-society institutions in the Muslim world to â€œisolateâ€ al-Qaeda, he said the role of the United States was to help strengthen â€œthe capacity of foreign militaries and security forcesâ€ and judiciaries; to make â€œsubstantialâ€ increases in foreign aid to fight poverty and promote global health and food security; and to demonstrate the ability of â€œdiplomacy, dialogue, and the democratic processâ€ to solve â€œseemingly intractable problems.â€

I doubt a name change is actually going to change anything, but I suppose it's a start.

**michaelr** · 16th August 2009 09:17 AM

[quote name='Formative Years' date='16 August 2009 - 08:14 AM' timestamp='1250435646' post='5927']

http://washingtonindependent.com/541...r-on-terrorism

John Brennan, the Assistant for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security has declared the "War on Terror" is over. Instead we're now "At War with al-Qaeda."

I doubt a name change is actually going to change anything, but I suppose it's a start.

[/quote]

It depends on their next step. If they negotiate terms with AQ then the entire mess can be over. I am not sure politically acceptable that would be, but it would show leadership to a value that even I would applaud.

**nonsqtr** · 16th August 2009 09:30 AM

[quote name='michaelr' date='16 August 2009 - 11:17 AM' timestamp='1250435873' post='5928']

It depends on their next step. If they negotiate terms with AQ then the entire mess can be over. I am not sure politically acceptable that would be, but it would show leadership to a value that even I would applaud.

[/quote]

Very good!

That's generally how you get someone with a beef off your back, right?

You listen to 'em and find out what they're pissed about, and then you

try to set things up so they have less of a reason to be pissed.

Unfortunately there is a RELIGIOUS element in all this - and religion

often involves the use of the word "only", which is a very bad word for

negotiations and coming to terms.

But yeah - take a lesson from the IRA. Those clowns won't stop till they

get heard, that's about the gist of things.

And, it's a pretty obvious equation too, ain't it?

16th August 2009 04:16 PM

[quote name='Formative Years' date='16 August 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1250435646' post='5927']

http://washingtonindependent.com/541...r-on-terrorism

John Brennan, the Assistant for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security has declared the "War on Terror" is over. Instead we're now "At War with al-Qaeda."

I doubt a name change is actually going to change anything, but I suppose it's a start.

[/quote]

and yet terrorism still exists. That being the case, did we win the war?

**Formative Years** · 16th August 2009 04:19 PM

[quote name='johnlocke' date='16 August 2009 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1250461019' post='6154']

and yet terrorism still exists. That being the case, did we win the war?

[/quote]

I guess the real question is how do you win a war on terror. It was an absurd name to begin with. That's like declaring a war on jealousy.

**Goldwater** · 16th August 2009 05:09 PM

[quote name='johnlocke' date='16 August 2009 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1250461019' post='6154']

and yet terrorism still exists. That being the case, did we win the war?

[/quote]

Terrorism is only as good as it's last attack. NATO got attacked in Kabul the other day does that count as us? We battle Taliban and Al Queda daily in Afghaniistan. I think the redesignation of the war dramatically reduces it's scope for the US and more accurate IMO. Bush simply needed to call it the much less specific "war on terror" so he could attack anyone anytime per his doctrine. We haven't won any wars since the Gulf War.

**justoneman** · 16th August 2009 05:21 PM

[quote name='Goldwater' date='16 August 2009 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1250464141' post='6178']

... I think the redesignation of the war dramatically reduces it's scope for the US and more accurate IMO....

[/quote]

If it is reduced in scope then why are we sending more troops to Afganistan and why are more troops dying? Why is Obama not pulling the troops out like he said he would during the campaign? Why is he adhereing to the time table established by Bush and not pulling them sooner? Seems to me it is more empty words. Look at the actions and not the words.

**Bluegrass** · 16th August 2009 05:42 PM

[quote name='justoneman' date='16 August 2009 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1250464884' post='6180']

If it is reduced in scope then why are we sending more troops to Afganistan and why are more troops dying? Why is Obama not pulling the troops out like he said he would during the campaign?[/quote]

For the same reason Bush didn't want America "into nation building". Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Oh, but that's "different" because of 9-11.

"Party of Principle", carry on.

Why is he adhereing to the time table established by Bush and not pulling them sooner? Seems to me it is more empty words. Look at the actions and not the words.

And while you're at it, look at the mind boggling amount of horseshit on both sides of the aisle instead of one.

**justoneman** · 16th August 2009 05:44 PM

[quote name='Bluegrass' date='16 August 2009 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1250466150' post='6186']

For the same reason Bush didn't want America "into nation building". Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Oh, but that's "different" because of 9-11.

"Party of Principle", carry on.

And while you're at it, look at the mind boggling amount of horseshit on both sides of the aisle instead of one.

[/quote]

Yes but what about this topic? Do you think the troops should be pulled out like Obama said in his campaign?

**Bluegrass** · 16th August 2009 05:50 PM

[quote name='justoneman' date='16 August 2009 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1250466267' post='6187']

Yes but what about this topic? Do you think the troops should be pulled out like Obama said in his campaign?

[/quote]

Yes. Pull them all.