previous post next post  

This just in: War Over! Back to Status Quo Ante for naming anyway...

By The Armorer on October 1, 2007 | | Comments (19)

Sanitized to protect the innocent.

From:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:10 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: *****REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" OR "WAR ON TERROR" FROM ALL CORRESPONDENCE*****

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

J-X,

Today, we have received clear direction from Adm Mullen (incoming CJCS) regarding the phrase "Global War on Terror". He does not like this reference and we are not to use this in any future correspondence. Review your letters, orders, JSAPs, and presentations to ensure this reference is removed.

Ensure strict compliance.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

R/S,
LtCol X.

We eagerly await the Chairman's new naming guidance. Still, can't help but think... walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...

Share This Article:

Categories:

19 Comments

By Consul-At-Arms on October 1, 2007 9:45 AM
I wonder just what the new CJCS, Adm. Mullen, is going to do with all those pesky GWOT service and expeditionary medals so many are wearing.
 
By kat-missouri on October 1, 2007 9:49 AM
I was thinking, "a little late for that", heh, grand-poobah? Kind of all over the lexicon military to civilian. You think he'll make me change my title on the grand communications strategy I'm cooking up?
 
By MajMike on October 1, 2007 10:36 AM
great, so now i'll have to re-rack my tinsel and get rid of that pretty little GWOT-E?
 
By Heartless Libertarian on October 1, 2007 12:38 PM
I was unaware that the CJCS had any direct command authority over anything, except maybe the Joint Staff. His principle duty is to serve as the primary military advisor to the President and SecDef. He's not actually in charge of anything. So how can he say "Don't use that phrase." Besides which, I was under the impression that we'd already begun the transition to the term "Long War."
 
By AFSister on October 1, 2007 1:17 PM
So when do we get to start calling it what it really is then? GAOIA Global Annihilation Of Insurgent A$$h@les.
 
By AFSister on October 1, 2007 1:22 PM
HEY! That reminds me of a song. There was a Prez who had a war, and Gay-Yo was it's name-oh. GAIAO GAIAO GAIAO And Gay-Yo was it's name-oh! Then again, I don't know if the military would appreciate fighting for anything with the word "gay" in it. *sigh* Back to the drawing board....
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 1, 2007 1:27 PM
AFSis, 'specially since yer refrain didn't match yer acronym... Heartless - good call, and note, the email was to J-Staff personnel. I was just showing everybody how it works, when a new guy shows up and feels the need to have an impact, fast. Changing the vocabulary actually can do that - as long as you don't mind the snark. Given the size of his paycheck, I'm doubting Admiral Mullen is worrying too much about what I think. But this might have bollixed my invitation to "The Tank" (the real one, vice the NRO one) to spend an hour with the Chiefs... ;^ )
 
By BillT on October 1, 2007 1:33 PM
I was unaware that the CJCS had any direct command authority over anything, except maybe the Joint Staff. CJCS doesn't even command his own driver. His function is to serve as the conduit between the focus group (the JCS) and POTUS. There's an excellent chapter on the origins and functions of the JCS in Arthur Hadley's The Straw Giant.
 
By AFSister on October 1, 2007 1:48 PM
Yeah, but it sounded good, eh?
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 1, 2007 2:42 PM
The Focus Group. Snerk.
 
By fdcol63 on October 1, 2007 2:52 PM
Why does this remind me of the decision to make the black beret the Army's standard issue head gear?
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 1, 2007 2:57 PM
Admiral Mullen signaled this change some time ago. He thinks the terminology gets in the way of doing business with other nations (I mean that in terms of diplo-military relations, not commerce) and so he wants it to go away. Depends on how it plays out whether or not this was a good decision or not. Unlike the beret issue, where the significant number of heads *not* designed for berets still cause me to wince. That, and all the time lost fiddling with them to get them to set right, for those who bother.
 
By Adeodatus on October 1, 2007 3:49 PM
Instead of spending time/resources finding the right name for the current conflicts, how about the nice folks at the Pentagon re-invest their time in fighting the actual conflicts? Most wars are known as "The War" when they are being fought. After a few years, with some historical perspective, they naturally assume a name. "The War" 90 years ago, later became "The Great War" and then "World War I." We don't know yet what this may or may not become. So let's just call it "The War."
 
By Desert Sailor on October 1, 2007 5:14 PM
Vaguely recall this "Drop GWOT" thing a few years ago (from same author). Now that he's "Big C", vice just a seat on the JCS, I guess I can see it...IF and only if we refer to IZ and AF as "The Battle of Iraq and The Battle of Afghanistan" to properly place them in the overall "Long War". Otherwise...screw it.
 
By MountainRunner on October 1, 2007 5:21 PM
I suggest a replacement name that also hints at our strategy: War Against Child Killers And Militants Organized as Loose Entities, or WACK-A-MOLE
 
By Maggie on October 1, 2007 5:48 PM
Whatever..........I'm not giving up my coin even if a Sailor tells me to.
 
By Heartless Libertarian on October 2, 2007 11:32 AM
DS-Actually, I think the correct terms would be "Iraq Front" and "Afghan Front"
 
By MR T's Haircut on October 3, 2007 4:51 AM
I think the whole notion to this as a "WAR" is really over-complicating it. It fits the description of violent combat, it cetrtainly could be classified as a battle or series of battles, but the strategic term of "War" is difficult to grasp for most. During WWII, the term "War" was pretty easy to envision. Two opposing sides, with clear division of Geo's. Geography and Geo-politics. Easy to see the "War" when set on those terms. War against Nazi Tyranny War against Fascism War against Germany War against Japan Always though, WWII. The allies didnt even have a coined phrase back in the days of WW2, only calling it the European Theater or the Pacific Theater of Operations. I will start believing it is a "real war" when the Will, the Sacrifice and the motivation is present in our nation. Until then, this is business as usual for me, it is a deployment and series of defensive operations conducted offensively against a fanatical insane enemy that house no boundries geographically speaking, yet has a lot of allies geo-politically speaking. In WWII we had the strategic vision to conduct "Warfare" on a global scale, yet we have difficulty in the current state of "Warfare" against the Taliban and Al Queda. IMO this may be due to creating a bigger boogie man... I think all we lack to really end this is the political will. Period.
 
By redc1c4 on October 4, 2007 10:36 PM
Hey AFSister: Global Annihilation Of Insurgent A$$h@les if you drop the "O" from "GAOIA", which you really should for an acronym, it becomes "GAIA", which is perfect, since it will send the moonbats into a frenzy..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis redc1c4, here to help? %-)