New Propaganda Catchphrase: "The Long War"
The campaign, which has been awhile in the making, is officially on now with a major speech yesterday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.
Rumsfeld, who laid out broad strategies for what the military and the Bush administration are now calling the "long war," likened al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin while urging Americans not to give in on the battle of wills that could stretch for years. He said there is a tendency to underestimate the threats that terrorists pose to global security, and said liberty is at stake.
Under the OPLAN, years are supposed to stretch into forever.
The speech, which aides said was titled "The Long War," came on the eve of the Pentagon's release of its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which sets out plans for how the U.S. military will address major security challenges 20 years into the future. The plans to be released today include shifts to make the military more agile and capable of dealing with unconventional threats, something Rumsfeld has said is necessary to move from a military designed for the Cold War into one that is more flexible...
Indeed, the QDR, mandated every four years by Congress, opens with the declaration: "The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."
Here's a little background on the origins of the nebulous new slogan for our info-op.
With its formal embrace this week of the term "long war," the Bush administration has turned a simple descriptive phrase into an official name for the war on terrorism, and possibly catapulted it into the ranks of such other era names as "Cold War" and "World War."
The phrase has a long history. It has been applied to the 15-year war between the Habsburg monarchy and the Ottoman Empire that started in the 1590s. It also was a name proposed by University of Texas law professor Philip Bobbitt to cover a collection of 20th-century conflicts, from World War I to the Cold War, which resulted in democracy triumphing over communism and fascism.
Its recent rise to rhetorical prominence in the U.S. military, according to several military officers, began in 2004 with Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Central Command chief who oversees military operations in the Middle East. Abizaid invoked the phrase to underscore the long-term challenge posed by al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups.
This "challenge" will be quite profitable for certain defense-related elements in the United States. Taxpayers, though may not end up seeing it that way.
James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, co-wrote a book last year titled "Winning the Long War: Lessons from the Cold War for Defeating Terrorism and Preserving Freedom." Carafano said the name captures the only major element of the war about which everyone agrees.
"We can't agree it's global, we can't agree it's terrorism, but we all generally agree it's a war . . . [and] it's going to be long," Carafano said. "Transnational terrorism is the problem of the 21st century."
Everyone agrees? Who is this we? You and all the other defense industry jerkoffs, that's about it. And the cowardly sheeple who are your natural constituents.
Not everyone has favored adopting "long war" as the official label of this struggle.
"The term certainly has some negative baggage that goes along with it," said one senior officer, who said concerns were raised by some at Central Command and at the Pentagon as well as by some allied governments. "No one wants to be involved in a long war."
But President Bush bought into its use this week. In his State of the Union message, he declared, "Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy."
If these dipshits have so much excess energy to come up with something like this, why don't they do something productive.
Like starting to work on their taxes.
10 Comments:
I wrote about the same thing last night. It just seems so awfully pretentious - among other things - to brand something as a "long war" before it's even run its course. And that presumes that it should be called a "war" in the first place, which I don't buy into.
As long as there's a perpetual war underway, the Bush regime (let's call it what it is; it certainly can't administer anything!) can justify whatever it wants under the auspices of war:
"You don't want us to torture? We're at war!"
"You don't want us to spy on Americans? We're at war!"
"You don't want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars? We're at war!"
"You don't want us to restrict free speech? We're at war!"
"You don't want us to jail people without charges? We're at war!"
"You don't want us to fight a war? We're at war!" ;-)
The list goes on and on and on. In their minds, war justifies virtually anything. How effing perverted is that?!
Drew L:
I second your objection to them calling any of this stuff, including Iraq, "war".
It may be a bloody mess, but Congress never declared war. The AUMF isn't an official declaration of war.
Notice how our leader's facial expression and tone of voice changes to being much more grave when he brings up the "were at war" BS. He thinks he has to lay it on heavy when he is shoveling the nasty stuff.
The "long war" meme is something even more insidious. I am 100% serious when I say that they are trying to brainwash the American people into accepting a state of permanent war.
It is an essential step in the implementation of the police state long coveted by the rethugs.
The Long War - how incredibly romantic....and sprinkled with a bitter sweet touch of Herman Wouk รก la Tv mini series.
EFFWIT, may I call you 'Pug'?
I so dearly wanna be Eurotrashed Natalie.
Meatball One:
The name is another one of those fake-macho names that the Tom Clancy crowd would jerk off to.
Herman Wouk sounds about right, too.
I never saw the movie, but i have been called far worse things than "Pug."
Stonefruit:
Does this mean that you aren't gonna be falling for the slogan? :-)
The "coincidence" of everybody starting to use that specific phrase at the same time kinda struck me as suspicious.
Shit, I'm the obtuse fucker who invariably prefixes War On Terror with 'The so-called'.
I and my offspring will never utter 'The Long War' - prefixed or not.
So what's an alternative and catchy phrase for this beast of a war against us by our own?
We need an OurSpeak - a language for the resistance and by the resistance...that's sexy and palatable even for high school drop outs and that captures what is being obfuscated by Newspeak..
Meatball One:
OurSpeak. Great minds think alike, I decided just this morning to adapt Hugo Chavez's term for President Bush, "Mister Danger".
The replacement for the "long war" will require the proper combination of in-their-face defiance, sarcasm, and humor that currently exceeds my pitiful capacity.
Those qualities however fit a certain pundit on TDY in Scandinavia.
Wow! How very, very sad.
If this is a "long" war - how much of it has already been fought then? 10% of it, 20%?
I read somewhere -- maybe even here -- that it has already cost the American tax payer 2 trillion dollars (2 with 12 zeros). -- That's a lot of schools, hospitals and roads...
-- If its going to be a long war -- then I guess America might well go broke "helping" the world towards democracy and freedom... (In fact, that might be the only way to end the long war.)
-- Yes, hopefully Americans will all start doing their taxes because Uncle Scam needs more money to help fight the long war... and the corporate kleptocracy (nice phrase!) doesn't pay for these things -- they only reap the benefits.
Dena
Dena:
It is an absolute outrage. People are actually saying that we should not expect to see an end to this nonsense for the rest of our lives.
You are right about this bankrupting the United States. In fact, the financial considerations are the only thing that can stop this gang.
The real owners of the USA (the corporate kleptocracy, as Stonefruit puts it) will never allow their servant George W. Bush to do any damage that can't be undone.If they see it getting to that point, and that point may be closer than Mister Danger can see, they will dump him like they did Nixon.
Bush has already given American-style Fascism a bad name among those equipped to see it in it's true light.
I thought that Bush was getting the U.S. out of the business of being the world's policeman.
Then, considering where that came from, I wouldn't bank on anything he's ever promised to do. Well, the promises he made behind the podium, at least.
Post a Comment
<< Home