SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: LindyBill4/19/2007 7:48:40 PM
   of 793846
 
How do we get out next year if we call it "The Long War?" I understand what Fallon is doing, but it's bad for the country.

CENTCOM abandons the "long war"
[Phillip Carter, Thursday April 19, 2007 at 12:54pm EST]

Adm. William Fallon testified before CongressRichard Lardner reports in the Tampa Tribune (the hometown newspaper of CENTCOM) that Adm. William Fallon has chosen to jettison the oft-criticized term "long war" for describing America's current conflict. According to the article:

"Fallon, who replaced Abizaid as Centcom's top officer March 16, considered the term inconsistent with the goal of reducing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, according to the command.

Fallon wants the focus to be on curbing the violence in Iraq and shifting responsibility for the country's internal security to the Iraqis.

Referring to the broader battle as a lengthy ideological conflict distracted from the more immediate benchmarks and suggested there was no plan to leave the region, said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Matt McLaughlin, a command spokesman.

"The change in vernacular is a product of our ongoing effort to use language that describes the conflict for our western audience while understanding the cultural implications of how that language is construed in the Middle East," McLaughlin wrote in an e-mail.

"In this case, the idea that we are going to be involved in a 'Long War,' at the current level of operations, is not likely and unhelpful," McLaughlin said. "We remain committed to our friends and allies in the region and to countering al-Qaida inspired extremism where it manifests itself. But one of our goals is to lessen our presence over time, [and] we didn't feel that the term 'Long War' captured this nuance."

Smart move. The "long war" construct may make sense for certain agencies, but it should not be the national strategy of the United States. It connotes an overly militaristic view of the current struggle, one which is limited both in means and ends. It's time to start taking the long view of this struggle, and to adopt a national strategy which places our current operations into their proper context. Kudos to Adm. Fallon and his staff for recognizing this problem, and jettisoning an inappropriate strategic framework.

inteldump.powerblogs.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext