|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Obama redefines "war on terror"|
Obama redefines "war on terror"
Posted - 5/24/2013 2:20:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
In a speech in which he announced limits on drone strikes and targeted killings,
President Obama suggested the nation should begin moving away from the open-ended global war on terror.
Are you kidding me? That should happen just AFTER radical Islamists move away from terrorist activities. Until them we should be dilligent and strike them whenever and however we can.
Posted - 5/24/2013 2:51:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
Haven't been following the news, lately, huh, cruzo?
Twelve years of pursuing the same strategy is bad in anyone's book.
The number of drone strikes in Pakistan is down from 122 a year in Obama's first year in office to only 12 so far this year.
That means we've tackled organized terror organizations pretty well.
Now, our problem revolves around "lone wolves" -- like the Fort Hood shooter (though, since it was an attack on a military base, that was an act of war, not an act of terror) and the Boston Marathon bombers.
Our existing strategy and tools are not designed to counter that threat. Obama thinks we should be defending against the changing strategy of terrorists.
Looks like you, cruzo, are wanting to fight the last war.
Posted - 5/24/2013 3:38:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
When you learn something
then you'll be qualified to pontificate. Until then I'll keep my own counsel.
Posted - 5/24/2013 3:57:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
I doubt very much
that cruise knows more about the subject than the POTUS.
NYT: "President Obama’s speech on Thursday was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.
While there are some, particularly the more hawkish Congressional Republicans, who say this war should essentially last forever, Mr. Obama told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled, as it always was before 2001, primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. That shift is essential to preserving the democratic system and rule of law for which the United States is fighting, and for repairing its badly damaged global image."
(And from Detroit Free Press) "In an address remarkable for both its candor and its humility, President Barack Obama sought Thursday to limit the scope of his predecessor’s global war on terror, pivoting from a full-court campaign of military pre-emption to a new era of proportionality and political engagement. [...]
This page and others who criticized the Bush administration for overstepping its authority have expressed disappointment at the degree to which Obama has aped and even exacerbated the sins of his predecessor. That the president has followed this path with the tacit approval of lawmakers in both parties is no excuse; as Obama himself admitted Thursday, many Bush-era practices long ago outlived their usefulness. [...]
A single speech will scarcely bring about the sea change Obama seeks. But the shift in focus and tactics that he outlined Thursday is both worthwhile and long overdue, and America’s long-term efforts to contain terrorism can only be enhanced by its swift implementation."
Posted - 5/24/2013 8:34:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
Wait cruiser So You Support Drone Strikes Now?
Because before you were criticizing Obama for using drones.
Posted - 5/25/2013 8:22:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
Cruzo is a military genius, people!
I mean, just look at his expertise on military wounding bullets and his keen insight that allows him to declare that wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are "gaming the system" -- to use his words.
Since his directive was based on the counsel of senior military leaders and backed up by junior officers who've spent the last 12 years fighting the wars, and from career CIA officers and FBI agents who've been taking on terrorism -- I think THEIR counsel is far more accurate than anything cruzo could bring to the table.
All cruzo has is partisan talking points and hyperbole.
Posted - 5/28/2013 9:05:26 AM | show profile | flag this post
The "war on terror" is a joke...
Just like the war on drugs...not working. We need good intelligence and diligence in figuring out where attacks may take place and we need police actions to solve the ones that do. No more strip searches at airports and removing your shoes. We haven't caught ONE terrorist through the DHS police state. Let's get back to being a free country. No wars over a terrorist attack. If there is an attack, go after the people behind it. This country was a lot better off before 9/11. I don't see anything we have done stopping another 9/11. We need a new strategy because what we have now stinks.
Posted - 5/28/2013 1:18:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
"The War on Terror"...
was such a bad idea, the concept was abandoned by Donald Rumsfeld.
It had no focus -- targeting a concept rather than an actual, identifiable enemy -- and no clearly defined goal.
Rumsfeld actually tried to come up with a couple of better names to define what the country was actually doing.
Bush even quit using the term before Rummy was replaced in 2006.
Shortly after Bob Gates took over at DoD, there was a directive ordering that no DoD personnel were to refer to "War on Terror" -- instead focusing on the two actual wars and other operations by their names.
Even the last Republican administration admitted it was a failure!
Posted - 5/28/2013 10:37:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's more than just 'syntax'
It's really a smart, logical policy shift for 2013. That point should not be disregarded lightly. Shifting away from a 24hr megabillion war against nothing you can point to on a map?? It is the sensible common sense and prudent thing to do. Incidentally, I have no doubt that President Romney would have reached the same conclusion.
Ok, sure, 'War on Drugs' ('War on Poverty' anyone?) are buzz-phrases that meant more on paper (including the ever-ready ever-handy dollar bill) than anything else...but the "perpetual war" we've been fighting since 9/11 ceased to mean anything really years ago. Remember when Bush said he didn't care one way or the other about OBL?? Should have been our first clue.
His Father on the other hand--Bush Sr; oversaw the dismantling of our nuke missiles, not to mention the Strategic Air Command. That was the most potentially devastating Earth destroying apparatus ever set up--and poof--Goodbye. Why? Not needed anymore. Smart.
Obama had this line(s) in his speech last week: "We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison's warning that "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror... we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face."
"Terrorists" are still our enemy--no one is saying they aren't--but a trillion dollar screw civil rights paranoid peek under the bed every night for a turban headed Muslim fanatic "War on Terror" is just not a 'policy' to live by.