Has Obama Ended the "War on Terror"?
| Thu Jan. 22, 2009 11:50 AM PST
Has President Barack Obama ended the "war on terror"?
On his second day in office, he signed an executive order that would prevent any officer of the US government from engaging in torture. As he placed his name on the order--keeping a prominent campaign promise--he declared that this move "effectively ensures that anyone detained by the United States for now" will be interrogated in a fashion consistent with the Army field manual, which notes that the use of force, threats, or inhumane treatment is prohibited by law. "We can abide by a rule that says we don't torture," Obama maintained. In other words, good-bye to waterboarding.
Obama signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of retired generals and flag officers who had advocated a torture ban. It was yet another historic moment in a series of such moments this week. Obama reiterated what he said during his inaugural address: that the United States need not be forced into the false choice between protecting its values and honoring its ideals.
What was intriguing was how Obama characterized the fight against terrorism. He said, "The message we are sending around the world is the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism" vigilantly, effectively, and "in a manner consistent with our values and ideals." Notably, he did not use the term "war on terror." And moments later, he proclaimed, "We intend to win this fight and we're going to win it on our terms." Again, no "war."
Is this a purposeful shift in rhetoric? Has Obama decided to drop the war on terrorism metaphor that the Bush-Cheney administration used extensively?
At Robert Gibbs' first briefing as White House press secretary on Thursday afternoon, I asked if the president had booted the war metaphor. Gibbs replied that Obama had used language that was consistent with his inaugural address. In that speech, Obama had indeed said that "our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." But he did not use the standard "war on terror" phrase. Instead he threw the word "war" against a specific target.
At the press conference, I followed up and inquired if Obama had decided not to deploy that phrase as president. "Not that I'm aware of," Gibbs answered.
De-emphasizing the war metaphor would be a significant change. But if it is a deliberate change, the White House does not want to acknowledge it.
UPDATE: Speaking at the State Department later in the day, Obama characterized the battle against terrorists as a "twilight struggle." But when listing the national security challenges the nation faces, he quickly ran through the line-up: "the war on terror, sectarian division, and the spread of deadly technology." He's obviously not allergic to the term. But it's not the description he reaches for first when he publicly discusses the matter. Not so far in his presidency.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Does the air feel cleaner and fresher there in Washington? It does here in Florida since Tuesday past at 12:00, noon.
It is refreshing that we have an open, honest administration with a President that has the interests of all Americans and the world as a cornerstone of his daily actions.
When talking to all people, I hope that President Obama drops all of the Bush-Cheney euphemisms, that he speaks distinctly and truthfully with clear, unambiguous language, using words with meanings as defined in published dictionaries. I firmly believe that he will do so.
The Bush-Cheney nightmare is over, but much of the residue of their incompetence and self-serving agenda will take years, if not decades, to overcome.
he also pretty explicitly embraced the war on terror in his inaugural address:
"Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."
That's more than at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's GWOT talk.
Biden has been strongly opposed to the term for quite some time.
http://whereistand.com/JoeBiden/23872
agree
Submitted by sulumits retsambew (not verified) on Mon Jun. 22, 2009 11:38 AM PDT.
Yeah, I agree with your opinion Brosetti!
One has to wonder how many Americans will die because Obama isn't willing to have the CIA pour water down the nose of some terrorist. Let's hope its not an entire city destroyed by nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. And who knows...if Obama stops fighting the war on terror maybe the terrorist will be as impressed as the left wing media and take the next 4 to 8 years off. After all he is "The ONE"
Yes, it is
Submitted by Tukang Nggame (not verified) on Tue May. 26, 2009 12:04 AM PDT.
Yes, it's a war on Islam actually, I really hate that.
Of course he ended the war on terror. The dems never believed we were fighting it in the first place. Just ask any of them and they will tell it was America's fault anyhow. Our only hope is that the other side, you know the terrorists that blew up the towers, will agree and throw down their weapons. I doubt it.
I sure hope he has ended this phantom war. Like the phantom Cold War before it, the War on Terror is a construct of the Military-Industrial Complex to further their enrichment at the expense of human lives both here and abroad.
"One has to wonder how many Americans will die because Obama isn't willing to have the CIA pour water down the nose of some terrorist. Let's hope its not an entire city destroyed by nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. And who knows...if Obama stops fighting the war on terror maybe the terrorist will be as impressed as the left wing media and take the next 4 to 8 years off. After all he is "The ONE""
I don't suppose it ever occurs to any of the torture apologists that having GitMo open, and having the US brazenly torture, VASTLY increases the pool of terrorists and their motivation to do just that? Simultaneously it starves the US of legitimacy and allies. Torture is not only ineffective as an interrogation technique, but it undermines out legitimacy internally and externally.
You know, we did somehow manage to win WW2 without water boarding.
Are you kidding me? We won WWII with out waterboarding? Do you read any history books or just make your crap up? We did torture....in fact we out right killed POWs. Please spare me your sanctimony. In WWII a shot came from a defended city: We leveled it. We firebombed civilian centers. We did what WE HAD TO DO TO WIN. Too bad more people dont read history and realize that sooner or later we will have to do that again or perish.
Closing "Gitmo" and banning torture changes nothing when you have rendition and the CIA. Obama is a PR confection that will carry on the class war of the presidents that preceded him, and for that end, the amorphous "war on terrorism" is too great an ally to ever disavow.
"Obama reiterated what he said during his inaugural address: that the United States need not be forced into the false choice between protecting its values and honoring its ideals."
******
ACTUALLY, that IS NOT what Obama said in his speech. Indeed, if he had said that he would've made sense.
instead he talked about the false choice between our SECURITY and our ideals (not between our values and our ideals, as you stated).
what he posed is, in fact, a false "false choice". unless there is no counter terrorism utility to electronic surveillance (a position no one seriously advocates) the there IS a conflict between our security and some of our values.
and now I'm wondering, how did you flub this straight forward quote? sloppy journalism? or something else?
i honestly have no idea, but its glaring enough to make one wonder.
Linguistically, the phrase "war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" is much broader than "war on terror", since terror is a very specific form of violence (generally, criminal violence against civilians with the intent to affect government policy, although few people agree on the definition). "war on hatred" encompasses much more than just "terror" which does not require "hatred".
but this is all angels dancing on the head of a pin . . .
No, he has not ended the "War on terror."
But by what he did today re: Gitmo and how to extract valuable information from those who would kill any of us in blink of an eye, he's made America a more unsafe place.
Took him only two days in office.
The terrorists globally must be beside themselves, doing their ROTFLMAO routines.
Did I miss something? It seems to me that the thrust of this article is WHAT TO CALL the war bin Laden and his camp declared against the West, not whether or not they did so. The arguments about whether or not we should defend ourselves from those who have sworn to destroy our way of life are specious in this context - our new POTUS affirms that he realizes it is his responsibility as Commander in Chief to do so.
So what do we do with the prisoners at Gitmo whose nations don't want them? What do we do about those who have openly claimed participation in the conspiracy to cause 9/11? If they can't go home, and they can't stay here, what happens then? If they come on U.S. land, they get the type of immunity that thousands of thieves and murderers use daily to avoid prosecution. In all likelihood, some Muslim group would raise "defense funds" and get them off. What then? Do they get to return to Pakistan or Indonesia to rejoin their comrades in creating new deadly scenarios? Frankly, this is just another kneejerk reaction to polling. They have no idea of the legal implications. They don't know what they will do. And if one of those terrorists returns with a suitcase nuke, whose fault will it be, Bush' or Obama's?
The President is free to utilize whateaver terms he wishes; they are his Executive Orders and he can fashion them any one he wants. However, the first time one of the satanic morons in Iran, Korea, Russia or Venezuela engage in something remotely resembling terrorism, we'll see how fast he reincarnates Bush's War on Terror phrase.
FredZ reported in a comment above that Obama did use the WOT term when speaking at the State Department later in the day. I've watched the C-SPAN video of it, and FredZ is correct. See the update at the end of the posting above.
All of you who are condemning Obama for acknowledging that America has signed treaties outlawing torture and written laws implementing those treaties: What do you say to or about all those generals and admirals standing around him and approving his order?
It amazes me that the same crowd that asked "Why didn't you connect the dots on 911?" are the ones that want to close Gitmo. and soften all of the new security measures Bush has put in place. No law abiding US citizen was harmed in any way by these measures. It also seems to me the left doesn't realize that our enemies HATE YOU MOST!!! They hate liberated women,gays, and anyone who doesn't share their twisted vision of life. So when the suit case bomb goes off in a major city in the next few years YOU and your Democrat leaders will be held responsible for your inability to protect our precious country. You seem to care more about the rights of the TERRORISTS then our right to live in peace.
Dave already took Henk down on the facts, but beyond Henk just making stuff up about WWII, what amazes me about liberals is how they get all worked up over terminology and "civil rights" and ascribe their own sensitivities to terrorists who would torture and kill them in the blink of an eye.
I don't want to beat up on Henk, but as an example, because he is upset about GITMO and what he calls "brazenly torture," he thinks Islamic terrorists must also be upset, i.e., "having GitMo open, and having the US brazenly torture, VASTLY increases the pool of terrorists and their motivation to do just that [attack USA]?"
Sure, except 9/11 happened long before GITMO or "brazen torture."
Politically, Obama is crazy for letting up on the war on the terror. The probability of an attack on U.S. is pretty high and he risks having democrats branded as soft on terror for a generation.
As president, Obama will instantly become the world's number one arms dealer, number one trainer of secret police, number one detonator of bombs, and number one sponsor of forces, US and foreign, that by objective definition do terrorism.
Obama can stop that. He can cry halt, order: 'Stop civilian killings. Now.'
If he truly does, he'll be a hero worthy of Dr. King, of the freedom giants he rode.
If not, he'll become responsible for mass murders, and the first victims will likely fall sometime between today's swearing-in and the last inaugural ball.
David, actions speak louder than words.
You may say the "Bush Cheney Nightmare" is over..... but the Obama Nightmare has just begun! Don't kid yourselves. We are in a Global War on Terror. Pretending that the election of a slick orator will make terrorists stop hating us is naive and dangerous.
eaglegreen - don't start throwing strawmen around: have you heard Clinton, Gates, or Obama ever once say they expect the jihadi's to stop hating us? If your analysis of the Obama adminstration's approach to the War on Terror (which Obama acknowledges, he called it that just today) is so myopic, I think we're all safe not paying attention to your opinion on how it should be run.
I'd be mighty curious to know Cockburn's "objective" definition of terrorism. People who randomly fire missiles from schoolyards and "holy" places in the direction of civilian population centers are terrorists. People who are responsible for the recent events in Mumbai are terrorists. People who send women and children into public places to detonate bombs with the intent of deliberately maiming and killing innocents are terrorists. People who drop leaflets and send mass text messages to civilians to evacuate in preparation for a measured response to these provocations are not. Neither are the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, attempting to bring peace and order to the fractious corners of the world where terrorism is cultivated.
Rich,
I have not heard the admirals and generals explain their view, so I can't comment on their view. If you know where I can review what they have said, then I will comment.
I have heard General Powell explain his view against torture, and while I have a great deal of respect for Powell, he was very unpersuasive in arguing that if we tortured them, it would result in them torturing us. I think that is an unreasonable and view of the Islamic terrorists. They have and will torture and kill our guys without regard to whether we waterboard them.
Yea, we won WW2 by carpet bombing the enemy into submission. We did things a heck of a lot worse then putting a wet towel on people's head during WW2. If we would have people like you back then we would all be speaking german right now.
I damn near lost my computer...I spewed the martini I was drinking when I read the post from the looney who said we didn't torture in WW2! Just another product of our government schools showing how well he learned the oh so accurate lessons taught in his approved history class. I bet this fellow even believes that Peter Pan was a dude.
You Americans are truly a funny bunch. Do you guys think Two Chicago politicians such as Obama & Emanuel canceled kindergarten tactics like water bording only to introduce much more inhumane tactics.
This is just a PR stunt guys. That's what makes the Obama , the best ever US president.
"Obama signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of retired generals and flag officers who had advocated a torture ban. It was yet another historic moment in a series of such moments this week."
Retired? Why not get some active duty Generals? Why have some guys who have NOTHING to lose?... btw I wonder how many of them are lobbyist or work for government contractors?
If Obama is right, he'll make the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party happy at fairly modest cost.
Of course, if he's wrong - and an avoidable mass murder occurs in the USA, the dems will be out of power for thirty years.
Having lived for six months in a Wahhabi dominated country, I will be amazed if the terrorists don't do their best to cause another major terrorist incident on US soil. It will be interesting to see if our intelligence agencies are up to stopping it under the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Submitted by Busby SEO Test (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 10:59 PM PST.
Obama won't bring any changes to this world. He'll be the terrorist itself.
Apparently, Robert Gates was either unconvinced of the relative value of torture, or he also fell victim to Obama's perfidious Muslim spell. But I must admit that the Bush/Cheney apologists are nothing if not shameless, so I won't look for any retractions if their ticking bomb scenarios go mysteriously unsubstantiated.
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution's Article 2 or the Constitution's 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his 'oath' at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath "before he enter on the execution of his office," then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in 'commencing' an 'Obama Presidency' rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time is confirmed by the re-take of the 'oath' by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first 'oath' was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama's disqualification as not being an Article 2 "natural born citizen" (clearly he is NOT), Biden's automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the 'oath(s)'; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden's legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden's wife recently "let the cat out of the bag" on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
Wow. Amazing how all the same people who claimed that "libs" were "emboldening" the terrorists by not supporting the Bush agenda...suddenly find it perfectly fine not to support the president.
Hypocrisy, thy name be conservatism.
"FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?"
In point of fact, the swearing in is a ceremonial step. Obama became the president at noon on the dot, regardless of Justice Roberts fumbling, bumbling, stumbling attempt to swear him in a few minutes later.
And good luck with that birth certificate thing. Hope it keeps your hopes up for a while.
Bush's War On Terror®© was not a "metaphor"--it was a ploy. A way of claiming wartime powers for the White House as an excuse to spy on Americans, subvert the Constitution and provide a rationale for immoral activity. Obama doesn't plan to do those things, so he doesn't need to claim we're at "war". Bush and Cheney were pulling a ruse. Obama is not that sort of guy.
300 years killing enemies in name of democracy supported by relions' fanatics has built more enemies organizations against in this country every year. Is this the only way that a civilize poeple have to act? Therefore,you could destroy all the terrorists, communist,socialist and undeseable ougly people around the world, but more of them will back to you until you find a way to introduce an intelligence way of convivence in peace.
