Redstate

Democratic Staff Instructed to Adopt "Speak No Evil" Approach

By Mark I Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Military Times reports that Democratic staff on the House Armed Services Committee have been instructed to refrain from using the phrase "Global War on Terror" in the 2008 Defense Budget Bill and its accompanying reports. A memo addressed to the staff says that the phrase is a "colloquialism" that does not accurately describe "ongoing military operations." Also falling out of favor is the term "Long War," which has been recently used by the Pentagon to highlight the fact that military operations in the Global War on Terror will not end when US forces eventually leave Iraq.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration's catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world."

How do you end a war? Why, you just stop talking about it, of course.

Read on...

Democratic committee staff sources say that the policy has no political purpose beyond providing for greater accuracy in the Defense budget. But it does underscore an issue that has been festering among Democrats and the American left almost since the first tanks rolled across the border into Iraq.

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world...

Democrats don't believe that the War in Iraq is a part of the global war on terror. Almost from the beginning they have preached that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, which is in Afghanistan, as if terrorists only operate out of that country. They have derided President Bush's decision to topple Saddam Hussein as unfinished family business and claimed that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before United States military action there. Similarly, they believe that removing the US military from Iraq will return that country to its prior state as a country that harbors no threats against America.

Republicans counter that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror long before September 11th. They argue that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a necessary action that will eventually lead to a more stable Middle East less likely to spawn terrorists intent on attacking the United States or its allies and interests.

"This is a philosophical and political question," said a Republican aide. "Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home."

And that strategy appears to be working. There have been no terrorist attacks against the United States at home or aboard since the US military went on the offensive in October 2001. Before that time, al-Qaeda terrorists mounted an attack against America on average every 18-20 months beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. True, increased homeland security efforts have had a tremendous impact as well. But consider that 18 months after September 11th, the beginning of the time period during which the next attack would have been most likely, was March 2003. By that time, the Taliban had been routed out of Afghanistan and the United States military was about to embark on a little distraction in Iraq. Now I ask you, who has been distracted, the United States or the terrorists?

Not possessed of the political courage to cut off funding for the war in Iraq, the Democrats have settled on a political strategy to frustrate the president's ability to wage it. This "Speak No Evil" approach may be a part of that. If the individual parts of the Global War on Terror can be de-linked from the Global War on Terror, the easier it will be for Democrats to reduce or even end funding for any one of them. Better still, if there is no Global War on Terror, then all of its attendant parts lose their importance and can be more easily cast aside. But covering their eyes, ears, and mouths will not deliver Democrats from the political consequences of their policy decisions, just as it will not deliver America from her enemies. America's enemies will continue to plot and plan against her regardless of how the Congress refers to America's efforts to stop them, and regardless of how accurate the Defense budget is.

One wonders if the Speak No Evil strategy is the leading edge of a new proverbial offensive by Democrats against America's foes. Perhaps Congress will next take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to finding Osama bin Laden; or a "why put off until tomorrow what you can do today" policy with regard to Iran and just ship it nuclear weapons; the Guantanamo Bay detention facility could finally close if Congress applies a new "keep your friends close but your enemies closer" management philosophy. If this is an indication of how the Democrats intend to prosecute The Global War on Terror ongoing military operations, America's enemies will have a handy reply, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me."