In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
Did we win?
Was the "Mission Accomplished"?
Did we "Smoke 'em Out"?
Is Osama still the bad guy or did someone else take over?
Do we reset the casualty count?
Do we get to fuck over another country or two?
Is this one going to be cheaper?
Who's going to be in the coalition of the bribed and threatened?
Do I have to have a coupon to play or will my "loyalty card" do?
Now back to work.