I’ve recently seen news reports that the war on terrorism is ending. The reports state that the current administration has decided that the idea of fighting all terrorism in a worldwide operation is not the best way to secure America.
The war is against al-Qaida. Jihadists aren’t the enemy because jihad is a legitimate term for a religious struggle. John O. Brennan, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, highlighted these views in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Aug. 6.
I saw this reported through several news outlets, but anyone can read the speech by going to a link at www.ledger-enquirer.com.
Some of the comments and justifications reminded me of the debates I’ve had in military and civilian academic environments. Is terrorism a tactic or some entity to be attacked? Brennan apparently considers terrorism a tactic.
President Barack Obama’s administration also does not see the need for a global war but rather a focused effort against al-Qaida alone. The administration thinks the rhetoric of the Bush administration played into the hands of our enemies by making the United States seem too belligerent, too willing to attack enemies on our own. I suppose this is why so many people around the world don’t like us. Frankly, there are a lot of people in the world whose opinions I don’t much care about anymore.
I understand the philosophical debate over the characterization of terrorism and how best to attack our enemies. I also understand the need for Obama to make his mark on all that the government does. After all, he is in charge.
However, I do wonder a bit about the constant need to blame everything they don’t like about the world on President George W. Bush. The unofficial rule I lived with while in the Army was that you could get away with blaming your predecessor for six months. After that, you owned it.
Well, it’s been over six months. I think it’s time to lay out a course, different or not, and stop complaining. I find some of the complaining especially disingenuous when the actual actions taken are not very different. Maybe Bush actually got a few things right.
Bush never succeeded in convincing the American public that the war or wars were on track to improve our security; however, I am a bit concerned over any confusion that may occur with changing major philosophical visions without an immediate replacement in hand.
I’d like to see a clear vision or strategy written where I could read it. I know it takes time to produce a document like that. I’m sure one will be published.
I keep looking and only find old ones on the Web, so if any of you reading my column know of a new written national security strategy, please tell me.
When it is out, I sincerely hope it lays out a vision for the future rather than simply sniping at the past, while maintaining many of the same programs or plans. This business of security is too serious to play semantics when lives are at risk.
I like reading something because then I can actually think about the words and not rely on the delivery alone to inspire me.
John M. House is a retired Army colonel who lives in Midland, Ga. His e-mail is housearmylife@aol.com.
E-Mail
Print
@Nyx.CommentBody@