?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Aerden
aerden
.::.::...... ..


May 2019
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Jump back April 4th, 2007 Go forward

I read this article at the Military Times website regarding a memo by the Staff Director of the Congressional Armed Services Committee instructing that the phrase 'global war on terror' should not be used in the 2008 defense budget bill or its accompanying report. Instead, phrases such as 'the war in Iraq,' 'the war in Afghanistan' and so forth should be used. 'Global war on terror' is described as a colloquialism in the memo.

On one hand, I like the idea of more exact phrasing. If you're talking about activities in Iraq or Afghanistan or Africa specifically, then yes, let's be precise as to what we mean.

But I don't like the way that the reason for the war is being expunged from the bill's language. How is anyone to know why we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere if we don't mention in the bill and its report that terrorists, their organizations, and the states which fund their activities, are the enemy?

I think there needs to be at least some mention that we are fighting a global war on terrorism in the defense budget bill and not just vague 'wars' for no explained reason.

"I can't fight or shoot a gun, but I can spit with deadly accuracy."

--Angela, on Bones

Current Mood: gigglydelighted
Jump back April 4th, 2007 Go forward