Call it G.W.O.T. or J.I.H.A.D., Obama is waging Bush's war

Posted By Kori Schake Friday, August 7, 2009 - 9:47 PM Share

Assistant to the President John Brennan gave a speech yesterday, ostensibly a landmark address. He assured listeners that "the fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining -- indeed, distorting-our entire national security and foreign policy, but rather serving as a vital part of those larger policies."

It is tempting to lampoon Brennan's remarks for the risible and solipsistic rhetoric (e.g., "like the world itself, [Obama's] views are nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.") -- or to once again express my concern that the administration might actually believe the refrain that the president "rejects the false choice between ensuring our national security and upholding civil liberties." This seems to be mistaking slogans for solutions, as Edward R. Murrow cautioned against.

But the standard for measuring Brennan's remarks is what they contain that is new policy. With the exception of Guantanamo, which the president has declared he'll close but six months later has not yet provided a program to achieve, the program sounds remarkably like Bush administration practices. Defeat al Qaeda, check. Hold Afghanistan, check. Partnership with Pakistan, check. Sharing intelligence and training militaries in East Africa, check. Going after terrorist financing, check. Disrupting terrorist operations, check. Prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons, check. Ensure our military has the troops and the tools it needs, check. Strengthen the intelligence community, check. Defend the homeland, check.

Even in the areas Brennan was claiming radical departures from Bush policies there is striking continuity. Brennan showcased "ending the war in Iraq" as an administration achievement. He somehow forgot to mention the glide path was set by the Bush administration in signing the Statue of Forces Agreement before President Obama was even elected. All Team Obama did was not carry out the president's campaign promise of a faster drawdown.

And in the doubling down on troops in Afghanistan without a political or economic or justice or drug strategy to bring a "whole of government approach" to the problem actually out-Bushes the Bush administration. Former Vice President Cheney would have much more damagingly rebuked Obama's approach to national security by pointing out it is no different from Bush's.

The only actual variance with Bush administration practice I found is rejecting the name "war on terror." There is considerable merit in this approach. Referring to a "war on terror" gives our enemies a validation we should be smart enough to deny them. It offends many who want to support us. Our preoccupation is not shared by other countries that are not the target of al Qaeda.

But it is unfair to the Bush administration to suggest they were not engaged with the Muslim world on issues of importance to those countries and societies. The Bush administration rightly understood the crisis in the so-called "Muslim world" about tolerance and modernity. Brennan says this challenge is "ultimately not a military operation but a political, economic, and social campaign to meet the basic needs and legitimate grievances of ordinary people." Absolutely right. Which is why the Bush administration put so much effort into issues like democracy promotion, poverty alleviation, free trade, security assistance, and disease eradication.

Brennan was not disavowing that we are fighting a war, nor that the enemy has a virulent religious ideology and uses the killing of civilians as a tactic. In fact, he reaffirmed it, quoting President Obama saying "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." Brennan himself continues, "and to win this war against al Qaeda, the administration continues to be unrelenting, using every tool in our toolbox and every arrow in our quiver."

So the objective is no different, the full range of tools will continue to be used ... only the name will be different. The fun will start when administration begins looking for some shorthand way to describe what is not the "global war on terror." The best entry into the acronym contest so far comes (not surprisingly) from a witty soldier I know in the military's Special Operations Command: the Joint Interagency Homeland Active Defense, or JIHAD.

Let us hope the Obama administration really is changing so little in their approach to fighting the terrorist threats our country faces, and that they don't believe their own rhetoric about there being no trade-offs between our values and our security. A change in the "war on terror" language is beneficial. But they should not misunderstand that good people are daily making decisions in which they have to make trade-offs between our values and the risks to our society. The Obama administration's own language creates serious problems for these people as they protect the rest of us. As no less an expert on terror than Leon Trotsky tells us, "you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

EXPLORE:TERRORISM

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

SARAHI

9:58 AM ET

August 8, 2009

Re:Call it G.W.O.T. or J.I.H.A.D., Obama is waging Bush's war

Recession is dealing no good to us. George Sodini is a name that will live in infamy. It has been confirmed that the gunman in the recent shooting at a fitness center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was one George Sodini, who strolled into LA Fitness on Tuesday, August 4th, headed to a workout room and opened fire. He fired over 52 shots, killing 3, wounding 9, and then committed suicide. He lived in nearby Carnegie, PA, and was described as a loner. When people lack human connection, they lash out at the environment which has rejected them as a means of reconnection. No one saw the heinous act of George Sodini coming, and anyone would have put a cash advance at least to stopping it if they did.

WOLFBOY

4:21 PM ET

August 10, 2009

Engagement

it is unfair to the Bush administration to suggest they were not engaged with the Muslim world on issues of importance to those countries and societies

It may be true that such engagement occurred, but - as study of public opinion demonstrates - this was overwhelmed by other Bush administration actions, namely an invasion and occupation of Iraq launched on false pretenses (yes, WMD was a pretense as Bush later said the invasion was the correct course of action notwithstanding absence of WMD) in which millions were displaced, untold thousands died and tens of thousands were detained under conditions not meeting the standard required of an occupying power.

Can it be that you don't recognize this simple truth, Dr. Schake?

THINK_TANK

9:20 AM ET

August 12, 2009

What does public opion have

What does public opion have to do with the question of did the Bush administration conducted active foregin policy.... Public opinion in this case has much more to due with two factors: Blood sells and editorial bias. The combat attracts viewers a foreign policy meeting does not so which do you thing the media presented to the world? The Media desired to paint the Bush administration as a bunch of war mongerers so why would they highlight the quiet dopliomacy that was going on. In addition many of the supporters of the US counter terror actions do not want to publically support the action of the diplomacy that enables it is not acknowledged or made public. As for the WMD how can they be flase pretenses when the intelligence you have says the WMD exits. The fact that it was later determined that there was no WMD only means the intelligence was incorrect. Ang before you say the administration skwewed the intel then how come no less that 3 other national intel agencies also concluded that Saddam possessed WMD? I wont even address the rest as they are even less based in fact than the points I have addressed.

WOLFBOY

3:03 AM ET

August 19, 2009

Dear Think_Tank

My mention of public opinion was a reference to public opinion in the Muslim world, as indicated at the link. Dr. Schake says it is unfair to suggest that the Bush administration failed to reach out to the Muslim world. My suggestion is that any such reaching out was overwhelmed by the negative impact of the Iraq war.

That the war was launched on false pretenses is clear from the fact that Bush said after the fact that the war was appropriate even though no WMD were present. I take him at his word. I believe he would not have been able to sell the war to congress and the public without the specter of WMD.

The intelligence did not really say that WMD existed. It was known before the war that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for centrifuges. It was known that the Niger documents were forged. The CIA had multiple reports from human intelligence inside Iraq that there were no WMD programs operating. Powell's mobile bioweapons labs were based on a single source known to be unreliable. In retrospect the evidence was really poor. Had the government wanted to make the case that there were likely no WMD, it could have done so easily, but that was not what it wanted, and this determined which intelligence tidbits were highlighted.

Please do share your citations of three other national intelligence services that concluded that Saddam possessed WMD. This is often cited but, I believe, has little basis in fact.

I take it that the parts you won't address are the "millions were displaced, untold thousands died and tens of thousands were detained under conditions not meeting the standard required of an occupying power" bits. I would have thought that part so well established as to not raise any objection.

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.