Monday, March 23, 2009
A New Term
Naming something defines it. So perhaps what is needed now is a purely descriptive moniker?
Al Shimkus, the director for the Policy Making and Process subcourse at the War College, has coined a new term I think deserves consideration. The "Asymmetric Conflict over the Next Decade." I would use the acronym ACOTND myself, pronounced a-kot-nid.
"Asymmetric conflicts" sound about right to me.
New name for GWOT? How about “Universal Police Actions for Peace?” , or UPAPS, pronouced Up-Aps. You have the positive “Up” combined with an allusion to the computer jargon “killer Aps”.
"Warm War" implies a religious war against Islam - I assume you had meant it in jest.
Else what you are positing is for (Western) atheists and (Western) Christians to determine who among Muslims is a "Radical" who "not-radical". This is not just hubris - it is borderline madness.
What is the scope of the conflict?
Who is the adversary?
Is "Overseas Contingency Operations" an example of political correctness? Or is it wise diplomacy?
How should we interpret this name change? Isn't it wise policy to identify threats clearly?
President's recent speech on Afghanistan has clearly declared Al Qaeda as the only enemy of the United States in the continuing war.
Everyone else - Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah, Taliban, Jihadists, etc. are no longer considered enemies by omission.
"Asymmetric War" or conflict is a tactic - it is not an enemy.
Churchill: "We shall be fighting the Blitz Krieg on the beaches, we shall be fighting the Blitz Krieg ...."