Conservatives ask, "Now WOT?"
Conservative bloggers are up in arms about a supposed Obama administration re-branding of the “global war on terror” to “Overseas Contingency Operation”.
The whole kerfuffle is over an alleged OMB e-mail memo that states:
“this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT]. Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”
According to the OMB, the email does not represent official policy.
The term “Overseas Contingency Operation” has been around since 1997. A google search of military and government websites for “Overseas Contingency Operation” yields 100 hits, none that include any official memos or statements.
The term has been used by a Marine General in a letter and in an Air Force memorandum about force deployment in 1998 and 2000 respectively.
Of course, I couldn’t find any official statements by anyone in the Obama administration using the term “Overseas Contingency Operation” as a substitute for GWOT.
Why are conservatives up in arms about this? Its silly. The term is used in budgetary legislation that former Pres. Bush wanted…very very badly.
The Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (OCOTF) is a “no year” transfer account, that allows the DOD flexibility to meet operational requirements by transferring funds to resources based on actual execution experience as events unfold, without disrupting approved programs or force readiness.
Sounds exactly like the kind of stuff that our military needs, right?
Of course, this has nothing to do with logic. This is about politics and conservative angst that their framing of our foreign policy debate is being ignored.
Lets forget about names. Lets go out there, stop terrorisism and bring stability to the world.
