Combined Arms Center Blog

Blog Library
Welcome to Combined Arms Center Blog Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Reflections from Dr Jack

GWOT or OCO: What’s in a Name?

The Washington Post published a story by Scott Wilson and Al Kamen entitled “'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name: Bush's Phrase Is Out, Pentagon Says” on March 25, 2009:

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase "global war on terror," a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.

Not so, said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman.

"There was no memo, no guidance," Baer said yesterday. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

Coincidentally or not, senior administration officials had been publicly using the phrase "overseas contingency operations" in a war context for roughly a month before the e-mail was sent.

This is not the first time that there has been a “re-tooling” of the term for the war – or contingency operation – or whatever.  In November 2004, David Kilcullen coined the term “Countering Global Insurgency” in a paper published in the Small Wars Journal, where he stated:

Since the United States declared a global ‘War on Terrorism’ following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some analysts have argued that terrorism is merely a tactic, thus a war on terrorism makes little sense. Francis Fukuyama’s comment, ‘the war on terror is a misnomer…terrorism is only a means to an end; in this regard, a war on terrorism makes no more sense than a war on submarines’ is typical.

Another name that has been used to describe the “war” was the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, or G-SAVE.  The New York Times published a story by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker entitled “U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War” on July 25, 2005:

The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Perhaps the most interesting phrase that has been mentioned was by the Pentagon Press Secretary, Mr. Geoff Morrell, during his DoD News Briefing on March 25, 2009, when asked about dropping the term GWOT:

Mr. Morrell:  …I think they've explained that perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little overexuberant and done so.  But I can just tell you, I'm the one who speaks publicly about these matters.  And I have never been told which words to use or not to use.  So I don't think there's anything to the story…

Q:  What's your preferred nomenclature?   

Mr. Morrell:   I don't really have one.  I mean, I don't think a whole lot about it.  I think that we are involved in global operations to protect the homeland and the American people.  And a large part of that is going after terrorists, seeking them out, wherever they are, wherever they're plotting, wherever they are training to launch attacks against us….

Q:  (Off mike) -- GWOT, global war on terror, lumps together an entire -- you know, the entire Muslim faith and an entire region.  Do you see that as a concern?

Mr. Morrell:  Well, I don't think there's anything in that term that identifies any particular faith or ethnicity.  I mean, there are terrorists of all faiths, of all colors, of all races and ethnicities. And so perhaps a better -- another way to refer to it would be, you know, a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.

There you have it!  The new term - “A campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.”

Only published comments... Mar 26 2009, 06:24 PM by Dr. Jack

Comments

 

LTC Mark Mumm SGA 16B said:

Dr Jack,

From my perspective the name change will have far reaching impacts with the most notable being budgets and funding.  After all, it’s probably easier to reduce spending on a contingency operation than a war.  The renaming could also have an impact on the mobilization and call up of Reserve and National Guard Forces (both individual and unit) since current laws and regulations govern the use of reserve forces in contingency operations.  

Additionally, by using “Overseas” in the naming does this signal a change in how terrorism will be addressed on US soil?  While serving in the senate, President Obama addressed his concerns over civil liberties during the re-authorization of Patriot Act.

www.govtrack.us/.../record.xpd

He additionally co-sponsored a bill to amend the Patriot Act that would have placed reasonable limitations on the use of surveillance and the issuance of search warrants.

www.govtrack.us/.../bill.xpd

By now referring to GWOT as on Overseas Contingency has the door now been opened to look at  changes to the Patriot Act and programs that were implemented in its name?

March 27, 2009 12:47 PM
 

Dr. Jack said:

LTC Mumm,

Thanks - interesting to note that the name change does has some real legal implications in terms of funding and authority.  JK

March 28, 2009 10:47 AM
 

Dr. Jack said:

The Wall Street Journal published an article by Jay Solomon entitled "U.S. Drops 'War on Terror' Phrase, Clinton Says" on March 31, 2009:

online.wsj.com/.../SB123845123690371231.html

Excerpt:

" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration has stopped using "war on terror," breaking with the Bush administration's terminology in describing the conflict with al Qaeda and militant Islam.

"The administration has stopped using the phrase, and I think that speaks for itself," Mrs. Clinton told reporters as she traveled here for a United Nations-led conference on Afghanistan.

The phrase has been criticized as having inflammatory connotations in the Muslim world. Some Democratic officials believe it is better to describe more specifically whom the U.S. is fighting, such as al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks in response to reporters' questions. Asked whether there was a specific policy decision on the terminology, she said: "I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used." "

March 31, 2009 8:18 AM
 

MAJ Nava, Section 16 said:

Gentlemen,

I was interested to learn the legal implications of the change in terminology.  That said, there has always been some difficulties with "War on Terror".  Largely, I think, drawn from the over-use of the term "war".  We, meaning our government, have coined phrases like the "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", etc.  These phrases seem to lessen the importance of waging war.

A change is probably warranted to re-energize the effort, but changing to "contingency" sounds like much of what I remember growing up about how operations in Vietnam were referred to as the "Vietnam Conflict", or the the war with the Native American Indians as "The Indian Problem".

Is the US Army's new mission to fight and win our nation's contingencies, both CONUS and OCONUS?

I completely agree with LTC Mumm's comments about the ease with which funding now becomes problematic.  Both the name, and, dare I say, the transparency with which the cost are now presented on the budget.  Interestingly, this should test our nation's desire to invest treasure in these efforts abroad given the current economic conditions.

I think we've missed an opportunity here to actually identify the right enemy.  Terror is too ambiguous.  We should rename operations both in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever, as the "War on Al Qaeda".  This should still assuade the European concerns articulated by Secretary Clinton yesterday, while maintaining the focus on the real, tangible enemy.

March 31, 2009 11:58 AM
 

Anonymous said:

I think this illustrates how "framing" works -- it is a political act.  There is a great discussion on this aspect to political decision making in Stone's book, "Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making" (in my view this should be part of the readings for C100 block).  

Here's a quote (p. 307):

"The rational ideal presupposes the existence of neutral facts--neutral in the sense that they only describe the world, but do not serve anybody's interest, promote any value judgments, or exert persuasive force beyond the weight of their correctness.  Yet facts do not exist independently of interpretive lenses, and they come clothed in words and numbers.  Even the simle act of naming an object places it in a class and suggests that it is like some things and unlike others.  Naming, like counting and rule-making, is classification, and thus a political act."

For many years, weve accepted classifications (even in our own doctrinal manuals) later we come to find out that these were framings, not the "truth" as we thought.  What's the difference between the Obama Administration changing the name of GWOT to OCO while the Army changed the name from "Air-Land Battle" to "Full Spectrum Operations" (with lots of changes in-between)?

I see no difference, quite frankly.  There are political interpretations and dominant narratives within the Army too...and the output is a naming convention of sorts.  it is certainly not an "objective science" -- this process or naming -- it involves a plurality of ideas abouta complex world "out there."  Doctrine just publishes some of them "officially."  It is a never ending process -- we reframe all of the time -- for a variety of reasons, some hidden, some not.

March 31, 2009 12:19 PM
 

Dr. Jack said:

MAJ Nava,

Thanks for your comments - I agree that the "war on terrorism" has really not identified the enemy, but instead a tactic... getting the right term when the enemy is not clearly identified is difficult, and I'm not sure that the term "War on Al Qaeda" really describes the true enemy.

Again, thanks.  JK

March 31, 2009 4:44 PM
 

Dr. Jack said:

Chris,

While I agree that much of what is done in politics and in doctrine is an issue of reframing, your comment that you see "no difference" between changing GWOT to OCO and the change from "Air-Land Battle" to "Full Spectrum Operations" is a matter of concern. 

Are you serious or just fishing for a reaction for reaction's sake?  There are major differences between the two concepts of "Air-Land Battle" and "Full Spectrum Operations."  The differences are not just issues of "naratives" or "reframing" or "metaphors."  

March 31, 2009 5:03 PM
 

Anonymous said:

My point was referrring to Stone's decription of how situations are framed into problem statements.  We create doctrine as our set of "facts" that provide the illusion of objectivity.  Doctrinal concepts are really a positivist theory of action that, unlike natural sciences, we cannot prove or disprove in the laboratory (although we try and mimic "scientism" in our "battle labs" and "concept development" & "experimentation" programs).  We are trying to make doctrine (largely embedded as a social science) into an approximation of a hard science type theory.  This is the great fallacy of our underlying philosophy of positivism.

Postpositivism, on the other hand, is admitting (in a philosophical sense) that we cannot be positive about our knowledge as we move from context to context, particularly knowledge about people and societies.  In that regard, the doctrinal idea of "best practices" is replaced by "reflective practice" in that you may have to design new ways to deal with novel situations and not call upon the body of knowledge that you otherwise thought would work.

This is my argument that "design science" -- a postpositivist approach to knowledge -- is fundamentally different.  The philosophical underpinning is so different from that of the natural science (engineered) approach to knowledge, that we can no longer conceive of doctrinal knowledge as we have in the past.  This is why I argue that placing "design" in doctrine in absurd and oxymoronic.  Design is paradigmatically alien to our traditional view of knowledge we use for creating doctrine.  The philosophy of design permits challenges to everything stated in doctrine; hence, should not be subordinate to any capstone framing device (like 3-0).

April 1, 2009 6:10 AM
 

Dr. Jack said:

OK - I suppose you were referring to the positivist / post-positivist mantra when you wrote:

" What's the difference between the Obama Administration changing the name of GWOT to OCO while the Army changed the name from "Air-Land Battle" to "Full Spectrum Operations" (with lots of changes in-between)?... I see no difference, quite frankly. "

Whatever... perhaps it's my positivist outlook, but when I reflect on concepts such as "full spectrum operations" I do try to compare and contrast with previous concepts... and in this case (ALB / FSO), there is a dramatic difference.  When I reflect on the differences between the terms GWOT and OCO, they appear to describe the same "war" or "operation" with different labels based on the audience or the narrative the administration wants to project...  

April 1, 2009 7:43 AM
 

Anonymous said:

I think doctrine is much like the narrative of politics.

It is the dominant narrative of the institutional leadership.

In that regard, we should try and examine doctrine as a cultural artifact and see what we learn.  This would require a form of epoché (temporaily suspending belief in the idea of doctrine as a body of knowledge).

We might find that doctrine is infused with value-biases and in-the-box conceptualizations that get in the way of "reframing" (demanded by a design philosophy).

I have heard the argument -- "but doctrine is foundational to create our common language! It is how we communicate to get things done!"  

Taking the epoché approach -- it also serves to provide "preset framings" of situations that lead us to define the situations in terms of the doctrinal solutions we have readily at hand.  In effect, we solve the wrong problem with our linguistic precisions.  

I tend to favor this explanation.

April 1, 2009 8:17 AM
 

Dr. Jack said:

Chris,

Of course doctrine is "infused with value-biases and in-the-box conceptualizations" - who said it wasn't?  Doesn't that make sense in a values-based organization?

The argument "but doctrine is foundational to create our common language! It is how we communicate to get things done!" seems to be a valid argument... should we not have a common language?  Should we just all start out with no common language and hope that free assocation will help us frame and reframe until eternity?

We need a starting point; we need not be bound by it - but a common language and a common understanding helps us define the box as we know it... to reject doctrine outright is just as dangerous as the dogmatic over-reliance on doctrine.

April 1, 2009 7:26 PM
 

Anonymous said:

In organizations, Chris Argyris argues that there are "espoused values" and "values-in-use."  I am referring to the latter.

Proprietary language (as cultural artifacts) can be "blinding."  For example, Thomas Kuhn points to the search for "phlogiston" to understand why metals burn.  Later, "oxygen" was discovers and "phlogiston theory" was debunked.  The idea of "phlogiston" stood in the way of discovery.  Not that doctrinal terms and concepts are hard science-like, but the lesson is a valuable one.

Recall the commander in Iraq who did not "see" an insurgency.  

Recall that we did not fathom the weight of non-military aspects of conflict in our doctrine, and experience led us to emphasize much more the "interagency."

The inverse may be true as well.  Recall that we had a coherent "guerilla" doctrine published in 1967 that was pushed out of publication following the Vietnam debacle.

Your comment on "free association" -- in practice, this is one of the qualities of the imaginative rationality we need to stress for "design science."  This is why I argue against making "design" into a "subordinate" doctrine, in the systems-engineered hierarchy of doctrine (capstone-on-down).

I disagree with DOD effort to try and standardize a terminology in the Interagency.  Standardizing terminology to me is like institutionalizing "groupthink."  We need a diversity of language (to include coalition partners) to "design" better.

"Starting point" implies linear thinking to me.  Instead of categorizations of "start points" perhaps we need to think in continua (a postpositivist approach).  For example, when I facilitate C120 lessons, I take the Paul and Elder "Universal Intelelctual Standards" and create continua (e.g.,

Clarity (settled meaning <----------opaque meaning------------>Ambiguity (multiple

                                                                                                     meanings)

Precision (certainty)<----------------“Ballpark” (“grid square”)--------------Complex (uncertain)------------------------------------------------------->Imprecision (random)

...and so on.  Then I ask the students to draw a line that shows what how we could characterize our knowledge about "truth" in Afghanistan or Iraq.  They usually draw the line along the right side of the chart.  This demonstrates that is we strive for Universal Intellectual Standards in knowledge about social systems, we only kid ourselves.  The same logic applies to doctrine.

Jim Crupi and I wrote a piece published in USNI Proceedings (www.crupi.com/.../principles.pdf) in which we attempted to describe the principles of war as continua rather than categories.  We argue that reality is better painted using continua than categories.  If you subscribe to our argument, and then look at our doctrine -- we tend to be categorial to the extreme.  

There is no "starting point" using continua.

April 2, 2009 6:38 AM
 

Dr. Jack said:

Chris,

We need "a diversity of language (to include coalition partners) to 'design' better" but we also need some level of commonality... at some point there has to be at leas a minimal level of understanding of what terms of reference mean.  I suppose that if we agree that the sky is blue, we are guilty of groupthink.  It would be very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if all picked their own color to describe the sky, while others posited that there was no such thing as color... and others questioned whether it was really possible to discern what "sky" really is... Great philosophical discussion that serves no purpose.  

There is no start point using continua, but having a start point or a linear relationship is not evil... this thread "started" with an initial blog.  It's gone all over the place (started with GWOT and OCO) and you've taken it to your favorite topic of metaphors and design... but there was a start point and the thread has evolved.  The outright rejection of concepts such as "doctrine," "positivism," and "linearity" seems to be trading one form of dogmatism for another based on what's in vogue today, rather than adapting, evolving, and modifying new concepts - reframing them - to see what has utility...

April 2, 2009 7:59 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Jack--your statements like "Great philosophical discussion that serves no purpose" is contrary to what I would argue CGSC education is really about (philosophy is about remaining open)...sorry that I strongly disagree.  What you suggest is a dogmatic position in my view.  I frame it this way -- my position was that of an "underdog" (and quite Socratic) and yours seems to be the prevailing narrative fostered for years of institutional development -- a culture of belief in doctrine.

Your comment, "based on what's in vogue today" is not a fair characterization of 40+  years of research and writing on the philosophy of design...I guess we agree to disagree here as well.

Your overall argument appears to be closing with me (alluding that I am off-task)  based in an ideological position, whereas I think "philosophy" is ultimately where we should take students at CGSC (i.e what I would portray as graduate-level discursive methods).  

I liked Jim Greer's closure with me better on another posting:  "Chris, drive on - change only comes about when the status quo is challenged. JKG"

My interpretation is that I think Jim is engaging philosphically and honors the opposing (Socratic) position as worthy, even if he disagrees.

I shall not return!

April 2, 2009 8:36 AM
 

Dr. Jack said:

Hold on - the "Great philosophical discussion that serves no purpose" comment relates to the example of the blue sky; not the blog discussion.  This discussions about the role of doctrine, design, metaphors, and the like have great value - as we discuss the future of the profession and how to approach decision making and problem solving.  No intent to close any debate; again, not my place nor my desire.  I agree with Jim Greer that "change only comes about when the status quo is challenged" - it's a sign of healthiness in the profession.  JK

April 2, 2009 4:36 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
Submit

About Dr. Jack

Dr. Jack Kem is the Commandant's Distinguished Chair of Military Innovation and a Supervisory Professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, KS.