Not Warring, Struggling

If the Global War On Terror (GWOT) has now become the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE), does that not mean that we are no longer at war?

Does that not mean that President Bush is no longer a "War President"?

Does that not significantly alter the "enemy combatant" status of the detainees in Gitmo, who Bush refused to treat as "Prisoners Of War" in the first place?

Or to take a more intellectual view:

The core of the Bush Doctrine was that the threat of terrorism is still one tied to states rather than non-state-actors. As Doug Feith said some three years ago, the reliance of terrorists on state sponsors has been the "principal strategic thought underlying our strategy in the war on terrorism."

If we take their words at face value, they've now abandoned that cornerstone of their strategy. Shouldn't that prompt some questions?

Does this mean Bush is now "struggling"? 21 US Marines ahve been killed in the past three days, and even the British Foreign Minister now admits:

Things are not good there at the moment... although we are part of the security solution there, we are also part of the problem.

Here are the deaths in Iraq (courtesy of www.iraqbodycount.net) since the US-led invasion in March 2003:

Coalition:

US 1820

Britain 92

Other nations 94

Iraqis:

Between 4895 and 6370 military

Between 23,209 and 26,264 civilian

That's a lot of dead people. How many died on 9/11? And what the hell has Iraq got to do with that anyway?

UPDATE: Well, it seems we are still at war, despite the fact that it's not even called a war anymore. Asked about the deaths of 14 Marines in Iraq Wednesday, Bush said it was a grim reminder that America is still at war:

"Make no mistake about it," Bush said. "We are at war."

Now I'm just confused - maybe he was talking about the War In Iraq, which is presumably now a seperate thing from the War on Terror. Sorry, I meant the GSAVE thing (that doesn't stand for SAVE George's ass, does it?).

Bush himself, of course, is most certainly not at war - he's on holidays, yet again. Some really shocking figures from Kos, reinforcing the fact that Cheney and his neo-con pals are really in control of the USA:

# 49 - the number of vacations that Bush has taken since he was inaugurated in 2001.

# 5 - the number of weeks that Bush will spend on vacation, starting yesterday. It is the longest presidential vacation in at least 36 years.

# 319 - August 3, 2005 was the 319th day Bush has spent on vacation since his 2001 inauguration.

# 20% - the fraction of Bush's presidency that he has spent on vacation.

Kinda funny time for him to declare a national emergency, isn't it?

UPDATE 2: Oh, wait a minute, seems George wants us all to know that the "War On Terrrrrrism" is here to stay.

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001."

So can we call it the War On Al Quaeda? But then why are we in Iraq, George?

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he "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."

So if people in uniform are not the solution, what is? Richard Haass, a leading light in the US foreign policy establishment and former senior official in the Clinton and Bush administrations, has a good idea:

To improve its influence and image in the world, the US should refrain from building new nuclear weapons, scrap the Bush doctrine of preventive war and regime change, break its climate-changing oil habit, and recommit to international rule-making organisations such as the UN.

Even Henry Kissinger is said to like the idea. What do you think George? George... ? GEORGE?!?!?

Oh, I forgot. He's on vacation.

UPDATE 3: Atrios suggests a new acronym, SAIEWDNBIFSWHTUTAAWTTTSTCOTFW, based on this Bush speech from 2004:

They can't stand the thought of a free society in the midst of a part of the world that's just desperate for freedom. These people don't like freedom. You know why? Because it clashes with their ideology. We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. (Laughter.)

No, that's what they do. They use terror to -- and they use it effectively, because we've got good hearts. We're people of conscience, they aren't. They will cut off a person's head like that, and not even care about it. That's why I tell you, you can't talk sense to them...

Randolph Holhut says whatever you call it is just a case of putting lipstick on a pig.