The GWOT will be broadcast at 820P.
The War on Terror
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Swots for gwot
You can't have been too confused, or I reckon you could have directed that question at me instead.
I'm not upset, I just think it's a silly word. Not everything needs an abbreviation, but I guess this is the country that gave us USMNT.
I always found AdComSubordComPhibsPac easier to remember.
When people are really really into talking about the military and wars - and there’s a few threads on here which reveal a bunch of caftards who are really really into talking about the military and wars (something I, personally, find bizarre beyond belief but then I like talking about fishing and bouldering - which nobody else gives a shit about) it stands to reason they’ll use all the official acronyms. And the military do love their acronyms. I don’t see any point in getting annoyed about it. Although I can definitely see the point of avoiding threads where those acronyms get used.
Can we just gwot along and gwot over it, por favor?
Wait till you hear about WWI and WWII
Those wouldn't stand a chance of usage in the UK or USA.
Weird how I've heard of those but not GWOT
It's a branding issue. Should have gone with WWOT as everyone likes an action packed franchise.
Oh god I sure hope so.
It's an acronym that is pretty much only used by people in the military or inside certain US government departments (and some allies in the military of other countries). That's why its completely normal for you to use since your career is the military but people outside that circle will never use it. The problem with the branding phrase the acronym is based on. as @Bert_ succinctly described. is that it's nonsensical in the first place. Whether its "official" or not doesn't change the fact that "war on terror" is just euphemistic branding. You can't declare "war" on a tactic as Bert stated.
It's highly misleading because the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with a "war on terror". Saddam was not associated with Al Qaeda, there were no "weapons of mass destruction" and the whole pretense for the invasion was a complete farce. Invading Iraq had everything to do with a handful of special interests + a massive personal vendetta from Dubya and a few of the old Bush I inner circle like Cheney and Rumsfeld. The entire "WMD" all derived from a single junior CIA analyst, who was not an expert on nukes, who made an ignorant assessment of aluminum tubes, an assessment that was elevated by senior Bush admin officials because it suited their pretense despite the fact that the experts on nuclear weapons at Oak Ridge National Labs completely disagreed with junior analyst. The illogical and false pretense pivot to Iraq was known at the time both within and outside the military and in the coming years when everything came out, most people stopped thinking of the entire thing as a "war on terror" and instead describe each campaign for what it was, such as the Iraq Invasion.
You really shouldn't be confused. Using an outdated "official" acronym really shows the difference between people who are currently immersed in US military culture (which you clearly are despite not being a US citizen) and people not immersed in US military culture. I know the military loves their insider jargon acronyms but I also know a lot of veterans none of whom ever used "GWOT" in actual face to face conversations despite it being on some of their official documents.
The distinction was not that is was a war on a tactic but a war on a group without a nation state backing it, operating within many nation states.
I find this focusing on one expression used by one poster incredibly tiring in this thread. How about everyone just use the terms they prefer instead of trying to police the vocabulary of other posters?
Last edited:
You like to police a lot how people posts, and yes, I see the irony on my comment
Which stopping actually making sense the second Bush admin pivoted to invade Iraq which was not a state sponsor of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda was not operating inside Iraq. Had the US decided to go after monied Saudi interests in 2003 instead of invading Iraq, that moniker might still have made sense but it didn't.
And I'm certainly not policing the vocabulary, anyone can use whatever terms they want, but then don't be surprised when someone might explain why terms are not used outside a narrow circle attached to US military careers because they are misleading branding terms.
Nailed it
Do as i say not as i do.
Iraq was a mistake, what other name for that war would have changed that fact!? It doesn't, however, change the origins of the phrase discussed.
Except it wasn't a mistake. It was very intentional and self-serving. Mistake implies it was an accident, which it wasn't. Everyone knew in 2003 that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and nothing to do with a war against a terrorist group that operated in multiple nation states. Reporting at the time showed that there was literally never any credible evidence that Iraq had "WMDs", it was politically motivated elevating of a junior CIA analyst's ignorant assessment while ignoring the foremost experts at Oak Ridge. The "War on Terror" was, frankly, always a phrase with obvious propaganda intentions.
Sorry, you cannot use the word 'lol' in your message. If it is text speak, please write the word or phrase fully.
And I was in the streets protesting against it as a 15 and 16 year old.
What word would you prefer me to use over "mistake", officer?
Well I did give everyone an out a page ago where I changed the subject back on topic but it slipped back anyway. I guess arguing over the use of an acronym is more important than the actual subject
I mean, it is quite the perfect encapsulation of where we are as a planet right now.
Literally the only reason this became a thing that went beyond a single-post case of a person (me) posting something silly in a CE thread is because some people (you and Carolina Red) got hung up on it. Now it's been brought up again and again, which must be what makes it so tiring for you. It would probably also be less tiring if you took your own advice and stopped trying to police the thread.
A modmin can easily delete all these posts, or move them to another thread, but they should probably not be participating then. Luckily I'm just a scout, which means I have no power and no responsibility.
Moving this into a more general thread.
As I already said it was a very intentional pivot for a few reasons: for some it was about a vendetta dating back 10 years to the first Iraq war, for some special interests it was a great opportunity to profit and to be fair, there were probably a few actual neo-conservative true believers that actually thought this might benefit liberal democracy in the Middle East.
What it clearly was not, was an honest mistake where the decision makers truly believed Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" or was a sponsor of Al Qaeda in any way. It was known inside and outside the government/military at the time. This was also stuff that was reported by the NY Times and The Atlantic so its not like this wasn't known for anyone that wanted to look into it.
As I already said it was a very intentional pivot for a few reasons: for some it was about a vendetta dating back 10 years to the first Iraq war, for some special interests it was a great opportunity to profit and to be fair, there were probably a few actual neo-conservative true believers that actually thought this might benefit liberal democracy in the Middle East.
What it clearly was not, was an honest mistake where the decision makers truly believed Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" or was a sponsor of Al Qaeda in any way. It was known inside and outside the government/military at the time. This was also stuff that was reported by the NY Times and The Atlantic so its not like this wasn't known for anyone that wanted to look into it.
Something for us all to be thankful for and something I suggest we all spend time reflecting on such good fortune.
I'm so good they've made me scout twice.
Last of The Boys Scout's Scout?
"Yer an abbreviation, Harry!"
"I'm a GWOT?!"
"I'm a GWOT?!"
Notice how the thread title is "the War on Terror", not "the Global War on Terror". Hell, we've got 2010-era Raoul saying it doesn't even exist. I think this is pretty definitive proof that GWOT isn't a real word, and it can't hurt you. Unlike the war on terror, which killed millions.
It's a bit like using the term SMO (СВО) for the Russian invasion of Ukraine though, isn't it? You can do it and it's an official term. Should we? Probably not. And I absolutely get how it can trigger some people (the use of SMO triggers me, for example, as it usually implies a certain position), it's a similarly problematic euphemism — also, like with any analogies, it's not a perfect one.
Everyone hold the feck up. There's an official Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and its actual, honest-to-god abbreviation is GWOTEM
https://www.marines.mil/News/Messag...-war-on-terrorism-expeditionary-medal-gwotem/
https://www.marines.mil/News/Messag...-war-on-terrorism-expeditionary-medal-gwotem/
Any update on the War on Drugs?
Fixed.
Imagine being this upset over an acronym