Long War (21st century)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other conflicts called the Long War, see Long War.

The Long War is a name for the United States' War on Terrorism. While President George W. Bush has referred to "a long war", others in the administration have referred to it as "the Long War", thus putting the conflict, at least terminologically, on the same level as the 50-year Cold War. It has also been criticized as a "perpetual war," without any clear ending.

1 Origin of the term
2 The notion of a "long war" on terrorism
3 The U.S. Military in the Long War
4 Criticism
5 References

[edit] Origin of the term

In 2004, U.S. Army General John Abizaid, the Central Command chief who oversees military operations in the Middle East, began using it to refer to the struggle against al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups.

In April 2005, James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, co-published a book titled Winning the Long War: Lessons from the Cold War for Defeating Terrorism and Preserving Freedom.

In September 2005, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard Myers, used it during his final news conference to say that political and economic measures, not just military ones, would be needed.

It appears to have become a Bush Administration policy to refer to the "Long War." U.S. President George W. Bush himself first used the new name in his 2006 State of the Union speech: "Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy."

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (QDRR) of the U.S. Department of Defense headlines the section on the war's longterm goals with "Fighting The Long War". The report's preface starts with the phrase: "The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."

[edit] The notion of a "long war" on terrorism

Upon the release of the 2006 QDRR, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reframed the war on terrorism as "a generational conflict akin to the Cold War" that might last decades. The report seeks to address the major security challenges of the next 20 years, emphasizing profound changes to the U.S. military to make it more flexible and more suited to engage in unconventional and asymmetric warfare.

A Guardian article states that 'the report exposes the sheer ambition of the US attempt to mastermind global security'. "The US will work to ensure that all major and emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the international system. It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power can dictate the terms of regional or global security."'[1]

[edit] The U.S. Military in the Long War

The 2006 QDRR identifies four key areas:

Defeating terrorist networks
Defending the homeland in depth
Shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads
Preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using weapons of mass destruction

The project will be funded by an overall 2007 US defence spending request of more than $513 billion. The changes to be funded by such a budget include: an increase in special operations forces by 15%; an extra 3,700 personnel in psychological operations and civil affairs units - an increase of 33%; nearly double the number of unmanned aerial drones; the conversion of submarine-launched Trident nuclear missiles for use in conventional strikes; new close-to-shore, high-speed naval capabilities; special teams trained to detect and render safe nuclear weapons quickly anywhere in the world; and a new long-range bomber force.[2]

[edit] Criticism

Some media reports have referred to the projected non-limited timeframe as "ridiculous and baseless", and questions have also been raised as to "the characterization of the war on terrorism as either 'winnable' or a war worthy of supplanting either the Cold War or World War II."[3]

Critics have also disputed as false and counterproductive the claim that the enemies faced in the Long War might destroy the United States. "Every day we articulate a long war, every time we pretend we are fighting for our survival we not only confer greater power and importance to terrorists than they deserve but we also at the same time act as their main recruiting agent by suggesting that they have the slightest potential for success."[4]