Comments on: United States surrenders, terror, drugs win.

United States surrenders, terror, drugs win.

TheOnlyCoolTim — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:10:21 -0800

Without much fanfare, the Global War on Terror has ended. The new name for these military interventions is the Overseas Contingency Operation. Press Q&A. Some Republican representatives discuss. (SPOILER: They are not pleased.) Military blogs discuss. Similarly, the War on Drugs also looks to be on the way out, though no new name for the project has been announced at this time.

By: Lacking Subtlety

Lacking Subtlety — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:20:37 -0800

While seemingly a pointless gesture, they're also not. If we're going to reclassify the way we phrase things, we're really trying to make an effort on how we think critically about them. And that, for all intents and purposes, is critical. Good stuff here. Reading diligently.

By: jim in austin

jim in austin — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:24:40 -0800

It's a War On Declaring War On Stuff ...

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:24:54 -0800

I guess this means we won?

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:25:11 -0800

I guess I should read the title?

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:32:31 -0800

So should we celebrate with a whole load of drugs and terror?

By: a robot made out of meat

a robot made out of meat — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:33:12 -0800

This is clearly designed to get the crazy kettle whistling again and make him look good and reasonable by comparison. I hope they have this kind of republican-confusing stuff rolling out every month or so.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:35:02 -0800

I guess this means we won? Hey, when even The Terminator thinks its finally time to wave the white flag and all sit down at the table to negotiate a peace with The Drugs, then I think its time to call it a day. And about damn time, too, in regard to both the WOT and the WOD.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:38:03 -0800

Isn't this kind of old news though? The change in nomenclature for the "War on Chtulhu" goes back at least a couple of months (and the WaPo piece is from late March). Still, this is a nice round up of reactions and context.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:39:01 -0800

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

By: adipocere

adipocere — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:39:49 -0800

To make our surrender complete, what we need is a drug that causes terror. To take a page from the venerable Mr. Lewis, it should not be exorbitantly priced nor be packaged in a tablet or capsule form. I pondered this, then realized that this hypothetical drug is already here. It's the ten o'clock news. The opiate of the masses, now turned to the paranoid, bugging out "it seemed like a good idea at the time" dope menace of the masses. Technology, you have beaten me to the punch once more.

By: the aloha

the aloha — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:44:49 -0800

ah, the folly of trying to fight two wars at once.

By: notyou

notyou — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:50:13 -0800

Lame. We should call them Expeditions* and the units assembled to carry them out can be Expeditionary Forces. American Expeditionary Force. Has a nice ring to it. --------------------- *Or, if you like, Expediences. American Expedient Force.

By: uncleozzy

uncleozzy — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:53:30 -0800

Maintain vigilance, citizens; the War on Drugs has not yet been won. Should you find yourself face-to-face with the demon weed, you should waste no time; you must burn it with fire.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:55:42 -0800

Det. Ellis Carver: You can't even call this shit a war. Det. Thomas Hauk: Why not? Det. Ellis Carver: Wars end.

By: Paid In Full

Paid In Full — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:04:22 -0800

You're next Eurasia, then Eastasia.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:04:37 -0800

They should rename the War on Drugs "Contraband Operations Control", that way when they acronymed it and combined it with the new War on Terror would turn into COC-OCO operations, and that isn't scary at all. And I'd pay some money to see O'Reilly or Limbaugh work themselves into an indignant froth over how the Co-co-co situation is being handled.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:05:32 -0800

The Obama administration is continuing the DEA raids on medical marijuana. They're just renaming the "war On Drugs" something else. They're not changing a thing. In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder has publicly said "And with marijuana sales central to the drug trade, Mr. Holder said he was exploring ways to lower the minimum amount required for the federal prosecution of possession cases." It's the same old horseshit. Not a thing has changed. More arrests for weed, higher penalties, longer prison sentences, more SWAT teams handcuffing little old ladies in wheelchairs who suffer form terminal cancer because they visited a state marijuana dispensary. - Balloon Juice commenter

By: CautionToTheWind

CautionToTheWind — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:06:02 -0800

"Should you find yourself face-to-face with the demon weed, you should waste no time; you must burn it with fire." Well, to quote Obama himself, "that was the point!"

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:06:20 -0800

We kicked the crap out of Oceania, though!

By: zarq

zarq — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:07:20 -0800

(SPOILER: They are not pleased.) That made me laugh out loud. They haven't been pleased about anything since 1985. Why start now?

By: quin

quin — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:08:36 -0800

Coc-ocos ~~operations~~ I hate redundant acronyms.

By: lullaby

lullaby — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:08:52 -0800

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still handing out Global War on Terror med als to the armed forces. I guess "Overseas Contingency Operation service medal" doesn't have the same ring to it.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:24:49 -0800

The Obama administration is continuing the DEA raids on medical marijuana. Joe Beese: You're beating a dead horse and you know it. When this topic last came up on the blue, it was discussed at length that there were special considerations in that final last-minute raid--specifically, that the dispensary being raided had been deemed an illegal dispensary by California authorities because it failed to comply with the state's tax collection and other licensing requirements. And yes, states can still request federal support for such a raid under current law, since California hasn't actually legalized selling marijuana for recreational use, nor has the new DOJ position ever been that it won't enforce existing Federal prohibitions in states that don't modify the Federal rules in some way, such as California has done with the medical marijuana policies. At the time, I asked you to let me know when an actual example of the administration breaking its pledge came up. I can't help but notice you haven't got anything new to share with the class, so I'm just going to chalk this up to politically-blinkered axe grinding. Even the final link in the FPP acknowledges that the DEA raids actually have stopped now, despite your stubborn refusal to face the reality that this policy is not just another political trick. The Administration has been getting less warlike on drugs: they're backing the Congressional drive to remove the federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine dealers, a major drug-war relic, and have ended the noxious practice of raiding medical marijuana suppliers in states where it's legal.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:33:23 -0800

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still handing out Global War on Terror medals to the armed forces. I guess "Overseas Contingency Operation service medal" doesn't have the same ring to it. Are you sure about that? You might want to read a little more closely. And you might also reconsider the wisdom of linking to a website that sells both past and present US military service medals to collectors as a method of verifying what medals the US military is currently issuing. But then, that might take--what, like a whole ten seconds of critical thought? a. Authorized to be awarded to soldiers who have participated in or served in support of Global War on Terrorism Operations outside the designated areas of eligibility (AOE) for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, on or after 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined. Initial award of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM) will be limited to airport security operations (from 27 September 2001 through 31 May 2002) and soldiers who supported Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:36:35 -0800

All right, I'm an ass. Sorry for jumping down your throat, lullaby. The GWOTS medal apparently is still current. But geez, a better cite would have been nice.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:37:17 -0800

While it may be possible to create a redundant acronym ("DoRD for Dep't of Redundancy Dep't, perhaps), the likes of "ATM machine" and "PIN number" and so on are not examples. While they certainly started off as merely nouns, most nouns in English can be adjectivized, particularly in the context of complex noun phrases. This leads to such things as "computer engineers" which are not in fact computers, and "ATM cards" which are not in fact automated teller machines. (Tangent: I give it 10-20 years before there are ATMs aren't really "machines" in the original sense either. With the right scanning technology, you could create a "deposit station" tomorrow with no moving parts.) The evolution of terms like "PIN card" and "ATM drive-through" and so on lead to the further adjectivization of PIN and ATM in the anglophone lexicon. Most people now view them as both the original nouns and as adjectives describing anything to do with that technology or process. Because ATM and PIN are now lexical entries independent of their original acronymic breakdown, terms like "ATM machine" (a machine of or relating to the ATM technology) or "PIN number" (a number of or relating to the PIN safeguard convention) aren't really redundant. At most they are superfluous. My point is only that it's kind of a waste of time to worry yourself over such things, and your position isn't really supported by English linguistics anyway.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:39:06 -0800

And an update from your second link, Joe Beese: UPDATE:: Scott Morgan at stopthedrugwar.org provides some clarification on Holder's remarks by pointing to a Baltimore Sun article. In short, Holder was basically referring to the prosecution of traffickers, who currently slip under the amount threshold warranting federal prosecution

By: kldickson

kldickson — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:45:37 -0800

I think I can most succinctly summarize my opinion by saying 'politicians suck ass'.

By: gottabefunky

gottabefunky — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:51:49 -0800

BABT: The Battle Against Bad Things

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:01:33 -0800

Some of the reactions these changes are getting here are really puzzling to me. Weren't many of you (like me) bitching all along about the fundamentally dishonest and nonsensical nomenclature used to describe these policies ("War on Drugs," "War on Terror," etc.) while Bush was in office? Haven't I been seeing annoyed references to the GWOT™ and endless sniping about the sheer stupidity of declaring war on abstractions and battlefield tactics? This was specifically one of the many policy changes I and lots of others who supported Obama during the election wanted to see: This is a step away from the Orwellian doublespeak and shameless branding and marketing of what should be treated as complex policy challenges, not the latest variation on the theme "We have always been at war with Eurasia." I just don't understand how anyone can interpret this change in policy as anything other than a good thing. Hopefully, another step for further down the line will be doing away with "Department of Homeland Security" and banishing the use of the shudder-inducing phrase "The Homeland" in all matters of public policy (though unfortunately, that one seems to have caught on with too many in the general public to go away anytime soon).

By: lullaby

lullaby — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:01:45 -0800

But geez, a better cite would have been nice. Heh, I have to comment on the irony of linking to wikipedia and then telling me to get a better cite.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:04:42 -0800

I, for one, welcome our new Overseas Contingency Operatives/Overlords.

By: Bathtub Bobsled

Bathtub Bobsled — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:05:02 -0800

Hey, all is not lost. The French surrendered in 1940 to the Nazis. Next time you're in Paris, count how many Nazis you see.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:08:28 -0800

lullaby: touché.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:13:28 -0800

The evolution of terms like "PIN card" and "ATM drive-through" and so on lead to the further adjectivization of PIN and ATM in the anglophone lexicon. It's fine to adjectivize (really?) PIN and ATM, but it is just as good renominify (really.) them. It's really lazy construction to say things like ATM machine and PIN number, and certainly more efficient to say ATM and PIN. However, to jump off your hobby horse and onto mine, why do medics say W-B-C for white blood cells, when the acronym takes more syllables to say than the original phrase? Huh? Explain me that!

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:40:45 -0800

I propose that Metafilter declare War on Euphemisms.

By: freecellwizard

freecellwizard — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:43:59 -0800

However, to jump off your hobby horse and onto mine, why do medics say W-B-C for white blood cells, when the acronym takes more syllables to say than the original phrase? Huh? Explain me that! Speaking of that, why does English have 25 letters of one syllable, and one (w) with three syllables, but none with two syllables? Let's kill W!

By: quin

quin — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:52:40 -0800

Let's kill W! I'd rather we put it in prision for it's role in leading war crimes, but opinions vary here.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:58:25 -0800

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still handing out Global War on Terror medals to the armed forces. Of course they are. They bought them in bulk back in 2002 when everyone was supposed to be back on US soil any time, all treated as heroes, and eevery serving soldier would have gotten medals. Unfortunately, the government is left with a huge inventory of medals and not enough chests to pin them on.

By: Fezboy!

Fezboy! — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:02:47 -0800

I propose that the War on Euphamisms can go box the bishop.

By: Bokononist

Bokononist — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:09:04 -0800

One of many ways to see of the inherent idiocy of these things is to try and imagine alternate universes where they ever could have ended with much fanfare.

By: Liquidwolf

Liquidwolf — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:42:48 -0800

A little advice to the warpigs.. it's all in the name. Don't name wars after intangible things like "terror", you'll never win - it's like waging a war against "saddness". Same goes for waging wars against general items like "drugs". At no point could you declare victory on such a broad thing .

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:50:45 -0800

At no point could you declare victory on such a broad thing . But isn't that why they name them that way...so they will never be over, and the "war against <>" industry will always be needed.

By: Nauip

Nauip — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:12:32 -0800

<> Speaking of Boxing the bishop... ** possibly NSFW link *** http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Party-of-Five-44817027.html <>

By: Nauip

Nauip — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:14:37 -0800

oddly the THREAD_DERAIL tags have disappeared from my <>s

By: quin

quin — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:21:21 -0800

Give me a couple of tanks of Nitrous Oxide and I believe that I could indeed wage a fair war against sadness. Or die trying.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:43:07 -0800

I propose that Metafilter declare War on Euphemisms. That sounds so harsh. Can't we call it something else?

By: porn in the woods

porn in the woods — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:54:51 -0800

Maintain vigilance, citizens; the War on Drugs has not yet been won. Should you find yourself face-to-face with the demon weed, you should waste no time; you must burn it with fire. I'm helping to eradicate this menace (and make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands) by incinerating it under high temperatures in a glass crucible. Am I a patriot? Oh hells yes.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:06:19 -0800

when even The Terminator thinks its finally time to wave the white flag If you remember Pumping Iron, you'll remember that Ahnold himself has been known to seek out the occasional joobie to go along with the infamous plochops.

By: fings

fings — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:26:09 -0800

25 letters of one syllable, and one (w) with three syllables Because of this, and the fact that it looks more like a double-V than double-U, I propose we change the pronunciation of "W" from "double-U" to "wuh ", or "wub" if you are Canadian.

By: wires

wires — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:28:46 -0800

Give me a couple of tanks of Nitrous Oxide and I believe that I could indeed wage a fair war against sadness. Remember to take your B12.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:30:54 -0800

However, to jump off your hobby horse and onto mine, why do medics say W-B-C for white blood cells, when the acronym takes more syllables to say than the original phrase? Huh? Explain me that! Perhaps it's because it's often written as the abbreviation (which is indeed shorter than writing it all out). And so to maintain semantic contact between the concept as written and the concept as spoken and minimize interpretation between the two - the utility of which may be significant in a stressful situation - the acronym is spelled out when spoken as well. That, or medics like to impress themselves and others with teh jargon, I dunno.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:35:09 -0800

Oh, and the origin of the "w" in our orthography spelled out (heh) here (scroll down).