Yeah, well, Bush has been meaning to talk to you about that. It appears that the whole emphasis on the military thing, turns out that it was not so much a good idea.
I'll just let Team Bush and Genl Meyer's explain:
...
it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.
[General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] "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."
The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
More of the the sensitive war and global test crap. Those Kerry lovin French cheese eating folks we have running our military, sheesh. When will they learn that they should take there cues about how to do their job from talk radio hacks?
cribbed from this thread
Have you given the Pentagon's Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication a glance yet?
“Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method … … [it] will build on in depth knowledge of other cultures and factors that motivate human behavior. It will adapt techniques of skillful political campaigning … It will engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.
“[Global] opinions must be taken into account when [US] policy options are considered and implemented.
“The Task Force recommends that the President issue a directive to: (a) strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to understand global public opinion, advise on the strategic implications of policymaking, and communicate with global audiences ...
“The strategic environment has changed radically since the October 2001 Task Force report. We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility[!] and ways the U.S. pursues its goals[!].
"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
Why not just build bigger, cheaper bombs?