Comments on: Brennan on Obama’s Counterterrorism Policy–the FATAVE? http://comops.org/journal/2009/08/12/brennan-on-obamas-counterterrorism-policy-the-fatave/ A Journal of the Consortium for Strategic Communication Sun, 20 May 2012 16:58:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: COMOPS Journal » The Afghanistan Narrative Gap and Its Consequences http://comops.org/journal/2009/08/12/brennan-on-obamas-counterterrorism-policy-the-fatave/comment-page-1/#comment-282 COMOPS Journal » The Afghanistan Narrative Gap and Its Consequences Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:12:22 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=1386#comment-282 [...] is to sell the continuation of our “overseas contingency operation” (or perhaps FATAVE) in Afghanistan to an increasingly disenchanted audience at home and abroad. But there is a [...] [...] is to sell the continuation of our “overseas contingency operation” (or perhaps FATAVE) in Afghanistan to an increasingly disenchanted audience at home and abroad. But there is a [...]

]]> By: Christopher Steinitz http://comops.org/journal/2009/08/12/brennan-on-obamas-counterterrorism-policy-the-fatave/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Christopher Steinitz Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:01:52 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=1386#comment-263 Thank you for posting this important speech, which sheds light of the fundamentally different approach the new administration brings to our foreign policy. It seems to me that by making the policies-formerly-known-as-GWOT a part of our broader national security objectives does not necessarily require a relabeling of the thing because each of its elements has found its rightful place in other aspects of the broader policy. If we are looking for labels, though, I think that the Obama administration is trying to forge a Partnership for Global Stability. This captures the key approach of multilateralism / global engagement, while invoking a traditional pragmatic view of the importance of a stable international political system. The key will be to interlace such a doctrine with fundamentals of democratization (beyond simple elections) and good governance, understanding that these make for a more stable world than blind support for authoritarians. Personally, I believe the Obama administration is blazing a trail in this new direction. Thank you for posting this important speech, which sheds light of the fundamentally different approach the new administration brings to our foreign policy. It seems to me that by making the policies-formerly-known-as-GWOT a part of our broader national security objectives does not necessarily require a relabeling of the thing because each of its elements has found its rightful place in other aspects of the broader policy. If we are looking for labels, though, I think that the Obama administration is trying to forge a Partnership for Global Stability. This captures the key approach of multilateralism / global engagement, while invoking a traditional pragmatic view of the importance of a stable international political system. The key will be to interlace such a doctrine with fundamentals of democratization (beyond simple elections) and good governance, understanding that these make for a more stable world than blind support for authoritarians. Personally, I believe the Obama administration is blazing a trail in this new direction.

]]> By: PR Conversations » Really “strategic” communications! http://comops.org/journal/2009/08/12/brennan-on-obamas-counterterrorism-policy-the-fatave/comment-page-1/#comment-260 PR Conversations » Really “strategic” communications! Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:25:46 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=1386#comment-260 [...] an analysis of the speech John Brennan delivered yesterday about the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism [...] [...] an analysis of the speech John Brennan delivered yesterday about the Obama administration’s anti-terrorism [...]

]]> By: editor http://comops.org/journal/2009/08/12/brennan-on-obamas-counterterrorism-policy-the-fatave/comment-page-1/#comment-259 editor Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:40:18 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=1386#comment-259 Thanks for the remarks, Patricia. I'm not sure "Global Engagement" works for me as a replacement for GWOT though. I agree that it's a good concept for the Obama Administration's overall approach to <em>diplomacy</em>, and it makes for a nice contrast to their predecessors' "my way or the highway" approach. But for the specific effort against the Bad Guys it seems like too generic a frame, and even a little euphamistic. Perhaps I'm wrong and there's no need to have a specific label for it. OTOH can we realistically expect the government, especially the military, to operate without an acronym? I think not! Thanks for the remarks, Patricia. I’m not sure “Global Engagement” works for me as a replacement for GWOT though. I agree that it’s a good concept for the Obama Administration’s overall approach to diplomacy, and it makes for a nice contrast to their predecessors’ “my way or the highway” approach. But for the specific effort against the Bad Guys it seems like too generic a frame, and even a little euphamistic. Perhaps I’m wrong and there’s no need to have a specific label for it. OTOH can we realistically expect the government, especially the military, to operate without an acronym? I think not!

]]> By: Patricia Kushlis http://comops.org/journal/2009/08/12/brennan-on-obamas-counterterrorism-policy-the-fatave/comment-page-1/#comment-258 Patricia Kushlis Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:56:46 +0000 http://comops.org/journal/?p=1386#comment-258 It's been pretty clear to me for some time that GWOT was replaced with the term Global Engagement by the Obama administration. Conceptually and otherwise, global engagement works for me as I wrote in the rest of my post (and have been writing on WV for the past several months). Thanks for reading - and appreciate the graph. What surprised me was that Brennan still thought it necessary to formally call GWOT dead when as you point out GWOT's demise in the military sense occurred in March. In my opinion, however, "overseas contingency operation" just doesn't work either - doesn't make sense conceptually, in terms of reality or in terms of language. It’s been pretty clear to me for some time that GWOT was replaced with the term Global Engagement by the Obama administration. Conceptually and otherwise, global engagement works for me as I wrote in the rest of my post (and have been writing on WV for the past several months). Thanks for reading – and appreciate the graph. What surprised me was that Brennan still thought it necessary to formally call GWOT dead when as you point out GWOT’s demise in the military sense occurred in March.

In my opinion, however, “overseas contingency operation” just doesn’t work either – doesn’t make sense conceptually, in terms of reality or in terms of language.

]]>