Posted on 07/02/2009 3:07:28 AM PDT by Son House
According to Janet Napolitano, who succeeded the metaphor-happy Michael Chertoff as United States Secretary of Homeland Security, the term 'global war on terror' did not describe accurately the nature of the 'terrorist threat to the US'. "One of the reasons the nomenclature is not used is that 'war' carries with it a relationship to nation-states in conflict with each other," she told the Financial Times, adding: "and of course terrorism is not necessarily derived from the nation-state relationship." Reflecting the careful attention devoted to this matter at the highest levels of government, Napolitano concluded: "In some respects 'war' is too limiting."
To its credit, the Obama administration seems to be paying attention to what many thoughtful individuals have said for years, as a leaked news report last March revealed that the White House drafted an internal memo to ban use of the term. Senior officials, including US President Barack Obama, avoid the phrase, and Obama actually addressed several of its long-term political consequences in his June 4 Cairo remarks on a new beginning with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Admittedly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq radicalised disillusioned youths and led to the recruitment of many more extremists across the Muslim world than so-called 'experts' wished to believe, though policy organisations such as the independent Oxford Research Group in Britain and even the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in Washington recognised that the two wars of choice consolidated opposition to the West. In 2007, the NIC issued a useful estimate whose key judgment was that "the Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global Jihadist movement". It concluded with an even more affirmative declaration: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Time will tell whether the latest redeployments in Iraq and Afghanistan will significantly diminish senseless killings. Still, beyond empowering Iraqi and Afghan security personnel to assume a greater share of the burden, it behooves the Obama Administration, along with its key allies in Europe and the Arab world, not to focus exclusively on military matters.
For in the end, the best tools available to effectively end such wars are those that confront and address poverty and destitution. Napolitano and her boss decided to diminish those counterproductive aspects of helter-skelter wars, which warmongers eagerly embarked upon after 9/11, though little will change beyond the cosmetic if injustice and poverty persevere.
We now live in a unique period of history where upheavals and uprisings are no longer the exclusive domains of the powerful. Inasmuch as it will probably be impossible to simply defeat terrorist groups by relying on military responses, or even by changing terminology, the burden is on those responsible for rulership to come to terms with serious distortions in wealth domination. As former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld was fond of repeating, the United States was fighting to "protect [its] way of life", which was crystal clear.
While discarding ill-advised terms such as 'war on terror' is a positive adjustment, a slight change in rhetoric will not accomplish much if necessary steps by security personnel do not accompany it. Napolitano is to be commended for moving away from military references, but one also hopes that she would now instruct Department of Homeland Security employees to dispense with humiliating procedures, which hurt reputations and hinder commerce. Instead, it may be better to entrust local police and intelligence services to go after cross-national criminals, and pledge to dissociate one from future adventures that neither ensure security nor protect a way of life.
Riiiiight.....
Like "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty"
Can United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano drop the charges?
Somali-Americans Accused of Al Qaeda Ties Indicted on Terror Charges, Sources Say
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2283947/posts?page=2
The law enforcement sources said the man, described as in his 20s, has been charged with providing material support to a terrorist group
The only WAR she knows about is the WAR over that last PORKCHOP. This is one DUMB BR$&D.
So, the Department of Homeland Security should be a welfare agency. That will stop the wealthy and middle class islamo-terrorists from hurting us, as well as the filthy rich narco-terrorist drug cartel violence. Oh yeah, and traditional threats internally and from abroad.
Got it.
Yes that is exactly what those 19 hijackers from families ranging from upper middle class to truly wealthy were fighting for on 9/11.
Just like their dear leader Osama, the trust fund baby of a wealthy Saudi industrialist.
/sarc.
They should have a Dumb-Off between her and Megan McCain!
Ohhhh....right. "Overseas Unfortunate Contingency Operation" or WHATEVER THE F*CK THEY CALL IT is MUCH more descriptive and 'unlimiting'.
The sheer IDIOCY of these people just PISSES ME OFF.
Their ORWELLIAN obsession with the nomenclature of things is infuriating, "gay" vs. 'homosexual'; 'choice' vs. 'abortion'; 'affirmative action' vs. 'racism'. They think that if they can get people to use a different word to describe something, that changes the nature of the thing.
” when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. “
Osama Bin Laden
Not if, but when America gets hit again and this time harder than 9-11 it will be these Dems fault and a whole lot of Americans are going to die due to their stupidity.
> They think that if they can get people to use a different
> word to describe something, that changes the nature of
> the thing.
They that control the language control the debate.
Hey! Let's just call it Jihad!
In many respects, the term 'Homeland Security' under Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano is not limiting enough.
They think that if they can get people to use a different
> word to describe something, that changes the nature of
> the thing.
They that control the language control the debate.
Yes, and the Jihadis will like us because we are not at “WAR” with them. Political correctness is idiocy !!
I bet she could tell us what the meaning of “is” is!
True, but only because conservatives are too wimpy to call them out on it.
It's a semin_antics. The Naples_in_town is correct about the Jihadist. After all if Bush hadn't assassinated Mohammed in 762 we would all be gettin' along!
These dumba$$ gasbags continue to whistle down the road on the march to marxism.
They’ve never seen a terrorist with whom they cannot negotiate, with an eye toward appeasement and apology.
This pseudo-administration hasn’t got a clue. And, America is in grave danger because of it.
..Now to be referenced as ‘the robust debate with those who would perform man-made mass casualty events.’ Thanks, Mgmt..
Indeed, poverty is usually a red herring to deflect blame from the real culprits. A more proximate cause is that most warfare/genocide/political violence of the last hundred years was caused by pseudo/pop intellectuals and bored/rich kids.
It’s not a war on terror, it’s a defensive war against Global Jihad.
“As former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld was fond of repeating, the United States was fighting to “protect [its] way of life”, which was crystal clear.”
Thank you very much, Mr. Rumsfeld. For everything. You are welcome anywhere I am, anytime.
Warm Regards,
Boots
She has her aggressive role in the administration’s “War on Liberty”, but they call it “change”.
They are insane!
Well you know we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and the next thing you know Islamo-fascists are attacking our troops overseas and blowing up our skyscrapers. What? they started doing that BEFORE we invaded Iraq and Afg? Well, nevermind. The writer of this article is a fool.
What a hugepile of cow manure emanating from the mouths of effing morons! They just don't effing "get it" that the 'cause celebre' for Jihadists is the creation of a worldwide caliphate where everyone is either conveted yto Islam or is converted into fertilizer.
Of which the former would be itting for Libtard that come up with this deadly nonsense. Maybe we should rename it from "The War on Terror" to the "War on Tyranny," and include some, well-known Leftwing extremists.
OK. What do we now call the War on Drugs?
What do we now call the War on Poverty?
At least in the War on Terrorism we are actually shooting at someone.
Napolitano says the War on Terror is over?? What, Terror WON, then, I guess?
What is this gibberish???
This will come back to haunt her, Hussien, and the dems. It is no longer a question on if we get attacked, but when.
If NYC or LA are vaporized by a suitcase bomb, the predominate thought in nearly everyone’s in this country will be this could have been avoided if we treated this war as a WAR and the TERRORISTS like the anarchic B@STARDS that they are!!
Can’t call it a war. Can’t call it terrorism. Can’t call them islomofacists. Can’t waterboard. Gotta read them Miranda rights.....the next 9/11 will be on the dems watch and its blood will be on THEM!!!
‘Overseas Contingency Operation’ Ping....!
Wow, she’s an utter fool....
I suspect out enemies are planning their next series of attacks and laughing about their good fortune of getting the clueless and weak Obozo and Napolitano weakening our defences daily.
Then end result is inevitable....
The policy has been in place since 2002.
In the months following 9-11 a dispute between Bush and Senate republicans arose concerning increasing foreign aid as a method of preventing the spread of terrorist recruitment.
Bush opposed the increase but he finally caved in and announced the increase in his speech at the UN confab at Monterrey Mexico early in 2002.
Yeah. Declaring a war on the American People is much worse than actually engaging in activities indistinguishable from a declared war on the American People.
Not with her mouth full...
Thru-out the 90s dealing with terror was a function of law enforcement only.
In the late 90s, Clinton and Gingrich convened the Hart-Rudman Commision and their report was published just as Bush was entering office. The report contained many recommendations that would gradually be implemented including considering the use of military intervention to augment law enforcement.
The problem with using both is some think that there should be more military and less law while others support the reverse.
One thing that has come to light is that those Gitmo prisoners that provided the most intelligence were those apprehended by law enforcement. The gitmo prisoner, who they waterboarded, that gave up the most info was apprehended by Paki law enforcement.
“The War on Terror is over.”
I hope someone checked with the terrorists.
This is useful information, thanks for that, but it doesn't seem to justify the statement of focus by Napolitano on foreign aid being the primary tool to fight the real war on terror. We need a stronger, more potent defense than that IMO.
Our Homeland Security can't rest on a foundation of bribes.
You might have a look at my reply #38 regarding adding military intervention to law enforcement.
That was very, very important change, but law enforcement will always be of highest importance.
One of the other major components of fighting the terror war is interrupting their cash flow, which is a function of law enforcement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.