ADVERTISEMENT

August 9, 2013

Charles Krauthammer: Playing with words about terrorism no substitute for leadership

Jen Psaki, blameless State Department spokeswoman, explained that the hasty evacuation of our embassy in Yemen was not an evacuation but "a reduction in staff." This proved a problem because the Yemeni government had announced (and denounced) the "evacuation" -- the word normal folks use for the panicky ordering of people onto planes headed out of country.

Thus continues the administration's penchant for wordplay, the bending of language to fit a political need. In Janet Napolitano's famous formulation, terror attacks are "man-caused disasters." And the "global war on terror" is no more. It's now an "overseas contingency operation."

Nidal Hasan proudly tells a military court that he, a soldier of Allah, killed 13 U.S. soldiers in the name of jihad. But the massacre is officially classified as an act not of terrorism but of "workplace violence."

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others are killed in an al-Qaida-affiliated terror attack -- and for days it is waved off as nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration gone bad. After all, famously declared Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?

Well, it makes a difference, first, because truth is a virtue. Second, because if you keep lying to the American people, they may seriously question whether anything you say -- for example, about the benign nature of NSA surveillance -- is not another self-serving lie.

And third, because leading a country through yet another long twilight struggle requires not just honesty but clarity. This is a president who cannot bring himself to identify the enemy as radical Islam. Explaining the U.S. embassy closures across the Muslim world, he cited the threat from "violent extremism."

The word "extremism" is meaningless. People don't devote themselves to being extreme. Extremism has no content. The extreme of what? In this war, an extreme devotion to a radically fundamentalist vision of Islam and to its murderous quest for dominion.

But for President Obama, the word "Islamist" may not be uttered. Language must be devised to disguise the unpleasantness.

Result? The world's first lexicological war. Parry and thrust with linguistic tricks, deliberate misnomers and ever more transparent euphemisms.

This would all be comical and merely peculiar if it didn't reflect a larger, more troubling reality: The confusion of language is a direct result of a confusion of policy -- which is served by obfuscation.

Obama doesn't like this terror war. He particularly dislikes its unfortunate religious coloration. But soothing speeches in Muslim capitals and soothing policies -- "open hand," "mutual respect" -- have yielded nothing. Indeed, under his watch, the war has spread. And as commander in chief he must defend the nation.

But he desperately wants to end the whole struggle. This is no secret wish. In a major address to the National Defense University just three months ago he declared "this war, like all wars, must end." The plaintive cry of a man hoping that saying so makes it so.

The result is visible ambivalence that leads to vacillating policy reeking of incoherence. Obama defends the vast NSA data dragnet because of the terrible continuing threat of terrorism.

Yet at the same time, he calls for not just amending but actually repealing the legal basis for the entire war on terror, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Well, which is it? If the tide of war is receding, why the giant NSA snooping programs? If al-Qaida is on the run, as he incessantly assured the nation throughout 2012, why is America cowering in 19 closed-down embassies and consulates? And from Somalia to Afghanistan, why are we raining death by drone on "violent extremists" -- every target, amazingly, a jihadist?

This incoherence of policy and purpose is why an evacuation from Yemen must be passed off as "a reduction in staff." Why the Benghazi terror attack must be blamed on a hapless Egyptian-American videographer. Why the Fort Hood shooting is nothing but a loony Army doctor gone postal.

In the end, this isn't about language. It's about leadership. The wordplay is merely cover for uncertain policy embedded in confusion and ambivalence about the whole enterprise.

This is not leading from behind. This is not leading at all.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. He can be contacted at:

letters@charleskrauthammer.com





Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)


  • Back to Opinion

News
Sports
Politics
Business
Life & Culture
People

© 2014 The Portland Press Herald - All Rights Reserved.
MaineToday Media
One City Center, 5th floor, Portland, ME 04101-5009
(207) 791-6650
contact@pressherald.com