Krauthammer on Language

The op-ed is available here:

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.” [...]

More jarring still were Obama’s references to the terrorist as a “suspect” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device.” You can hear the echo of FDR: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor.” [...]

This is all quite mad even in Obama’s terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation. [...]

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

The whole article is worth a read, but I've only quoted sections I wanted to directly respond to. In the first excerpt, Krauthammer is committing a very interesting comparison. Obama's words and descriptions are, to him, part of the actual warfare we have against terrorists. That's very interesting, because if words have that power, then we should be using them to weaken and marginalize our opponents. Which is exactly what Obama is doing. Krauthammer seems to be saying that our enemies are so undeniably strong and powerful that we have to treat this as a real war, and that is ludicrous. The threshold to commit terror is not high - just ask the DC snipers. All you need is a gun, a silencer, and a car with a small hole in the trunk. We don't need to elevate these idiots.

His second point is entirely on target, and his third is also a good point, though it ignores the fact that a guy in our custody is much less dangerous than a guy on the outside. For the columnist, the moral attitudes of the administration are at play, but for me, is about the threat and danger presented.

The last excerpt is the worst. It seems to say that Obama's rhetoric means lax policy, and this is ENTIRELY UNTRUE. Rhetoric and policy do not have to be connected, and coming down with strong policies without harsh rhetoric is wise.