|
|
|
|
Pete's Perspective on the Vocabulary of Terrorism
Washington,
Apr 2 -
Recently Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano announced a major Southwest Border Security Initiative. I applaud her effort. I have long advocated for increased "enforcement" of our borders and providing Border Patrol agents all the tools they need to successfully secure our borders. I hope the Secretary will continue to focus on that initiative.
Secretary Napolitano's plan is largely designed to prevent increasing violence along Mexico's northern border from spilling over into our country in light of Mexican President Calderon's decision to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Despite this positive development, however, I have grave concerns about something Secretary Napolitano did not say recently.
Specifically, in her first speech as Secretary of Homeland Security, she chose to avoid use of the word "terrorism." In light of the events of 9/11, it is beyond belief that anyone could deny "terrorism" is a threat to homeland security. When asked to elaborate on her choice of words, the Secretary expressed her preference for the phrase "man-caused disasters."
Perhaps more disconcerting is that the move away from speaking about our threats straightforwardly appears to be a coordinated strategy of the Obama Administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said just yesterday that the Obama administration has stopped using the phrase "war on terror." Although she denies any directive having been issued, there is no disputing that they have eliminated the phrase "global war on terror" from their lexicon and instead prefer "Overseas Contingency Operation."
The President is well-regarded for his speaking skills. But I believe having an honest dialogue with the American people about the threats this nation faces requires plain English. Security cannot be achieved by wishing away our enemies, or scratching them out with an eraser. Security is about clearly, accurately identifying threats and designing a plan to defeat them, allocating resources to do so and executing that plan.
I think the Administration would be better served applying that logic to their choice of words on terrorists and their acts of terrorism.
|
Print version of this document
|
