Obama’s War on Terror By Some Other Name

maybe one day he'll be presidentWhite HouseAfter he first took office, President Obama jettisoned the use of the phrase “global war on terror,” preferring ‘overseas contingency operation.’ In remarks on his counterterrorism policy (or what he’d like it to be?) to the National Defense University this afternoon, Obama insisted America was “still threatened by terrorists,” but warned that America “must define the nature and scope of this struggle,” otherwise “it will define us.” In Obama’s view, most of the changes brought about by the American response to 9/11 (“hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror”) were “sound” despite some causing “inconvenience.” He acknowledged issues “like expanded surveillance raised difficult questions” about security and privacy, but when talking about compromising “our basic values,” only specifically mentions torture and illegal detention, and not, say, the steady erosion of Fourth Amendment rights in the name of security over the last decade.

Nevertheless, even while warning America to define the nature and scope of the struggle against terrorism, Obama managed to expand the definition of the terrorism he believes government must protect Americans from. From the prepared remarks:

Finally, [after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and “localized threats” across South Asia and North Africa] we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

From a mass shooting motivated by racism to a suicide motivated by government abuse to the Oklahoma City bombing to the Fort Hood rampage (classified an act of workplace violence and not terrorism by the federal government) to the bombing of the Boston marathon, these things seem to fall under the same “counterterrorism policy” rubric for the president as Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Yemen, or a local Islamic extremist group in Mali or Nigeria. “Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology,” Obama helpfully adds, referring to Islamist extremists. He compares the intensity of terrorist attacks today to the 1980s and 1990s, suggesting smart counterterrorism policies would prevent a threat of the level of 9/11 to arise again.

The closest Obama comes to a definition of the “war on terror” is when he rejects the term:

We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

In cases where “partnerships with other countries” is impossible, the president says, he uses drones. Here he adopts a definition used in the post-9/11 authorization of the use of military force, explaining that government took “lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces.” “Associated forces” is a broad term still, but narrower than the one that would allow Obama to choose any act of terror to include in the “struggle” against terrorism. The president defended the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. He offered that it would be a dereliction of his duty as president not to kill a U.S. citizen who went abroad and was “actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens,” (something the common criminal may do too). Obama’s description of al-Awlaki as a “chief of external operations” in Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula brings the cleric who dined at the Pentagon in the aftermath of 9/11 under the umbrella of the “associated forces” of the AUMF. The president did not mention the sixteen year old son of al-Awlaki the U.S. also acknowledged killing (though not “specifically targeting), or two other Americans who were identified as victims of drone strikes, one of whom, Jude Mohammed, was indicted on terrorist charges in 2009 (something al-Awlaki and his teenaged son weren’t). The lumping of a sixteen year old with a suspected terrorist wanted by the FBI is an illustrative example of the slippery definition of terrorism and its usefulness primarily in defending constitutionally-suspect policies like targeted killings or “expanded surveillance.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • A Serious Man||

    "I'm glad the President finally acknowledged that American citizens deserve some form of due process. But I still have concerns over whether flash cards and PowerPoint presentations represent due process; my preference would be to try accused U.S. citizens for treason in a court of law."

    Burn.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Damn straight.

  • ||

    "I'm glad the President finally acknowledged that American citizens deserve some form of due process. But I still have concerns over whether flash cards and PowerPoint presentations represent due process; my preference would be to try accused U.S. citizens for treason in a court of law."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Whoa. I'll quote the whole thing:

    I'm glad the President finally acknowledged that American citizens deserve some form of due process. But I still have concerns over whether flash cards and PowerPoint presentations represent due process; my preference would be to try accused U.S. citizens for treason in a court of law.
  • Pro Libertate||

    Because these things read better in threes.

  • ||

    triple jinx!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    One thing I learned from the GOP recently thanks to Benghazi:

    "Act of terrorism" =/= "terrorist act"

    COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    One thing I learned from Palin's Buttplug

    "Communicating" =/= "Screeching incoherently into a microphone and hoping that Dragon Naturally Speaking will fill in the details"

    COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

  • playa manhattan||

    Rhetoric doesn't get any more empty that this:
    "Obama warned that America “must define the nature and scope of this struggle,” otherwise “it will define us.”"

    How about he, as the commander in chief, fucking define it right here and now?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Anyone else think of this when they read that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKGX9tdPeN0

  • Underzog||

    It is Islam with its war on us dhimmis that is the problem -- not extremism! Ayn Rand warned about stupid terms such as extremism in her remarks about extremism or the art of smearing. Islam talks about making war on people of the book; i.e., Jews and Christians and infidels (everyone who is non Muslim).

    In Hit and Run's calumny against me, they don't realize that their appeasement of Muslims will not save them. When Prof Hawkings did his Nazi like boycott of Israel about two weeks ago, it didn't stop Muslims in Britian from brazenly slaughtering a soldier who had a "Help for Heroes" shirt on. Only Tommy Robinson of the English Defense League is doing the right thing in holding Muslims responsible. Everybody else is in PC and Stockholm Syndrome denial about the murderous Muslims.

    O'd Kahane Chai or Rabbi Kahane Lives and....

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

    "And thou shalt call him Ishmael and he will be a wildman. His hand against everyman and everyman's hand against him.

    Genesis 16:22

    "Rights are not involved in those primative societies.They make a deal with us. They want to bring us in to develop their oil and then they try to exploit and literally murder us by means of that oil. That is an unforgivable crime."

    Ayn Rand's last appearance on the Phil Donahue show.

    Jihad Watch

  • Dweebston||

    I'm more worried about what the local aldermen can do to make my life hell than I am about terr'ists. Nobody "threatens America" except the 538 members of the Congressional carousel and the current gibbering gob in the Oval Office.

  • Lyle||

    We're not really having a War on Terror, but a War Against Violent Islamism. What else is al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like associates, but violent Islamists.

    This war will end one day. It is not in fact perpetual.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement