Free Markets, Free People


Our politically correct Orwellian national security

First they eliminated the fight against global terrorism and reduced it to collection of “overseas contingency operations”. Terror events are now called “man-made disasters”. We’re no longer confronted with “Islamic extremism”. How do I know this? Because it has been dropped from use as acceptably describing our enemy in the National Security Strategy . So has “jihad” and “Islamic extremism”. We now, apparently, confront “violent extremism”. I would appear that it can just pop up anywhere without any real basis for its being.

Mona Charen reports that the decision has been made to no longer describe rogue nation North Korea as a rogue nation. I have to tell you, if NoKo is a “rogue” nation, there are no rogue nations. NoKo has been a rogue nation since it became a nation. It is a tyrannical kleptocracy – a pirate state – but not “rogue”. Apparently that’s a bit to harsh. And we certainly don’t want to refer to Iran as that.

God forbid we actually call our enemies of the world that which they really are.  That might put them on notice that we’re on to their game and aren’t happy about it.

And there’s really no level to which this foolishness isn’t being extended. Heck even the GITMO inmates apparently need a name change:

The detainees in Guantanamo, too, have had a name change. They will no longer be called “enemy combatants.” The new name hasn’t been chosen yet, though cynics might just use “former clients of Obama Justice Department lawyers.”

Yes political correctness gone mad, but look where it is being applied. At the executive level of the government of the United States. Euphemisms that ignore the specific problem or nation in favor of non-discriminatory (everyone can be a latent “violent extremist” so we don’t have to specifically single out those who are) word salad.

Bottom line: We are fighting Islamic fundamentalist extremists who have had a jihad against us for decades. They are stateless terrorists. They get some of their support from rogue nations.

Why in the world is it so hard to say it like that? Or better yet, what’s the utility in ignoring it?  Why are the specifics of the truth deemed too offensive or antagonistic to state? And what purpose is served by ignoring those specifics in favor of broad categorical words that do very little to define the problem we actually confront?

And, finally, if those words are out of bounds, how does one put a specific strategy together to confront the real security problem facing us vs. some nebulous and useless piece of bureaucratic crap with this “approved” language which ends up doing a one-over-the-world hand-wave and calling itself our “strategy”?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

12 Responses to Our politically correct Orwellian national security

  • Keep redefining the problem until you don’t have to do messing things to fix it. 

    • Or better yet:
      Keep redefining the problem until you don’t have a problem and don’t have to do anything. 

      • Dead bodies are often hard to hide.  Its easier to accept the dead bodies, but change the problem enough you pat yourself on the back for implimenting a perceived ‘solution’. 

  • A disturbing sign that our leadership has no confidence in the righteousness of our cause.
     

  • all the more reason to make Obama a “former federal employee.”

  • I have to tell you, if NoKo is a “rogue” nation, there are no rogue nations.

    Isn’t?

  • It’s all a symptom of the perpetual warfare campaign, and, on a deeper level, of the libs’ unwillingness (inability?) to deal with reality.  Algore made a mint off his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, but it’s really the left that has trouble dealing with the truth.  We see it in the way they redefine various terms, change the subject of an argument, or flat avoid talking about it.

    My most recent fave is regarding the health insurance mandate: “It’s not a mandate.  That’s just crazy talk!  You don’t HAVE to buy health insurance.  Not at all.  We’ll just fine you if you don’t.  See the difference?  Totally not a mandate.”

    Next up: “We’re totally not holding terrorists in Guantanamo Bay!  That’s just crazy talk!  We’ve subjected a few (insert new term for “terrorist suspects” here) to indefinite detention in a US naval base in Cuba.  Totally not the same thing.”

    The nice thing about all this for Imeme is that his voting base is comprised of brainless dimwits who will believe this sort of thing.

  • In addition to backlash to Health-care, and the continuing problems with the economy. The Obama administration, I predict, will also be greatly embarrassed by some sort of overseas adventure.

    I base that upon history. Nations that pursue weak foreign policies invite that upon themselves.