The War Against "Terrorism"

A recent story in The New York Times takes an interesting approach to America’s “War on Terror,” describing the changing perceptions of the word, “terrorism.”  By showing the transformation of the word “terrorism” from a concrete definition to an abstract thought with no general consensus, the story identifies an intriguing dilemma for the new administration as it pushes forward in the War on Terror.  With the world placing a stigma on the very word itself, has the actual term, “terrorism,” become such a taboo that now our government officials are reluctant to use it?

Take for example a story by The Washington Post, which describes how new Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will address the House Committee on Homeland Security, but will omit the word terrorism when discussing threats to our security.  This is not to suggest Napolitano does not think terrorism is a threat, but is a broader statement saying that all threats – foreign and domestic, natural and manmade – will be weighed and dealt with accordingly when dealing with the security of the United States.

While Napolitano claims the omission is not intentional, nor does it indicate a lax strategy to protect our borders from future attacks, the conspicuous exclusion does not come without its share of criticism. "This can't be the evil we don't speak about.  Any testimony on homeland security should be centered around the threat of terrorism and what we're doing to combat it," said Representative Peter King of New York, according to the Post.  Napolitano maintains that the department will do everything in its power to counter and protect against the threat from terrorism.

In the face of such criticism, though, Napolitano’s testimony might actually reflect a broader policy shift within the government away from terrorism and toward emphasizing all threats to national security, even if the main shift is in the rhetoric itself.  For example, while President Obama has not officially declared the cessation of the War on Terror and in practice remains committed to tracking down the terrorists, he has declared his commitment to do so within the legal framework of the United States of America.  In fact, by committing to troop reductions in Iraq and increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, Obama has expanded the War on Terror. 

Yet even with this apparent expansion, President Obama never once mentioned the phrase, “War on Terror,” in his first State of the Union this week.  This alone is a dramatic shift from the Bush presidency, whose rhetoric was replete with the terrorist threat.  Instead, in a single phrase, Obama said that we would not allow terrorists to plot against America from foreign lands, but in the context of combating extremism. 

Adding more weight to the argument that the word itself is losing its value are the recent congressional testimonies given by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and  the Director of the FBI Robert Mueller.  In both instances, the threat of terrorism was significantly downplayed as compared the Bush years.  Blair, for example, concluded that terrorism is no longer the leading threat against the United States, being unseated by the ramifications of the current economic crisis.  They both still view terrorism as a threat, but in the broader context of protecting America from all enemies and potential hazards.

Likewise, in the case of Napolitano’s testimony, I think she is making a broader statement not against the War on Terror, but on the objective of the Department of Homeland Security, which in many ways, is still in the nascent stage of its existence.