“War on Terror” Alive and Well in the Obama Regime

At the height of the War on Terror during the Bush years, conservatives were all too happy using the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” in describing the global struggle against radical Islam. We had no problem hyping up the always imminent threat of terrorism and arguing that unless President Bush was given the powers to protect us, there could be an attack at any time.

It was after 9/11, in the supposed interests of national security, that the Congress gleefully surrendered their constitutional powers and responsibilities to the Executive Branch, who then went about expanding the size of the federal government to unprecedented levels. A new bureaucratic monstrosity was created in the Department of Homeland Security that was charged with performing a task that apparently no other federal agency was already responsible for, defending the country from terrorist attacks. At the behest of the President, the National Security Agency gained new authority to monitor terrorist internet and phone communications that included at least one party outside of the United States, despite the questionable legality of the program. And under the inaptly named USA PATRIOT Act, the powers of the FBI and other federal security agencies to monitor the activities of suspected and potential terrorists in the United States were expanded. Scarcely a conservative voice could be heard raising caution about this expansion of power within the Executive Branch, and the overall growth of government that was being undertaken. After all, Bush was a good conservative, it was thought, and he needed all the power and authority available to protect us from terrorism. He could be trusted with these new authorities and the prospect of national security was worth the price. The most obvious problem with all of this that conservatives seemed to have overlooked, however, is that Bush had not been given a lifetime term in the White House. Eventually he would be gone, but the power ceded to the office could probably never really be reigned in. As has been demonstrated time and time again, once the government is granted the authority to violate your liberties and expand their powers, they never let it go.

I actually had the misfortune of working on the McCain campaign in New Hampshire during the 2008 presidential race, and witnessed this lack of foresight firsthand among many Republicans. During one conversation with a fellow campaign staffer who was brought in from Washington, D.C. in the final few weeks leading up to the election, I tried to convey to him some of the problems with the sacrifices made in the name of the War on Terror as he expressed his undying devotion to George Bush. (Yes, in November of 2008 there were still some Bush loyalists who hadn’t yet removed their heads from the sand! Fortunately, by this time most Americans living outside of the Beltway’s Republican circles had woken up to Bush’s empty conservatism.) But after waxing lyrical about how Bush had protected us from terrorists for the last few years he expressed regret that the powers he had acquired for the office and the expanded federal apparatus that had been built would now be at the disposal of Barack Obama. Apparently the obvious reality of presidential succession was not something that had ever crossed his mind during the years he was cheering on George Bush. Although this was the only problem that occurred to him, it is really only a secondary problem with the trend of expanding federal power. The primary issue of course is why you would want any president to be granted the power to expand their influence over individual privacy! As long as our man was in the White House though, it was all fine.

But still most overlooked by conservatives during this time was the use of the word “terrorist” in relation to these expanded powers. It remained dangerously ambiguous. While Bush was president, “terrorist” was typically used as a shorthand term for a militant or radical Muslim, and it was against militant Islamists from around the globe that it was expect these powers would be used to combat. Again, conservatives acquiesced to this vague terminology without objection. But while liberals railed against the ”War on Terror” for its exaggeration of our enemies’ capabilities and the negative connotation they think it had on the Muslim world, they too got it wrong. The real problem with this language that everyone seemed to miss is that it’s simply too vague and unfocused. Terrorism is a tactic and  the literal word “terrorist” could just as easilly be applied to someone completely disconnected from any global Muslim jihad, but still engaging in an act of terror. The powers granted the president to deal with the War on Terror could potentially someday be used against a so-called domestic terrorist. The use of the word became particularly significant for me when the controversy over the torture of terror suspects arose. I would have no objections if Ayman al-Zawahiri were to be captured and tortured in order to extract information. Ditto for any other confirmed radical Muslim withholding information that could prevent future attacks. I continued to hold reservations over the issue though because of who exactly could be defined as a “terrorist,” not only legally but also in the perceptions of the public. This point, so far as I could tell, remained absent from the debate. So long as our man Bush was president there was nothing to worry about. The terrorists were Muslim radicals bent on global jihad.

Well, Bush is not the president anymore and after less than three months of the Obama regime my exact fears over the loose use of this terminology are coming to fruition. Although the Obama regime has apparently suspended use of the terrorism label while referring to the international struggle against radical Islam, they have not retired the term altogether. In a new report issued by the Department of Homeland Security (remember, created to protect us from “terrorists”), the DHS will now be increasingly focused on “righwing extremists” and ”small terrorist cells” of Americans acting out of frustration due to the current political and economic climate. In other words, anyone expressing criticism of the disasterous road this administration is taking us down could be a potential terrorist. Reading some of the language in this report is truly shocking. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano even goes after returning war veterans, claiming that “the possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.” So the Department of Homeland Security, created by George Bush to protect us from what everyone naively assumed were exclusively radical Muslim jihadists, is certainly doing its best to stay on top of terrorist activity, only these aren’t the terrorists we had in mind. An expression of political dissent has become a red flag that could get you put on a list somewhere. Questioning our new government’s socialist economic policies or liberal social agenda could brand you an enemy of the state.

So when the government is granted undue power to fight “terrorism” we had better be damn well sure we know what “terrorism” means. There never seemed to be any question among the American public under President Bush. A terrorist was an insurgent in Iraq, a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, or a suicide bomber in London or Madrid. But now, under the Obama regime, those concerned about gun regulation, unadulterated immigration, disgruntled returning veterans, or anyone else opposing the political agenda of the new regime falls under the category of a potential terrorist. The same terminology that has been used to describe the former is now being used to describe the latter. American patriots concerned about our current radical growth in government are being compared to al-Qaeda. So the next time you hear the word “terrorist” or “War on Terror,” ask yourself what that might mean, because it isn’t so obvious anymore.

Advertisement