Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Political Correctness

Political Correctness in the QDR

Tom Skypek — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:07:54 +0000

A recent analysis of the 2010 QDR by the Center for American Progress claims, “…the 2010 QDR abandons the Bush administration’s “Long War” construct that oversimplified the nature of the struggle against violent extremists.” This claim implies that the QDR clarified the nature of this conflict. The QDR doesn’t even accurately identify the threat. It does not acknowledge that there is an international campaign led by Islamic extremists to kill Americans. I realize that it’s not politically correct to identify threats without obfuscation, but the failure to identify the source of this threat in the QDR is troubling. The terms “violent extremism” and “extremism” are generalities. Al Qaeda is more specific but it is simply a way to skirt the issue. Sure, extremism in any case can be dangerous, but it’s not PETA activists who are trying to blow up airliners and killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s Islamic extremists.

Regarding the issuance of a new National Security Strategy–the National Security Strategy should be the primary driver of our defense policy and guidance. The National Security Strategy is the document that seeks to articulate our grand strategy–our core interests, threats to those interests and how we intend to defend and advance those interests in broad terms. Documents like the QDR should operationalize that vision. Of course, strategy making in Washington is largely broken. The release of a QDR before a National Security Strategy is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse—that is unless President Obama’s grand strategy is not so different from that of his predecessor. I suspect that it is closer than anyone at the White House would ever admit. But what is our grand strategy? Primacy? Collective security? Whatever the answer is to that question should be driving our defense and military policy, not the other way around.

Nidal Malik Hasan and The Perils of Political Correctness

Tom Skypek — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:28:52 +0000

From The Houston Chronicle:

Federal law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.

One of the Web posts that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

“To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause,” said the Internet posting. “Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.”

The officials say Hasan appeared to have made the postings, but they are still trying to confirm that he was the author. They say an official investigation was not opened.

Why wasn’t Hasan investigated more aggressively? Hasan’s conduct seems to have raised red flags at least six months ago. This tragedy could have been avoided if investigators took seriously his threats and bizarre comparisons. Imagine if a solider had made pro-Communist/anti-American comments during the Cold War. They would have been immediately investigated. Was Hasan not investigated because of political correctness? It’s hard to know for sure, but it’s certainly a possibility. Stephanie Gutmann at NRO asks: “How many more victims of political correctness can we afford?” The Fort Hood shootings are a grim reminder that the greatest threats to U.S. national security come from within. This was not a man-made disaster. Radical Islam has struck again in the United States.

Overseas Contingency Operation

Tom Skypek — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:05:23 +0000

Overseas Contingency Operation–that’s the Obama administration’s new name for the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Perhaps GWOT wasn’t the best descriptor for the global conflict against Islamic Extremism, but it seemed to capture the key elements (such as the scope of the conflict and adversary). If anything, it lacked specificity in that it did not identify the adversary as clearly as it could have. From FOXNews.com:

The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase “Global War on Terror,” a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department’s office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

I can only speculate as to why exactly the Obama administration thought that this was a good idea. It probably has something to do with their desire to improve “the U.S. image abroad.” What this is, however, is political correctness. The U.S. needs to speak candidly and realistically about threats to our national security. Obfuscation and ambiguity is dangerous. The Secretary of Homeland Security has also stopped using the word terrorism, instead using “man-caused” disaster. As Conservative Punk notes, that probably won’t last too long.

James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation makes a good point:

By deliberately trying not to use the T word they run a serious political risk. If something does happen, they’ll be accused of taking their eye off the ball and no amount of explanation after the fact will suffice.

Overseas Contingency Operation? So much for calling a spade a spade.