WAR OF WORDS
: Carlin Romano
wonders why many Western leaders just can't bring themselves to call an Islamic militant a filthy, loathsome terrorist thug, and then offers some reasons why they should, all of which are valid, I think. The primary reason, to my mind, though, is that using such direct language is anathema to politicians, since if they do use such language, their electorates will wonder what the politicians are doing to protect them from such miscreants. This, in turn, would require the politicians to point out that these creatures are at war with us and, almost by default, we are at war with them, and politicians dislike the word war, except when it is a big government sponsored program on some social problem without immediate access to firearms. War as such, however, means accepting unforeseen risks with unintended consequences, and most politicians shy away from both if it might mean they lose their seat in Parliament/Congress/Dail/Storting/Cortes/Bundestag/Assemblee Nationale/Camera dei Deputati/Duma etc, etc.
From the Arts and Letters Daily via Norm
Labels: Norm Geras, Normblog, political violence, Politics, terrorism