Monday, January 11, 2010

French Hermeneutics

President Barack Obama, January 7, 2010:
Over the past two weeks, we've been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands. We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.
French paper Le Monde, January 8, 2010 (automatic translation):
War, but not quite like George Bush's war. . . Carefully, Barack Obama has seconded [Bush's] words. "We are at war." . . . Immediately after, he qualified: "We are at war against al-Qaida, an extensive network of violence and hatred", a way to stand out from his predecessor George Bush and his catch-all concept of the "war on terror."
Isn't terror a "network" of "violence" and "hatred"? See also Mark Steyn.

(via The Corner)


Geoffrey Britain said...

It is far, far more than merely a "network of violence and hatred".

The Stratfor article you link to is far too parochial, it even denies that Al Qaeda is a strategic threat.

Which, if Al Qaeda was the extent of the problem might be true but since it's only one of the infrastructural components of international terrorism, makes Stratfor's analysis grossly incompetent. It's a bit like discussing the makeup of an apple orchard by claiming it to be made up entirely of apples.

Stratfor's expert analysis is far too limited in scope which, indicates that they are either being purposely obtuse or simply one more example of 'experts' who don't know whereof they speak.

The fundamental Geo-political infrastructural foundations of international terrorism are exactly why Obama and liberal conceptualization of Islamic terrorism won't work.

They can't see the forest for the trees.

Carl said...


I agree with you on the Stratfor article. It sounds like our State Department--too concerned about having everyone "like us" to actually defend us.