Boston Bombing: How Obama has Boxed Himself into a Corner over ‘Terrorism’
The US President invited ire by his initial reluctance to call Monday’s Boston bombing an “act of terror.” He did the same last year, by appearing unwilling to label an attack on the US embassy in Libya―in which the American ambassador was killed―as “terrorism.” What explains his fear of the T-word?
By Saif Shahin, New Age Islam
17 April 2013
President Barack Obama’s initial reluctance to call Monday’s Boston bombing an act of “terror” has raised just about as many hackles as the bombing itself. Giving a press briefing hours after the double blast, in which three people were killed and more than 170 injured, Obama termed the attack “senseless” and pledged that individuals or groups responsible would “feel the full weight of justice.” However, he did not use the word “terrorism” to describe the attack in his Monday address, raising a storm on television and in the Twitter sphere―although he quickly gave in and uttered the T-word Tuesday morning.
Some commentators praised his initial “restraint,” saying that the word “terror” should not be used until the administration had some idea of who was behind the attacks. But most people were quite aghast, wondering how the wanton act of violence could go without the label.
Of course, the use of the term “terror” to describe the Boston attack―or any attack―is a matter of debate, given that there is no commonly accepted definition of “terrorism.” But Obama’s unwillingness on Monday to characterise the Boston bombing as an act of terror was not simply out of concern for etymological exactitude.
The same issue was raised last year following US embassy bombing in Libya on the anniversary of 9/11, in which the US ambassador and three other Americans were killed. Obama appeared disinclined to call it a “terror” attack, and his Republican opponents jumped on the issue in the run up to the Presidential election.
(U.S. President Barack Obama finishes speaking in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 16, 2013, about the Boston Marathon explosions.(AP / Susan Walsh)
-------
Then, as now, Obama buckled quickly and started referring to the bombing as “terrorism” as criticism grew and his ratings plummeted. After all, political fortunes in the United States can be made or marred by one’s perceived commitment to fight “terrorism”―not only in reality but in rhetoric as well. In fact, Obama’s apparent lack of enthusiasm to use the word to characterise attacks against the United States is a product of the same politics of rhetoric.
One of the key pillars of Obama’s presidency has been his steadfastness in the “war against terror”―even though his administration abandoned that term, popularised by George W. Bush, as a symbol of policy change. One of the key successes of Obama’s presidency is the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda chief who masterminded the 9/11 attacks and whom the Bush administration, despite years of effort, could not hunt down.
Bin Laden was killed in May 2011 in a US Navy SEAL raid on his house in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The administration touted this “victory” as a validation of not just Obama’s resolve but also of his flair in dealing with terrorism. “Trust him, because he knows what he is doing,” went the argument. Over the next year or so, the bin Laden moment was developed into the claim that Obama had all but rooted out terrorism, making the United States and its citizens much safer than Bush ever could. This was the narrative the Democrats clung to going into last year’s presidential elections.
It is a great narrative, no doubt, and it proved successful too. But it has one weakness: it doesn’t hold if terrorist attacks continue to take place on US territory, and if American citizens continue to lose their lives as a result. That’s what happened in September last year, and that’s what happened on Monday too.
Not surprisingly, then, Obama was and remains reluctant to call such acts “terrorism.” Doing so makes the claims of grand victory against terrorism ring a little hollow. It makes that famous photograph of Commander-in-Chief Obama, surrounded by his top administrative staff, personally overseeing the raid that “took out” bin Laden appear a little Quixotic. After all, why should killing bin Laden be considered such a big deal if terrorists can still attack America, if they can still kill Americans?
Obama has thus boxed himself into a corner over the issue of terrorism. If he calls acts of violence against Americans “terrorism,” he undermine his own claims of rooting out al Qaeda and making Americans safer. If he does not, he runs the risk of appearing weak against the “biggest threat” that the United States faces.
URL: https://newageislam.com/war-terror/boston-bombing-how-obama-boxed/d/11175