"Living in this manner also gave them the opportunity to locate targets and develop methods of attack that would make the most impact on the population, infrastructure, and governments of these areas"
About this Quote
The sentence reads like a bureaucratic shrug draped over a threat. “Living in this manner” is a soft-focus euphemism that deliberately avoids vivid specifics; it’s the language of briefings and hearings, where the speaker wants to evoke danger without litigating details on the record. That distance is the point. It turns whatever “this manner” refers to into a vague but ominous lifestyle - not actions, not crimes, but a mode of being that supposedly grants strategic advantages.
Then the verbs do the work: “locate,” “develop,” “make the most impact.” They frame violence as a kind of project management. The phrasing implies rational, adaptive enemies who study systems and optimize outcomes, which quietly justifies an expansive security response. If adversaries are methodical and embedded, then surveillance, disruption, and preemption start to sound like common sense rather than extraordinary power.
The real subtext sits in the triplet of “population, infrastructure, and governments.” That sweep maps neatly onto the modern homeland-security imagination: fear is not only about bodies, but about networks - transit, utilities, communications - and about legitimacy itself. By pairing everyday civilians with civic systems and political authority, the line collapses categories and suggests that everything is a potential battlefield.
As a politician’s sentence, it’s built to travel: broad enough to apply to immigration debates, domestic extremism, or overseas insurgency; precise enough to sound informed. Its intent is persuasive, not descriptive: to make an argument for vigilance by presenting impact as both inevitable and maximizable.
Then the verbs do the work: “locate,” “develop,” “make the most impact.” They frame violence as a kind of project management. The phrasing implies rational, adaptive enemies who study systems and optimize outcomes, which quietly justifies an expansive security response. If adversaries are methodical and embedded, then surveillance, disruption, and preemption start to sound like common sense rather than extraordinary power.
The real subtext sits in the triplet of “population, infrastructure, and governments.” That sweep maps neatly onto the modern homeland-security imagination: fear is not only about bodies, but about networks - transit, utilities, communications - and about legitimacy itself. By pairing everyday civilians with civic systems and political authority, the line collapses categories and suggests that everything is a potential battlefield.
As a politician’s sentence, it’s built to travel: broad enough to apply to immigration debates, domestic extremism, or overseas insurgency; precise enough to sound informed. Its intent is persuasive, not descriptive: to make an argument for vigilance by presenting impact as both inevitable and maximizable.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Jo
Add to List
