"We have to be mindful that there is the certainty that terrorists will attempt to launch multiple attacks against their enemy, which is us and our allies"
About this Quote
Cofer Black’s sentence is built like a warning label: it doesn’t argue so much as pre-load the listener with inevitability. “We have to be mindful” sounds gentle, even managerial, but it’s a soft entry into a hard claim: “the certainty” of “multiple attacks.” That word choice matters. Certainty shuts down debate about probability, tradeoffs, and proportionality. If the threat is guaranteed, then extraordinary measures start to feel less like policy choices and more like basic maintenance.
The pivot - “against their enemy, which is us and our allies” - is doing heavy rhetorical work. It collapses a complex geopolitical landscape into a clean, moral binary: terrorists versus “us.” By widening “us” to include allies, the quote implicitly justifies coordinated action across borders and institutions; it also invites the public to internalize distant conflicts as personal stakes. The enemy’s motive is treated as fixed and monolithic, not contingent on events, grievances, or strategy. That framing makes prevention the only responsible posture and skepticism the only irresponsible one.
Contextually, this sounds like early-2000s counterterror discourse, when officials weren’t just describing threats but manufacturing a durable climate of vigilance. The intent is less to inform than to discipline: to normalize a long horizon of fear, to keep agencies funded and empowered, and to condition citizens to accept surveillance, preemption, and expanded security powers as the price of membership in the “us” he defines.
The pivot - “against their enemy, which is us and our allies” - is doing heavy rhetorical work. It collapses a complex geopolitical landscape into a clean, moral binary: terrorists versus “us.” By widening “us” to include allies, the quote implicitly justifies coordinated action across borders and institutions; it also invites the public to internalize distant conflicts as personal stakes. The enemy’s motive is treated as fixed and monolithic, not contingent on events, grievances, or strategy. That framing makes prevention the only responsible posture and skepticism the only irresponsible one.
Contextually, this sounds like early-2000s counterterror discourse, when officials weren’t just describing threats but manufacturing a durable climate of vigilance. The intent is less to inform than to discipline: to normalize a long horizon of fear, to keep agencies funded and empowered, and to condition citizens to accept surveillance, preemption, and expanded security powers as the price of membership in the “us” he defines.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Cofer
Add to List

