July 12, 2010
Terror experts blast Obama administration: Ignore the role of Islamic extremism at the peril of the countryTopics: Political News and commentaries, Understanding Islam
When the WH's Counter-terrorism Adviser John Brennen announced the Administration's nonsensical notion back in May that jihad is "a holy struggle ... a legitimate tenet of Islam" and that we shouldn't reference our enemy in religious tems, most Americans immediately thought the Administration had completely jumped the shark, wondering how one can successfully fight an enemy without defining it (on the other hand, some Americans - myself included, would question just whose side the Administration is on - ours or the ummah's).
Now, several counterterror experts are essentially saying the same thing - that the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it - and that threat comes from Islamic extremism (emphasis added):
The Obama administration's recent move to drop references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists.Read more ...
Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration's shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy, saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
[...] In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists "without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way."
President Barack Obama has argued that words matter, and administration officials have said that the use of inflammatory descriptions linking Islam to the terror threat feed the enemy's propaganda and may alienate moderate Muslims in the U.S.
In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings.
Militant Islamic propaganda has reportedly been a factor in a spate of recent terror attacks and foiled attempts within the U.S. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood, Texas, mass shootings last year, is believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists, as was Faisal Shahzad, who tried to detonate a powerful car bomb last May in New York's Times Square.
One would think that the identification of our enemy is so obvious that even the most clueless of administrations would have already gotten the obvious point that these "counterterror experts" are making, unless of course there's another factor at play here. As Dr. Theo points out at Dakota Voice, for eighteen months now we've seen time and again that Barack Obama has an inordinate interest in the interests of Muslim countries (and of Muslims and Islam itself), reviving regularly what Robert Spencer calls the "Question That Won't Die." From his bow to the Saudi King, to his apologies to Muslim countries, to claiming that America is not a Christian nation, to his historically inaccurate claim that Muslims have always been an important part of the American experiment, to his insistence that his administration refrain from using the term "Islamic extremism," to his admission to Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit that he is indeed a Muslim there just seems to be no end to the instances of Barack Hussein's apparent allegiance to Islam and disdain for American Judeo-Christian ideals.
Charles Krauthammer recently commented on what he aptly refers to as "the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why, and on the WH banning from its official vocabulary the terms jihadist, Islamist and Islamic terrorism:
President Obama's National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy - how else do you define those seeking your destruction? - "a loose network of violent extremists." But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize and kill.More ....
Why is this important? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy. If you don't, you wander into intellectual cul-de-sacs and ignore the real causes that might allow you to prevent recurrences.
The Pentagon report on the Fort Hood shooter runs 86 pages with not a single mention of Hasan's Islamism. It contains such politically correct inanities as "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor."
Of course it is. Indeed, Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century - from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers were of various national origin, occupation, age, social class, native tongue and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.
To deny this undeniable truth leads to further absurdities. Remember the wave of speculation about Hasan's supposed secondary post-traumatic stress disorder - that he was so deeply affected by the heart-rending stories of his war-traumatized patients that he became radicalized? On the contrary. He was moved not by their suffering but by the suffering they (and the rest of the U.S. military) inflicted on Hasan's fellow Muslims, in whose name he gunned down 12 American soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar."
With Shahzad, we find the equivalent ridiculous - and exculpating - speculation that perhaps he was driven over the edge by the foreclosure of his home. Good grief. Of course his home went into foreclosure - so would yours if you voluntarily quit your job and stopped house payments to go to Pakistan for jihadist training. As The Washington Post's Charles Lane pointed out, foreclosure was a result of Shahzad's radicalism, not the cause.
There's a final reason why the administration's cowardice about identifying those trying to kill us cannot be allowed to pass. It is demoralizing. It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency, and diminishes the memory of those (including thousands of brave Muslims - Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan and Western) who have died fighting it
Looking at the Obama Administration's "absurd and embarrassing refusal to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why," that Krauthammer speaks of and the counter-terrorism experts address in their report, especially in the light of the Administration's recent directive to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to make it a primary mission of NASA to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," to an expanded version of Robert Spencer's "Question That Won't Die": How does one explain Barack Obama's extreme IslamoPHILIA, unless he has strong emotional ties to Islam or is in fact a Muslim, and to whom does Obama's primary allegiance rest - the ummah or the American people?
Hat tip - Wizbang
Posted by Richard at July 12, 2010 7:06 AM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries, Understanding Islam:
- Terror experts blast Obama administration: Ignore the role of Islamic extremism at the peril of the country - Jul 12, 2010