Daniel Pipes: 'Terrorism' battle is really fight against Islamism

In a striking admission, George W. Bush said the other day that that ''We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be [called] the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.''

This important concession follows growing criticism of the misleading term ''war on terror'' (how can one fight a tactic?) and replaces it with the more accurate ''war on ideological extremists.'' With this change, the battle of ideas can begin.

But who exactly are those ideological extremists? The next step is for Bush to give them a name.

In fact, he on occasion since 9/11 has spoken candidly about their identity. As early as September 2001, he referred to the enemy being ''a fringe form of Islamic extremism'' that seeks ''to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.'' This Islamic extremism also is heir to ''all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century,'' including ''fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism.''

In January 2002, Bush was more specific yet, adding that the terrorist underworld includes ''groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad [and] Jaish-i-Mohammed.'' In May 2002, he pointed out that a ''new totalitarian threat'' exists whose adherents ''are defined by their hatreds: they hate Jews and Christians and all Muslims who disagree with them" [implying that they are Muslims].

Last month, Bush for the first time used the phrase ''Islamic militants,'' perhaps his most explicit reference until now to the Islamist threat, saying that until he closed a so-called Islamic charity based in Illinois, the Benevolence International Foundation, it ''channel[ed] money to Islamic militants.''

Rolling these comments into a single summary statement establishes how Bush -- and by extension the whole of the U.S. government -- sees the enemy: a false doctrine of Islamic purity inspires a totalitarian ideology of power and domination. The extremists who advocate this doctrine see the United States as the chief obstacle to achieving their goals. Ultimately, they hope to bring about a collapse of the United States as it now exists.

This is a fine description of Islamism, its mentality, methods and means. It also shows that Bush draws the subtle distinction between the personal faith of Islam and the political ideology of Islamism (or militant Islam).

In this, he parallels what a number of Muslim leaders have said. Following acts of terrorism in Riyadh in May 2003, Interior Minister Prince Naif publicly attributed this violence to ''ideology'' and ''fanatical ideas.'' And if Naif -- himself an Islamist -- attributes the problem ultimately not to acts of violence but the ideas behind them, surely Americans can say no less.

Bush already has alluded to the United States having to confront its third totalitarian ideology. Now he should name that ideology. I hope he will surround himself with a group of distinguished anti-Islamist Muslims, foreign and domestic alike, and formally announce America's acceptance of leadership in the war against Islamism.

Only with such specificity can the civilized world start on the path to victory over this latest manifestation of barbarism.

Send this one along to your ping list but shhh, be very quiet. Nobody is supposed to know this stuff. shhhh.

Passed along to me, not my original stuff. I tend to view recent US geopolitical moves as more of a blocking action against Iran than SA:
------
We invaded Iraq because it had a weak military, (thus could be taken over much more easily than say, Iran), a strategic location (right in the middle of the real bad actors), and has the second largest oil reserves in the Middle east (which will take years to develop, but will be priceless when needed). It had very little to do with WMDs or saving Iraqis from Saddam.

It has everything to do with with setting up the hit on Saudi Arabia. Everybody knows that certain groups (religious extremist Sheiks)in SA are the major suppliers of funding to the Islamic terrorists. Not the SA government. It takes Bucks to go Boom. 9/11 was funded by SA sources. Cut off their funding, they become virtually impotent. But if we move against Saudi Arabia today, their oil production shuts down and the third world starves to death due to lack of fuel and fertilizer for growing food.

So,how do you solve the problem of Islamic terrorism without killing millions?

Set up a base of operations for moving against SA and set up an alternate supply of oil to provide needed oil to the world while SA oil production is disrupted due to invasion.

Unfortunately for Iraq, it was a perfect fit.

In five to ten years, assuming we don't defeat ourselves, we will be in position to take down the Wahabi Wingnuts running Saudi Arabia, and control enough oil to depress the oil price enough to bankrupt Iran, thus preventing them from implementing any significant military build up. Syria is currently dependent on funding from SA and Iran. Syria will find those funds drying up, and will become far more cooperative in combating terror. Egypt will also find itself being squeezed by both US funding controls and the cut off of support from SA and Iran.

We partition SA into Eastern and Western Saudi Arabia. We move the Wahabi's to Western SA, where Mecca/Medina are, and move the more *normal* Saudi technocrats east to where the oil is. Secure the border, and everybody's happy. We deal with rational Saudi's for their oil, and the Wahabi's are left in splendid isolation to do whatever they want to themselves. But they won't have access to petrodollars to use in a terror war against us.

It's really a brilliant long term, albeit, high risk strategy, but the only moral one. It will solve the problem without killing *too* many arabs. Not doing anything means the Islamic Terrorists will continue to try until make the big score (nuke a US city), which will piss off America enough to nuke the whole middle east, which means we, the USA, would exceed the current genocide record (100 million in the 20th Century, held by the commies). Not something we want in the ol' history books.

Why isn't the administration explaining this to you (and thus to the rest of the arab world)? You don't explain to a chess opponent how you plan to defeat them. Explaining to the American people means the whole world knows what we're up to and thus the bad guys will know what to do to block us.

If Allah loves the Arabs, he'll let this plan succeed. The alternative will be an eventual boodbath unparalleled in human history. The West will not put up with the current state of affairs forever. There *will* be blowback (The New,Improved Crusades, now with Nuclear Goodness)

There are good, honorable people working very hard to avoid the *bad* scenario cited above. But it's still going to cost us money and blood. Such is history.
-------

It also shows that Bush draws the subtle distinction between the personal faith of Islam and the political ideology of Islamism (or militant Islam).

a distinction without a difference.
All islamics support the planet wide sharia, the world wide ummah and the eventual forced "submission" of all to allah, mohammet and the koran... upon pain of death or lifelong slavery.

that includes the moderates. ask a "moderate" you'll see.

the only muslim that does not support the worldwide subjugation of infidels... are non praticing ones.

that is, they are muslims by inheritance only.

ONLY THEY do not support the ever expanding world of the suppressed infidels and dhimmis. It is the defining of their religion at its most basic core. If you don't support the eventual domination of the world by sharia, you are NOT a practicing muslim.

If one ever was a muslim and they reject sharia for the rest of the planet, that one has in fact, become and infidel... or kufr... according to the whole body of muslims.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.