Posted on 07/01/2006 7:08:45 AM PDT by gunnyg
From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/943 [The Need to Name and] Know Thy Terrorists
by Daniel Pipes New York Post November 19, 2002
Has anyone noticed the difference in the way America's two wars are approached?
When the subject is Iraq, the U.S. government is proactive, articulate and specific. But when it comes to militant Islam, officialdom is reactive, awkward and vague.
Take the issue of preventive security. To stop Iraqi sabotage and terrorism, The New York Times recently reported, Washington tracks thousands of Iraqi citizens and Iraqi-Americans who might pose a domestic risk. It even has plans in place to arrest Saddam Hussein's sympathizers suspected of planning terrorist operations.
No comparable program exists in the war against militant Islam. (I define militant Islam as not Islam, not terrorism, but a terroristic reading of Islam). Fearful of being accused of "profiling," law enforcement treads super gingerly around those who back this totalitarian ideology. Thus, the airline security system randomly harasses passengers instead of looking for travelers known to sympathize with the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden. Immigration officials focus on superficial characteristics (nationality, criminal record) and ignore what is truly relevant (ideology).
The White House would not consider inviting apologists praising life in Iraq to festive functions. But it welcomed many of militant Islam's sympathizers at a Ramadan dinner hosted by the president earlier this month.
Or consider this: When did you last hear praise for Saddam's regime on an American television talk show? It does not happen. But media outlets routinely offer a platform to those promoting militant Islam.
If "war on Iraq" is easy to say, "war on militant Islam" is not. Instead, the Bush administration adopted the euphemistic "War on Terror."
Why the readiness to confront Iraq head-on but reluctance to do so when it concerns militant Islam?
Because militant Islam benefits from two factors - political correctness and lobbying - that Saddam lacks. Iraq is a country ruled by an obviously evil megalomaniac. Militant Islam is an ideology grounded in a major religion. Saddam has few supporters in the United States; the Islamist vision has many convincing spokesmen.
Although everyone knows the enemy is motivated in something having to do with Islam, the United States and other governments refuse to say this out loud. Instead, they repeat pleasant statements disassociating the religion of Islam from violence.
Here is President Bush on the subject some days ago: "Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others." Fine, but that completely avoids the tough issues facing his administration.
Not acknowledging militant Islam impedes the war effort in several ways:
* Understanding the enemy's motives: A virtual taboo exists in official circles about Islam's role in the violence; in the words of one senior State Department official, this subject "has to be tiptoed around." As a result, the violence is treated as though it comes out of nowhere, the work of (in Bush's description) "a bunch of cold-blooded killers." * Defining war goals: The U.S. government's stated objectives in the war are operationally vague - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once described them as preventing terrorists "from adversely affecting our way of life." Only by naming militant Islam as the enemy is it possible to see the goal of defeating and marginalizing this ideology (along the lines of what was done to fascism and communism in World War II and in the Cold War). * Defining the enemy: Right now, it's just "terrorists," "evildoers," "a dangerous group of people" and other non-specific monikers. Naming militant Islam as the enemy reveals that the problem goes beyond terrorists to include those who in non-violent ways forward the totalitarian agenda - this includes its funders, preachers, apologists and lobbyists. * Defining the allies: Allies are currently restricted to those who help prevent terrorism. Naming militant Islam clarifies the ideological dimension and points to the crucial role of Muslims who reject this radical utopian ideology. They can both help argue against it and then offer an alternate to it.
A war cannot be won without identifying the enemy. If the U.S. government intends to prevail in the current conflict, it must start talking about the war against militant Islam. This will then make it possible for others - the media, Hollywood, even academics - to do likewise. At that point, both war efforts will be on the right footing.
From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/943
If Islam is our enemy just say so--don't confuse the issue w/bs words like radical Islam,political Islam, etc.
Recall that our WW II was a declared war--our last, btw--and we didn't declare war on the Japanese and German armies, the SS, and/or any other naughty individuals or groups. Nobody worried about the casualties of non-combatants from Doolittle's raid thru The Big Ones in Aug '45--not to mention Germany.
The time is long past due to get off the pot.
Yeah, I know the problems involved w/our own homegrown enemies within, an Congress, etc. betcha if they perceived this as bad news for their own new world order goals, they would be on it like stink on sh!t!
Gee.... Aren't they doing so? /sarcasm
Ibn Warriq pointed out that Daniel Pipes feels he has to use such stuff as moderate Islam and extremist Islam because the media would put a complete blackout on Daniel Pipes as they have Ibn Warriq and Daniel Bostom.
Pipes is brilliant. He knows, haveing studied the mideast for decades the exact nature of what we face. The dang administration sure could benefit from his wise and clarion teachings. I know I did decades ago. Wake up America.
"Ibn Warriq pointed out that Daniel Pipes feels he has to use such stuff as moderate Islam and extremist Islam because the media would put a complete blackout on Daniel Pipes as they have Ibn Warriq and Daniel Bostom."
~~~~~
Yeh--I see that problem....but apparently everybody else is afraid to even acknowledge the problem. They just want to fall back on the fact that we haven't been hit again since 9/11.
Of course not--had we been hit again the people as well as the politicians would be screaming for answers--the enemy is playing us like a violin!
After reading you post, I'm beginning to see your point; however, I wish we would have such clear voices against the nature of Qu'ran by such inciteful analyst as Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer.
Religion may be their pretext... but it's really nothing more than the evil present in all of us... given free rein by those too cowardly to denounce it.
I thought this sounded familiar. It's from 2002
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.