Terror & Candor

[Thomas Paine]

Charles Krauthammer
July 2, 2010
Terror — and Candor
The administration’s denial of “radical Islam” is dangerous, dishonest, and demoralizing.

The Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square attacker. On May 13, the following exchange occurred at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:

Rep. Lamar Smith (R.,Texas): Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

Attorney General Eric Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . . .
–
Smith: Okay, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people—

Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.

Potentially, mind you. This went on until the questioner gave up in exasperation.

A similar question arose last week in U.S. District Court when Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square attacker, pleaded guilty. Explained Shahzad: “One has to understand where I’m coming from. . . . I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

Well, that is clarifying. As was the self-printed business card of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, identifying himself as “SoA”: Soldier of Allah.

Holder’s avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms “jihadist,” “Islamist,” and “Islamic terrorism.”

Instead, 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.

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 supposedly 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.

Churchill famously mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. But his greatness lay not just in eloquence but in his appeal to the moral core of a decent people to rise against an ideology the nature of which Churchill never hesitated to define and describe — and to pronounce (“Nahhhhzzzzi”) in an accent dripping with loathing and contempt.

No one is asking Obama or Holder to match Churchill’s rhetoric — just Shahzad’s candor.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

LINK:
http://article.nationalreview.com/43...es-krauthammer

[Ambush Master]

Why are so MANY so BLIND to what is happening?!?!?!

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

Why are so MANY so BLIND to what is happening?!?!?!

Because to address it head-on might require risk, responsibility, and sacrifice; i.e., personal commitment outside the ordinary American's comfort (complacency) zone.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

Why are so MANY so BLIND to what is happening?!?!?!

It's called WILLFUL BLINDNESS.

And you can read about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Willful-Blindn.../dp/1594032130

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

It's called WILLFUL BLINDNESS.

And you can read about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Willful-Blindn.../dp/1594032130

Willful, yes indeed.

The implications of accepting the attitudes of SoA and "sudden jihadist syndrome" completely destroys the idea of appeasement that our government and the liberal left is deluded in to thinking will be effective.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Krauthammer Piece

In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms “jihadist,” “Islamist,” and “Islamic terrorism.”

Why is this important? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy.

It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency,

We are at war in two Middle Eastern Countries, in a predominantly Islamic region. Our enemies are desperately trying to paint this conflict as a religious war. I would defer to the folks here who are actually fighting this war, but to win, and achieve our primary goal of US national security, aren't we competing for the hearts and minds and confidence of the civilian populations there, who are Muslims? At the point and time the populace swings our way the insurgency is dead, as dead as Mao's fish in a hostile sea. We have troops working in Afghan villages with the people and elders to secure their tribes and regions, isn't it tough enough as it is to win their trust? The insurgents are barbarous thugs but not stupid. They would like nothing better than to show the villages, see the Americans are lying to you, this is how their leaders actually feel about Islam in DC. You can specify "radical" or "extremist" but they will only hear or be told "Islam".

We do know who our enemy is, AQ and the extremist violent insurgents, we have to be very precise in identifying and eliminating them and only them, or we will not achieve our goals.

So, while Obama is a zero, and turds like Hasan etc should be terminated with extreme prejudice, I don't think a Republican administration would take this bait either given the circumstances. When I think of our troops overseas in those mountains, they are the ones who have it tough, inflammatory rhetoric isn't going to help them one bit.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

Why are so MANY so BLIND to what is happening?!?!?!

While there are several excellent answers already posted, I would suggest something just a bit stronger. Nobody wants to hear bad news.

Even if the situation requires nothing of the individual - no risk or sacrifice at all - people pointedly do not want to hear it.

In support of my statement, watch any major network's national evening news. Look at it from the perspective of communicating information that has importance. You will see something about the BP problem - but nothing too uncomfortable. There will be some oiled and dying wildlife, carefully offset with confident predictions of cleanups and encouraging stories of rescued wildlife. Then there will be a piece on the economy, balanced with a discussion of hopeful signs and future progress. There is the obligatory heart-warming story. There is very little (if anything) about the more difficult issues our society faces.

Unfortunately, I believe this implies that the vast majority will be surprised by coming events. The Islamic expansion is, at least partly, based in demographics. They have a rapidly expanding young population. The developed countries in the west have a stable and aging population. This creates an environment conducive to Islamic expansion completely aside from other factors.

We might ask ourselves a question I often reflect on. (Rhetorical!) What happens if Nmap's gloom 'n doom is right, and global GDP declines? What if food availability declines? What happens in places with huge populations bent on expansion?

[T-Rock]

Our enemies are desperately trying to paint this conflict as a religious war. I would defer to the folks here who are actually fighting this war, but to win, and achieve our primary goal of US national security, aren't we competing for the hearts and minds and confidence of the civilian populations there, who are Muslims?

Has victory ever been achieved through Dhimmitude

[akv]

Originally Posted by T Rock

Has victory ever been achieved through Dhimmitude

T-Rock,

I'm curious is the strategy that Major Gant was advocating in Afghanistan Dhimmitude? Is our entire COIN strategy in Afghanistan and the things we did in Iraq Dhimmitude?

Given your views on the topic, though I am grateful for your service, things may be frustrating for you in the future since "Dhimmitude" or not we are not going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and just nuke the entire Middle East. If not COIN or the "Dhimmitude" of the one village at a time, could you please enlighten me on the strategy we should take?

[T-Rock]

Given your views on the topic, things may be frustrating for you in the future...

I think you're spot on with your assessment, frustrating indeed....and no, I don't have the complete answer, - but I think that what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working...

Can the heart and mind of a fanatic like Nidal Hasan be won over, or multitudes like him

Whats the Answer?

IMO, we are woefully behind in the media war/campaign, and the "strategery" path we started from, was one of a false premise... IMO, a good start would be, or would have been to recognize that Mainstream Islam is the problem, and just like Nazism, fascism, and communism, Islamic ideology/culture is not compatible with liberal democracy...

My line of thinking tracks with that of Hugh Fitzgerald and Colonel Allen West. We need a strategy, "one that, being based on the truth, will prove to be the most effective"

> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/fi...-nonsense.html

[akv]

Originally Posted by T Rock

I think you're spot on with your assessment, frustrating indeed....and no, I don't have the complete answer, - but I think that what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working...

Can the heart and mind of a fanatic like Nidal Hasan be won over, or multitudes like him

I'm not sure if what we are doing is working either, IMHO for the simple reason when the enemy knows you are leaving in a year, the Taliban can simply wait us out. Our guys on the ground there have told us the tribe is the most important cultural unit out there. They have shown us it's not easy, but Major Gant went into that Afghan village with deference and respect for the people and elders, at the same time he demonstrated the proven fighting ability of the US soldier, and was accepted by them, man to man despite differences in culture and religion for his candor and ability, to the point where the Chief assured his father not a hair on his head would be harmed in Afghanistan. That is powerful stuff, if that can be replicated the insurgency is toast.

I don't know if it can, on the flip side however the Russians had no ROE controversy, they could be as brutal as they wanted, it seems they tried to terrorize the population into submission, and the net effect was unity against them, unless they killed every single Afghan they could not win, and they lost. The goal here is to ensure this country is never again a haven for an attack on America, if we can help the Afghan people along the way, great. FWIW I share your frustrations, I fear if we fail here history will repeat and the next 9/11 could be nuclear.

A fanatic like Hasan or multitudes like him plotting or engaged in violence against us, they just got to go, there is no other solution. I will read the stuff you mentioned by Mr. Fitzgerald and Col. West.