Obama at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"

[SF-TX]

From Robert Spencer:

Obama at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"

This argument has been going on for years. We have addressed it here many times. What Obama's approach essentially amounts to is an attempt to pretend that things are other than what they are. As such, Obama's approach is doomed to fail. "Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam,'" by Rowan Scarborough in the Washington Times, July 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.

Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."

In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."

Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech."

Larry Korb, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said Mr. Brennan is correct to avoid linking Islam to terrorism.

"Once you attach a religious thing, you're basically saying somehow or other this is caused by the religion," Mr. Korb said. "Most Muslims are not that way."

He added, "If you put that term [Islamic terrorist] on there, it causes you more problems in the long run. You don't want to see this as a war on quote unquote the Muslim world. If I took a look at all the people, for example, who killed abortion doctors and I said they're Christian terrorists, or something like that, and they are all who have done that. That is their interpretation of the Bible. But most people are not. Some of these people will quote the Bible and say I had to go after this doctor because he's killing innocents."

Over 15,000 Islamic jihad attacks since 9/11. Half a dozen abortionists killed. No mainstream Christian sect endorses murdering abortionists. No Islamic school of jurisprudence doesn't teach jihad and Islamic supremacism.

Asked how to define the enemy, Mr. Korb answered, "Al Qaeda. That's what we went in there for."

Mr. Brennan said that describing the enemy as Islamists "would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims."...

But of course, they portray themselves as religious leaders defending a holy cause, and they are widely perceived as such among Muslims, and have Islamic texts and teachings to establish their case. Is it really wise to pretend that that isn't the case?

The Petraeus counterinsurgency manual takes the position that, to understand the enemy, commanders must recognize terrorist links to Islam -- its leaders in some cases, its fundraising and its infrastructure. Forces must fight "Islamic extremists," it says, differently from the Viet Cong or followers of Saddam Hussein.

"Islamic extremists use perceived threats to their religion by outsiders to mobilize support for their insurgency and justify terrorist tactics," the manual states.

In a section on the ideological source for Islamic terrorists, the doctrine says, "For many Muslims, the Caliphate produces a positive image of the golden age of Islamic civilization. This image mobilizes support for al Qaeda among some of the most traditional Muslims while concealing the details of the movement's goal. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders envision the 'restored Caliphate' as a totalitarian state similar to the pre-2002 Taliban regime in Afghanistan."

The manual also discusses support networks for "Islamic extremists:"

"A feature of today's operational environment deserving mention is the effort by Islamic extremists, including those that advocate violence, to spread their influence through the funding and use of entities that share their views or facilitate them to varying degrees. These entities may or may not be threats themselves; however, they can provide passive or active support to local or distant insurgencies."

Among these support groups, it says, are "religious schools and mosques." [...]

That is simply and demonstrably true. What advantage do we gain by ignoring it?

"If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are," Muneer Fareed, who then headed the Islamic Society of North America, told The Washington Times....

ISNA has links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Brennan, in a June 24 meeting with reporters and editors of The Times, said that the administration's goal of not describing al Qaeda and its allies in Islamic terms is aimed at denying them legitimacy.

A 2008 U.S. Central Command "Red Team" report, or contrarian analysis, warned that divorcing Islam from jihadist terrorism is a mistake.

"The sources of Islam (Quran, Hadith, Shariah) claim divine origin and include a large body of Islamic jurisprudence on warfare that is detailed, instructive and directive," the report said. "A balanced, intellectually critical approach must be taken in order to deconstruct the prime underpinnings and language of the concept of jihad, which rest firmly in the sources of Islam and not solely as contrivances within the criminal minds of a small number of violent extremists."

Posted by Robert on July 12, 2010 2:07 PM

Source

[Green Light]

Obama at odds with Petraeus over identifying enemy as "Islamic"

He can say that Americans are clinging to their religion and their guns, but you can't say the same thing about the enemy? Our president is one of three things: a moron, a bigot, or a stooge for the other side.

[Peregrino]

Or a bigotted moron stooging for the other side.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Or a bigotted moron stooging for the other side.

I will go with this option.

[T-Rock]

Larry Korb {anti-Iraq war pundit, who works for a left wing pro-Democrat think tank}, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said...

That's an interesting think tank Korb works for, serving as principal advisers to the Obama administration...

"The Center for American Progress" > George Soros, Morton Halperin, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, Harold Ickes, Debbie Berger, Sandy Burglar, "Media Matters"
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6709


IMO, Obama, Holder, Soros, Clinton, and "The Center for American Progress" (the Soros gang) are the real "Man Made Disasters" of our lifetime who are not cognizant enough to recognize Islam as an enemy of freedom.

[The Reaper]

What will America's epitaph be?

"They lacked the moral courage as a people to identify and speak the name of those who would kill them, much less to take the necessary measures to assure their own safety, and that of their children. Here they lie, after being subjugated and enslaved."

I prefer to go down fighting.

TR

[Thomas Paine]

Nice avatar T-Rock.

Cynical Voice of Arabic Muslim Critic of the US:
"The United States thinks they're so great.
The United States could land a man on the moon.
But could they land a Muhammed on the moon?
I think not!"


You may have single-handedly just solved the Israeli Palestinian problem...send them to the moon.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Spencer Piece

The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives."

Asked how to define the enemy, Mr. Korb answered, "Al Qaeda. That's what we went in there for."

That is simply and demonstrably true. What advantage do we gain by ignoring it?

SF-TX,

IMHO Obama is on his own side only, and will go down as the worst POTUS to date.

My question for Mr. Spencer is on the contrary, what do we gain by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House? Domestically, the FBI should still be tracking down the same subversive elements. Overseas our troops will still carry out the COIN mission, and must kill the same insurgents, extremists, and subversives, with or without the Islamist prefix whether we call them Afghans, Islamists, Pathans or Pashtuns. I don't know what a US Central Command "Red Team" report entails, I do however know a recurring theme from successful military commanders is to trust the men on the ground. The message I'm reading from such men, Major Gant for example, is the tribe is their most powerful cultural tie, yet Islam is the predominant faith in that part of the world, shared by both those we are trying to win over and those we must terminate. A general rule of thumb in polite company is avoid talk of politics or religion, this is well beyond that as you know, a brutal war of insurgency. If we need to secure the trust of the villages to beat the insurgency and win this war, how does criticizing their shared faith help anyone but the enemy? If I interpreted Major Gant's paper correctly, These villagers don't want to hear our critique of Islamists any more than they believe a strong central government will fix everything. AQ preys on Muslims the most.

Let's say Mr. Spencer got his wish. Zero wakes up one morning and blasts Islamists from the pulpit, While Nancy Pelosi keeps jumping out of her chair clapping like a rabid seal, and Joe Biden goes on the record with "kebabs give me gas". Personally I would feel better, Right On! However, any satisfaction I derive from this, should be subordinate, and rightly so, to any potential difficulty our troops going in to secure these potentially hostile villages incur from such statements by our government.

Sir, isn't our mission in Afghanistan and the GWOT to destroy AQ, and any Taliban/insurgents who support them. Why do we need to say anything beyond this? Is the key variable here our rhetoric or giving our troops the time and resources they need to accomplish this mission?

[T-Rock]

Nice avatar T-Rock.

Thanks Mr. Paine - was going to call him "Muzz Lightyear" but the name's already taken by rage boy

> http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/jus...reach-program/

[T-Rock]

My question for Mr. Spencer is on the contrary, what do we gain by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House?

Islamic Reformation - a vast and dangerous challenge, but one that is required if we ever hope to scale down the rising tide of Islamic Terrorism.

Like most all tyrannical ideologies, its first target is free speech, without criticism, how can a radical ideology change?

What do we gain by government enforcing Sharia, and an Administration hell-bent on assaulting the first amendment?

Does enforcing Sharia take precedence over the Constitution?

IMHO, as Spencer and others have proposed, the only hope for an inkling of reformation to occur in Islam is sustained critical scrutiny, educating the masses of the myths of Islam, undercutting the claims of Islams divine sanction, and exposing the limits of Islams wisdom. It will take centuries, do we have the time?


"Until you get pricipled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives....and then, come up with the right and proper goals and objectives to not only secure our Republic, but to secure western civilization"
~Lieutenant Colonel Allen West~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k

[Saoirse]

Originally Posted by akv

SF-TX,

IMHO Obama is on his own side only, and will go down as the worst POTUS to date.

My question for Mr. Spencer is on the contrary, what do we gain by inflammatory rhetoric from the White House? Domestically, the FBI should still be tracking down the same subversive elements. Overseas our troops will still carry out the COIN mission, and must kill the same insurgents, extremists, and subversives, with or without the Islamist prefix whether we call them Afghans, Islamists, Pathans or Pashtuns. I don't know what a US Central Command "Red Team" report entails, I do however know a recurring theme from successful military commanders is to trust the men on the ground. The message I'm reading from such men, Major Gant for example, is the tribe is their most powerful cultural tie, yet Islam is the predominant faith in that part of the world, shared by both those we are trying to win over and those we must terminate. A general rule of thumb in polite company is avoid talk of politics or religion, this is well beyond that as you know, a brutal war of insurgency. If we need to secure the trust of the villages to beat the insurgency and win this war, how does criticizing their shared faith help anyone but the enemy? If I interpreted Major Gant's paper correctly, These villagers don't want to hear our critique of Islamists any more than they believe a strong central government will fix everything. AQ preys on Muslims the most.

Let's say Mr. Spencer got his wish. Zero wakes up one morning and blasts Islamists from the pulpit, While Nancy Pelosi keeps jumping out of her chair clapping like a rabid seal, and Joe Biden goes on the record with "kebabs give me gas". Personally I would feel better, Right On! However, any satisfaction I derive from this, should be subordinate, and rightly so, to any potential difficulty our troops going in to secure these potentially hostile villages incur from such statements by our government.

Sir, isn't our mission in Afghanistan and the GWOT to destroy AQ, and any Taliban/insurgents who support them. Why do we need to say anything beyond this? Is the key variable here our rhetoric or giving our troops the time and resources they need to accomplish this mission?

I do not see islam as a religion but more as an ideology.

Religion:a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

Groups like the taliban and aq rely on the fact that the good majority of these villagers that help US and others are very ignorant and illiterate. Their knowledge of the quran is only what the imams teach them. They are not allowed to question or critique. So wouldn't it be helpful to them and US to teach them? And if by teaching them, there is critique, then so be it. Trying to negate the use of the word islam or muslim when it comes to describing these terrorists...aq and taliban is like saying that the garbage man is not picking up the garbage. One cannot negate the fact that these terrorist(s) acts committed are done by muslims. Look at the terrorist from Time Square with the carbomb that didn't explode...the slimeball media was soooo scared to even mention that he was a muslim, they were hoping he was some angry white guy who was a vet and had joined a Tea Party.
Mr. Spencer is very well known and very well respected. His knowledge of islam is deep and trustworthy. And because he has the courage to speak out against the atrocities that are committed in the name of islam, he is under constant death threat. Not to mention many of our soldiers who have had bounties placed on their heads for doing their jobs to fight in A-Stan and Iraq.

As for me..I have no problem calling a duck a duck, if it walks and quacks like one.

[MK262]

Islam isn't the problem. Sick, evil mother f****** who use Islam as a rallying cry for their political agenda are the problem.

Robert Spencer and his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades wouldn't know scholarly writing if it bit him in the ass.

I have no problem in making the connection that our enemies use Islam and consider themselves acting upon it's behalf. But for us to give legitimacy to them doing so is not only stupid, it is actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

To some how imply that our enemies are "being true to the 'real' Islam", and that the moderates are just "bad Muslims", only supports the wrong side in an ideological struggle we must win.

Furthermore, people's tendency to lump all of Islam, or all Muslims into the same category, as being all the same, or all working from the same sheet of music, will eventually alienate the moderate muslims into the radical camp, and cause us to lose vital allies we need in fighting these bastards.

YMMV

[T-Rock]

Islam isn't the problem. Sick, evil mother f****** who use Islam as a rallying cry for their political agenda are the problem.

What part of Islamic doctrine, codified by Islamic Sharia Law, are those sick, evil mother f****** violating ?

I do think the people, the average Muslim, deserves to be separated from Islamic ideology, similar to the separation of average Germans vs Nazis.

[Saoirse]

Originally Posted by MK262

Islam isn't the problem. Sick, evil mother f****** who use Islam as a rallying cry for their political agenda are the problem.

Robert Spencer and his Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades wouldn't know scholarly writing if it bit him in the ass.I have no problem in making the connection that our enemies use Islam and consider themselves acting upon it's behalf. But for us to give legitimacy to them doing so is not only stupid, it is actively giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
To some how imply that our enemies are "being true to the 'real' Islam", and that the moderates are just "bad Muslims", only supports the wrong side in an ideological struggle we must win.

Furthermore, people's tendency to lump all of Islam, or all Muslims into the same category, as being all the same, or all working from the same shit of music, will eventually alienate the moderate muslims into the radical camp, and cause us to lose vital allies we need in fighting these bastards.

YMMV

What exactly makes you more of an expert on islam than Mr. Spencer? Do you know anything about the man to make such a statement?

How is that giving aid and comfort to the enemy? I see denying that islam is on a holy jihad against anyone not FOR THEM, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Moderate muslim? What exactly is a moderate muslim?

Let me ask you this, at the end of the day who do you think they will choose a loyalty to? You, their faithful friend who they go drinking with on the weekend? Or their ideology? Hhhmm?

[akv]

Originally Posted by T-Rock

What do we gain by government enforcing Sharia, and an Administration hell-bent on assaulting the first amendment?

Does enforcing Sharia take precedence over the Constitution?

IMHO, as Spencer and others have proposed, the only hope for an inkling of reformation to occur in Islam is sustained critical scrutiny, educating the masses of the myths of Islam, undercutting the claims of Islams divine sanction, and exposing the limits of Islams wisdom. It will take centuries, do we have the time?

T-Rock,

This administration will pass, and no Sharia absolutely does not take precedence over the constitution, nor should it ever. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our republic. Islam like any faith will either evolve or perish, yes it will take time, but centuries? Japan outlawed war and is among the most peaceful pacifist nations on the planet. It took time, but what happened to the Feudal Bushido code, suicide attacks, blind ideological devotion to the emperor, was it centuries? Japanese kids run around now with orange hair, eat Mcdonalds and listen to bad music just like American kids. If you recall we had to nuke them twice to surrender. The Japanese started a fight they couldn't win in 1941, and their culture was reformed as a result, that's nature the dominant culture wins out. Just as the Roman's exported their culture centuries ago. If Islam is incompatible with secular democracy, how does one explain away Turkey since Ataturk? Not a perfect place, but a secular democracy since 1923, people are herds animals, and will follow a strong leader for better or for worse. There are synagogues and Churches there, women are doctors and lawyers with rights and education, were it not for the adhan, you could easily think you were in Greece or Italy. Lets say the Republic of Turkey is overthrown, this would be be bad, but the existence of a secular Muslim democracy for 87 years is proof it is possible.

So IMHO it will take time yes, but centuries no. Not once the people get a taste of rights, education and freedoms. The one wildcard, the one game changing threat is nuclear proliferation by our enemies. An EMP attack or One Second After scenario is the one threat we can't simply spoil away.