Pages: 1 2
One can only wonder how the Obama administration would consider a two-state solution the antidote to the increasing aggression of Iran against its Arab neighbors.
Another unfounded assumption the president makes regarding Islamic terror was revealed in a June 4 speech in Cairo, Egypt where he said that “the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.” This harkens back to the idea that, because an advanced society is considered “hostile,” Muslim terrorists are largely primitive.
Such an assessment does not remotely square with the facts. Many terrorists have come from wealthy families, have studied at Western Universities and have exploited many aspects of modern technology: the use of popular websites to spread their jihadist ideology; the manufacture of remote-controlled IEDs that kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; the use computers to identify and analyze possible terror targets; and most recently, a collaboration between terrorist bomb-makers and terrorist surgeons in the attempt to create internal cavity explosive devices which elude even the most sophisticated detection devices at airports around the world. Hardly the picture of discontented cave-dwelling primitives the Obama administration portrays as the chief perpetrators of Muslim terror.
Yet in fairness to the president, there is one fundamental aspect of modernity Muslims do indeed reject: they reject government based on reason, science and individualism, in favor of one where divine revelation interpreted by the religious ruling elites demands collective adherence to Koranic scripture. Such is the essence of Sharia Law, and one suspects that such a worldview is favored by far more Muslims than those merely associated with terror. What percentage of Muslims? Perhaps the ultimate question that should be posed to so-called moderate Muslims is this:
If a Muslim Caliphate could be imposed upon the entire word without terrorism, would you be in favor of such a development, or not?
The Obama administration–and again in fairness, the Bush administration as well–have done their utmost to make sure such a question never gets asked. This effort is underscored by the determination of both administrations to expunge certain expressions from the government lexicon regarding Islamic terror. With respect to the Bush administration, United Press international reported on May 6, 2008 that ”U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which ‘unintentionally legitimize’ terrorism.” With respect to the Obama administration, Fox News reported on April 7, 2010 that “President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as ‘Islamic extremism’ from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism.”
Thus, both administrations have sought to placate what they view as the “great middle” of the Islamic world–without ever finding out if that great middle actually exists in anything other than the hopeful minds of Western government officials.
Certainly most Western nations would prefer to believe that we are engaged in a limited conflict with a relatively small group disgruntled malcontents, rather than a “clash of civilizations” with an entire religion. Yet isn’t the essence of national security to hope for the best–even as we prepare for the worst case scenario? One would like to think that behind the Obama administration’s public facade of accommodation and outreach towards the Muslim world, there exists are far more jaundiced view of radical and not-so-racial Islam, necessitated by those national security considerations. Unfortunately the information contained in Wikileaks release reveals a decided lack of circumspection by this administration.
How that accrues to American interests is beyond this writer’s comprehension.
Arnold Ahlert is a contributing columnist to the conservative website JewishWorldReview.com.
Pages: 1 2