In an exercise of post-modernist self-denial, Fox News reported that John Brennan, the WH counterterrorism advisor, claims Al Qaeda is not Islamic and that we shouldn't refer to terrorists as jihadists because "jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam." He believes associating them with Islam is counterproductive:
"Moreover, 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," he said.
While most Americans do not wish to go to war with all Muslims, and we know that these jihadist groups do not represent all Muslims, pointing out there is a connection between political Islam and terrorism is not anti-Muslim. It's an objective observation of some of the dynamics in the Middle East that the sooner we recognize and speak honestly about, the more effectively we're able to formulate a foreign policy that de-legitimizes these ideologies, just as we waged and won an ideological war over Communism. We need to take care not to conflate it with all of Islam, but we must identify the major threads to spark an honest discussion of it. It'll be tough to do given Arab societies operate mostly as an honor society, not prone to self-refection or constructive criticism.
John Brennan may think by cleverly disassociating Islam with Al Qaeda or any terrorist organization, he is in fact sapping those groups of their Islamic credentials. But his incorrect diagnosis of the problem disarms counterterrorist analysts of the tools they need to identify potential threats to the US. Where does one focus their analytical efforts if there is no connection between Islam, jihad, and terrorism? Brennan names Al Qadea and their affiliates as our enemy, and that's a start, but should we not be proactive in identifying other potential jihadist threats rather than be solely reactive to an unquestionably important, but known variable? What about examining certain mosques not affiliated with Al Qaeda that may be the hotbed of Islamic extremism?
Moreover, what's dangerous about this view is that it reinforces in many Muslims that there is no need to scrutinize how commonly held interpretations of Islamic law can lead the terrorists to commit such acts. Jihad Watch refutes the myth there is no connection with jihad does not connate warfare:
It doesn't just "connote" warfare. It juridically means warfare, according to Islamic texts and teachings. There is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.
Jihad Watch goes on to list the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence and summarizes their interpretation of jihad.
But according to Brennan, there is no association with Islam and you see, the 9-11 highjackers, most of who were well-educated and came from middle class families, since violent extremists are really victims of forces outside their control:
During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."
While Brennan is trying to tamp down on the perception in many Muslim countries that the west is engaged in a war against Islam, he ends up completely inverting moral logic by calling extremists "victims." Additionally, by denying any connection with political Islam and terrorism, he ignores the dynamics that will enable many more Arabs to be brought up believing jihad is warfare against non-Muslims. Ignoring these dynamics will not simply make them go away. It's an exercise in avoidance; denial has a way of eventually coming home to roost.
Another observation: Brennan has gone native, and has drank the multi-cultural propaganda kool-aid. He started out his career as a political officer in Saudi Arabia, and his spent much of his CIA time in southwest Asia, becoming the Middle East station chief in 1996. He's asserted that American Muslims are "100% behind US anti-terrorism efforts" (what about the shooter at Ft Hood? The Times square bomber? The underwear bomber?). He even called Jerusalem "Al Quds" at a WH sponsored event at the Islamic Center at New York University. While he was undoubtedly trying to ingratiate himself with his Muslim audience, by calling Jerusalem "Al Quds," he associates Jerusalem with Muslim ownership of it.
While all of the above is more than enough to question his objectivity as the chief counterterroism advisor to the President, perhaps what's more problematic is his penchant for making dubious statements for the purposes of political damage control such as his assertion that Gitmo recidivism rates at "twenty percent is not that bad," when he compared terrorism with rank and file crimes and the recidivism rate in American judicial system. He also tried to disingenuously smear Congressional Republicans over their criticism of why the underwear bomber last Christmas was read his Miranda rights, and leaked information that the suspect was cooperating just after FBI Director Robert Muller told Sen Kit Bond (R) that it was essential to keep his cooperation secret so they could carry out other counter-terrorist actions. When Brennan steps out in public and speaks of terrorism, he owes the American people straight-talk about the threat this country faces. Yet he seems only interested in putting out political spin.
Brennan has a long and distinguished career within the intelligence community, but as we've seen, he's very much a politically motivated animal. This, combined with his unwillingness to see any connection between Islam and Al Qadea or any other jihadi-inspired terrorist groups, calls into his question his competence. The President must get an objective analysis of our adversaries, even if it's in contradiction to his world view. He requires this in order to ably defend this nation. John Brennan has shown himself to be a political hack. The sooner the Obama administration gets rid of him, the better. If they keep him on, I can only assume it's because he's a sycophant reflective of the administration's own views.
No comments:
Post a Comment