U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman is calling out the Obama administration for its decision to shun the phrases "Islamic extremism" and "jihadist" in references to terrorism.
Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, wrote to White House Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan Friday calling the omission dishonest and counterproductive: "The failure to identify your enemy for what it is – violent Islamist extremism – is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to 'know your enemy.' Knowing your enemy is the essence of the craft of intelligence as taught by the father of U.S. intelligence analysis, Sherman Kent, and exemplified by you during your decades of distinguished service in the U.S. Intelligence Community. Accurately identifying our enemies is critical to understanding their motivations, capabilities, and tactics – and to countering them effectively and defeating them decisively."
Lieberman reiterated his point during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, when he said the policy, aimed at cultivating relations with Muslims around the world, could backfire:
"We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."
The decision to avoid references to religious motivation among Islamist terrorist groups extends a policy initiated during the Bush administration. We wondered at the time where such a policy has succeeded. It remains an open question.
In his letter, Lieberman noted his support for expanding America efforts to build better relations with Muslim nations through economic and political outreach. As the Washington Times noted in a weekend editorial, however, "the National Security Strategy is not some kind of outreach initiative, it is the framing document for America's global safety. The United States cannot effectively combat the root causes of Islamic extremism by ignoring them."
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arlene Kushner
Date: Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM
April 7, 2010
"Naming the Enemy"
I think it was anti-terrorist Steve Emerson who said this (and possibly Daniel Pipes as well): You cannot defeat the enemy if you cannot even name him.
This was with reference to Obama policies, which have just taken a turn for the worse with regard to naming the enemy. All religious terms such as "jihad" and "Islamic extremism" will now be removed from a central US document outlining America's national security strategy.
That document, which was established during the Bush years, currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." It will be rewritten so that Muslim nations know that the US does not view them within the context of terrorism. How the strategy for establishing security will be described without reference to the ideology of radical Islam beats me.
An inability to recognize and confront the ideology of the leaders of such nations as Iran, an unwillingness to grasp the fact that they are serious about world domination and a new Islamic caliphate, puts the US at a severe disadvantage.
I want to say, "Heaven help the US." But in truth, because what the US does impacts internationally, it's "Heaven help all of us."
~~~~~~~~~~
And Heaven help us for another reason, as well.
According to David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post, Obama is "'seriously considering' proposing an American peace plan to resolve the Palestinian conflict, according to two top administration officials."
According to one of the senior officials, "an American plan, if launched, would build upon past progress on such issues as borders, the 'right of return' for Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. The second senior official said that '90 percent of the map would look the same' as what has been agreed in previous bargaining."
This is the first place where there is a serious problem. Obama and company are assuming that we have to pick up where previous negotiations left off. But we do not and we must not.
Does no one comprehend that the offers made previously by Israeli governments were turned down, every single time? There is no obligation to keep offering what wasn't wanted. And there is no commitment to what we haven't signed on to, in writing.
The tenor of the times is different, as the Israeli population has woken up to the fallacy of the "land for peace" concept. Most people understand quite clearly that what would be received in return for the land that is our heritage would be violence. It is broadly recognized that the Palestinian Arabs don't want a state, they want us gone.
~~~~~~~~~~
But it gets worse. Much worse:
"The American peace plan would be linked with the issue of confronting Iran, which is Israel's top priority, explained the second senior official. He described the issues as two halves of a single strategic problem: 'We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region,' as well as the Israelis and Palestinians.
"'Incrementalism hasn't worked,' continued the second official, explaining that the United States cannot allow the Palestinian problem to keep festering -- providing fodder for Iran and other extremists. 'As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040602663.html
That canard again?? Linking "peace with the Palestinians" to the "issue of confronting Iran." There is no link, except in certain American heads. If the Palestinians were (G-d forbid) to get their state, do the officials quoted here imagine that it would encourage the Iranians to abandon that aspiration for a new caliphate (the aspiration that does exist even though Americans are not supposed to talk about it)? Or that they'd stop trying to go nuclear?
I choke when I read, "As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something." Obama has renounced his genuine global responsibilities where it truly matters: with regard to stopping Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I see is an arrogant Obama, flush from his victory on health care. He sees here the possibility of another "victory," and there is no doubt but that, were he to advance a proposal, he would indulge in strong-arm tactics the likes of which we haven't seen yet. He would be determined to see it through, no matter the cost to us, acting with a conviction that he can make what he wants to happen become a reality
Dear friends in the US, now is the time to let your elected representatives in Congress know that you are absolutely opposed to imposition of a "peace plan" by Obama. Let them know that the two parties must work things out themselves.
For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
For your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~
Now is a good time for Netanyahu and his coalition to practice saying "NO!"
Once again, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has shown that he understands this. In a radio interview he said the following:
"The pressure is growing. Because pressure always grows, whenever they feel our weakness...Over the last year, we have made many concessions - actually acts of good will - to create a more favorable atmosphere...
"On the other hand, the Palestinian authorities are only intensifying their pressure by creating a designated anti-Israel boycott fund in the West Bank, organizing various anti-Israeli actions in the Human Rights Council in Geneva and in the United Nations, and so on. So we only feel growing pressure instead of any positive signs from the world community, and that's all because of our weakness. That's why we have to make it clear: 'No more acts of good will.' It's time for the Palestinians to perform acts of good will...
"...I believe that we have to make our position crystal clear. We cannot agree to freeze construction in Jerusalem, either west or east. In the context of our sovereignty, this simply means a waiver of independence. There is no other country in the world which would stop construction in its own capital."
No comments:
Post a Comment