President
Barack Obama’s speech at the National Defense University, “The Future
of Our Fight against Terrorism” is a remarkable exercise in wishful
thinking and denial. Here is basically what he says: the only strategic
threat to the United States is posed by terrorists carrying out
terrorist attacks.
In the 6400 words used by Obama,
Islam only constitutes three of them and most interestingly in all
three the word is used to deny that the United States is at war with
Islam. In fact, that is what President George Bush said precisely almost
a dozen years ago, after September 11. Yet why have not hundreds of
such denials had the least bit of effect on the course of that war?
In
fact, to prove that the United States is not at war with Islam, the
Obama Administration has sided with political Islam throughout the
Middle East, to the extent that some Muslims think Obama is doing damage
to Islam, their kind of Islam.
And
how has the fight against al-Qaida resulted in a policy that has,
however inadvertently, armed al-Qaida, as in Libya and Syria?
Once again, I will try to explain the essence of Obama strategy, a simple point that many people seem unable to grasp:
This
is an abandonment of a strategic
perspective. The word Islamism or political Islam or any other version
of that word do not appear even once. Yet this is the foremost
revolutionary movement of this era, the main threat in the world to U.S.
interests and even to Western civilization.
Yet according to
Obama:
If
the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt that is not a strategic threat
but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to
curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not at
war with Islam.
If
the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Tunisia that is not a strategic
threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able
to curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not
at war with Islam.
If
the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria that is not a strategic threat
but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to
curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not at
war with Islam.
If
a regime whose viewpoint is basically equivalent to the Muslim
Brotherhood—albeit far more subtle and culture—dominates Turkey that is
not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best
organization able to curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the
United States is not at war with Islam.
These and other strategic defeats do not matter, says Obama in effect:
“After
I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought
to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda's leadership. We
ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We
pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of
Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment
to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the
rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.”
And
yet the Taliban is arguably close to taking over Afghanistan in future.
The group has spread to Pakistan. The rule of law in Afghanistan is a
joke and soldiers there know that the Afghan government still uses
torture.
“Today,
Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There
have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland
is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next
19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong,
and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our
efforts.”
Well,
it is quite true that security measures within the United States have
been largely successful at stopping attacks. But the frequency of
attempted attacks has been extensive, some of which were blocked by luck
and the expenditure of one trillion dollars. Country after country has
been taken over by radical Islamists who can be expected to fight
against American interests in future.
Obama continues:
“So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us…”
But
he never actually defines it except to suggest that 1. Al-Qaida has
spread to other countries (which does not sound like a victory) and 2.
That its affiliates and imitators are more
amateurish.
Indeed,
rather than a movement and ideology like Communism and fascism, Obama
sounds like a comic book superhero describing life in Gotham City:
"Neither
I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will
never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor
stamp out every danger to our open society.”
Yet
his advisor on this issue, CIA director John Brennan has said that the
United States cannot be at war with terror because terror is merely a
tactic. So what is the problem: “the evil that lies in the hearts of
some
human beings,” as if the Taliban, al-Qaida, the Salafists, the Muslim
Brotherhood, and Hamas are equivalent to the Newtown, Connecticut
shooting?
Obama continues:
“What
we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct
danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all
while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.”
In other words, it is not a strategic problem but a law enforcement one.
And at another point he added,
“Deranged
or alienated individuals…can do enormous damage, particularly when
inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism
appears to
have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston
Marathon.”
Appears?
So Fort Hood and the Boston bombing are still not considered by the
American president as part of a war against America but perhaps due to
that evil that lies in the hearts of men?
And what is the nature of that criminal conspiracy?
“Today,
the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to
defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their
own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in
Benghazi or Boston. They have not
carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead,
what we've seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From
Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more
diffuse, with Al Qaeda's affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the
most active in plotting against our homeland.”
One
would never know, however, that al-Qaida was always basically
decentralized. Al-Qaida in Arabic means “the base” and what Usama bin
Ladin did was to create a focal point to
start off a global jihad. Bin Ladin is dead but he accomplished his
short-term objective. Moreover, al-Qaida’s partner, the Taliban, is
doing very well. Who cares whether they directed the attacks in Benghazi
(apparently it wasn’t a video) and Boston? They inspired those attacks.
“Unrest
in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in
countries like Libya and Syria,” says Obama, a man who clearly need not
fear the mass media turning his phrase against him. After all, it wasn’t
just
unrest but Obama’s policy that armed al-Qaida and helped it participate
in a successful revolution. And the same point is true in Syria.
Indeed,
if Bush was responsible for unintentionlly magnifying the appeal of
al-Qaida in Iraq, Obama did the same thing in Syria, except Obama didn’t
fight them but helped supply the weapons!
At
least he called Hizballah a “state-sponsored” terror network though it
might have been nice if he mentioned that the state in question is Iran,
which also supported terrorists who killed Americans in Iraq. That is
another point that Obama left out and yet could easily have mentioned.
And
of course he mentioned Oklahoma City, which happened just 20 years ago,
in order to suggest that right-wing extremists were also involved in
terrorism, even when Fort Hood and Boston are due to some vague cause.
But here’s the kicker:
“Moreover,
we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. Most,
though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology –
a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United
States and the West, and that violence against Western targets,
including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of
course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at
war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of
Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.”
Yet
clearly Obama has no notion—or will not admit to one—of what that
“common ideology” might be, except for a misunderstanding, which
presumably his outreach will correct, about American intentions.
In
fact, though, in the sense that they speak of it, the United States is
at war with Islam, the revolutionary sort of Islam of course. To help
any country resist radical political Islam is, in their eyes, opposition
to proper Islam. Perhaps this is why the Obama Administration seeks to
help turn other countries toward Islamist regimes.
Of
course, the United States is not at war with Muslims but not only
al-Qaida but Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists,
the Taliban and
dozens of other groups, ideologues, and militants know that America is
their enemy. No matter what Obama does he will not persuade them and
their millions of supporters that the United States is their ally. Even
though Obama has often actually made America their ally.
It
would be like helping Communism in the Cold War to take over countries
in order to show that America is not at war with the Russian people, or
to do the same with Nazism to show that America is not at war with the
German people, or to help Gamal Abdel Nasser or Saddam Hussein to take
over the Middle East to prove America
is not at war with the Arab or Muslim people.
A more accurate picture is offered by a Saudi writer in al-Sharq al-Awsat:
"The
most acute [aspect of] the problem is that Obama is laying down the
systematic groundwork for the development of extremism and sectarian
violence that will make us miss the Al-Qaeda of George W. Bush's era,
while deluding himself that he eliminated Al-Qaeda when he killed Osama
bin Laden!"
Please be subscriber 31,483 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By
credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next
book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East,
written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University
Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The
Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
Forthcoming Book: Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale University Press)
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ftur20#.UZs4pLUwdqU
No comments:
Post a Comment