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:
Obama views
al-Qaida a threat because it wants to attack America directly with terrorism.
But all other Islamist groups are not a threat. In fact, they can be used to
stop al-Qaida.
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!"
This article is published by PJMedia.
This article is published by PJMedia.
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.
