Tongue in cheek title, but brilliant analysis.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Charles Krauthammer - Those troublesome Jews
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Sins of Omission in Obama's National Security Strategy -- By: Clifford D. May
Sins of Omission in Obama's National Security Strategy -- By: Clifford D. May: "Is it possible to defeat an enemy we don’t understand? That is only one of the questions that ought to occur to anyone reading President Obama’s new National Security Strategy (NSS).
Administration officials and loyalists have been trying to put the best possible face on the congressionally mandated 52-page document. But anyone who glances at so much as a page will see that it is rife with platitudes, wishful thinking, and self-delusion. It requires a bit more effort to see how unserious and self-contradictory it is. But let me give that a go.
Start with this: Who do you think is to blame for the most deadly terrorist attack ever on American soil? According to the NSS, the answer is “globalization,” the current buzzword for integrated economies, networked transnational communications, and the outrage of selling McDonald’s hamburgers to Parisians. The NSS states: “The dark side of this globalized world came to the forefront for the American people on September 11, 2001.” Is it possible that policymakers in the White House sincerely believe that’s what happened?
The NSS asserts: “To succeed, we must face the world as it is.” It then immediately goes on to claim: “Wars over ideology have given way to wars over religious, ethnic, and tribal identity.”
Are we to believe that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Khomeinists, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood are without ideologies? And if the fight is over “religious, ethnic, and tribal identity,” which religious, ethnic, and tribal identity might that be? Presbyterianism, perhaps?
The NSS insists: “We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.” But what do members of the al-Qaeda network believe? What are their goals? Who are their affiliates? And, since this is a strategy document, what strategy will be used to defeat them? The authors of the NSS steer clear of such questions. They think they have said all that needs to be said by labeling self-declared enemies of the West “violent extremists.”
The NSS rejects “the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.” Osama bin Laden probably would agree with that last premise. He’d add, however, that Americans, Israelis, and other infidels are, by definition, not innocents.
The document recognizes that it is imperative to defeat al-Qaeda, adding that the “frontline of this fight is Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That ignores the fact that the country in which American troops have killed more al-Qaeda combatants than anywhere else is Iraq. Though al-Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated, it has not yet been eliminated. In particular, its cells in and around Mosul have been responsible for most of the recent suicide bombings in Iraq. Would it not be useful for U.S. forces to finish them off before shipping out? And, conceptually, does it make sense to continue to assert, as the NSS does, that the U.S. is “fighting two wars,” one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, rather than a single war with frontlines in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, as well as Times Square, Fort Hood, and Northwest Flight 253?
To strategize is to prioritize and to bet on a correlation between actions to be taken and outcomes to be expected. This NSS makes no attempt to do either. Promising to “deter aggression and prevent the proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons” is one thing; formulating a strategy for achieving those goals is another.
Nor does the NSS demonstrate strategic thinking when it states that the U.S will pursue its “interests within multilateral forums like the United Nations -- not outside of them.” The fact is the U.N. General Assembly is now largely under the control of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, while Russia and China routinely use their veto power to thwart U.S. interests in the U.N. Security Council. If there’s a strategy to change that, it’s not in the NSS.
I suppose the White House advisers who produced this document would say that the roadmap for getting from where we are to where we want to be can be found in the “commitment to renew our economy, which serves as the wellspring of American power.” But if that were the case, would the administration be increasing the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars -- more than the total debt accumulated since 1776? Does anyone seriously believe that Obama’s health-care plan is about economic power rather than its proponents’ conception of fairness? Surely no one can argue that “cap-and-trade” and similar measures intended to combat “global warming” will speed rather than slow economic growth.
Since coming to office a year and a half ago, President Obama has attempted to “engage” Iran. Oblivious to the outcome of that experiment, the NSS pledges to “pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions.”
Actually, Iran has mobilized an international coalition, one that includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Turkey -- all of which have shown themselves eager to undercut the United States. Our strategy to turn this around? Who knows? Certainly not the authors of the NSS, who say: “Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not.#...#Credible and effective alternatives to military action -- from sanctions to isolation -- must be strong enough to change behavior.” Agreed. So when will there be a serious effort to isolate Iran? Why isn’t Obama at least asking Congress to give him tough sanctions legislation as quickly as possible?
Commendably, the NSS does recognize that “the United States must now be prepared for asymmetric threats, such as those that target our reliance on space.” But the best way to prevent missiles from moving through space to reach their targets would be to deploy a space-based missile-defense system -- a project the Obama administration rejects.
Perhaps what is most troubling about the NSS is what it omits. The seminal role played by Iran since its 1979 revolution is never mentioned, much less explored. Such words as “Islamism,” “Jihadism,” “radical Islam,” and “Salafism” never appear.
Instead, we are warned that the “danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe” even as it has become apparent that the science supporting those assertions is shaky -- and that’s leaving aside whether “climate change” is a national-security issue. There are frequent evocations of “our most cherished values” with no attempt to say what those values are or what to do when they conflict. Such traditional values as freedom, democracy, and human rights get short shrift.
“Renewing American leadership,” we are instructed, will require “calling upon what is best about America -- our innovation and capacity; our openness and moral imagination.” Moral imagination? What does that even mean?
And, of course, there is this: “To deny violent extremists one of their most potent recruitment tools, we will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” Remind me: How is that strategy progressing?
-- Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.
"
Administration officials and loyalists have been trying to put the best possible face on the congressionally mandated 52-page document. But anyone who glances at so much as a page will see that it is rife with platitudes, wishful thinking, and self-delusion. It requires a bit more effort to see how unserious and self-contradictory it is. But let me give that a go.
Start with this: Who do you think is to blame for the most deadly terrorist attack ever on American soil? According to the NSS, the answer is “globalization,” the current buzzword for integrated economies, networked transnational communications, and the outrage of selling McDonald’s hamburgers to Parisians. The NSS states: “The dark side of this globalized world came to the forefront for the American people on September 11, 2001.” Is it possible that policymakers in the White House sincerely believe that’s what happened?
The NSS asserts: “To succeed, we must face the world as it is.” It then immediately goes on to claim: “Wars over ideology have given way to wars over religious, ethnic, and tribal identity.”
Are we to believe that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Khomeinists, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood are without ideologies? And if the fight is over “religious, ethnic, and tribal identity,” which religious, ethnic, and tribal identity might that be? Presbyterianism, perhaps?
The NSS insists: “We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.” But what do members of the al-Qaeda network believe? What are their goals? Who are their affiliates? And, since this is a strategy document, what strategy will be used to defeat them? The authors of the NSS steer clear of such questions. They think they have said all that needs to be said by labeling self-declared enemies of the West “violent extremists.”
The NSS rejects “the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.” Osama bin Laden probably would agree with that last premise. He’d add, however, that Americans, Israelis, and other infidels are, by definition, not innocents.
The document recognizes that it is imperative to defeat al-Qaeda, adding that the “frontline of this fight is Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That ignores the fact that the country in which American troops have killed more al-Qaeda combatants than anywhere else is Iraq. Though al-Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated, it has not yet been eliminated. In particular, its cells in and around Mosul have been responsible for most of the recent suicide bombings in Iraq. Would it not be useful for U.S. forces to finish them off before shipping out? And, conceptually, does it make sense to continue to assert, as the NSS does, that the U.S. is “fighting two wars,” one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, rather than a single war with frontlines in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, as well as Times Square, Fort Hood, and Northwest Flight 253?
To strategize is to prioritize and to bet on a correlation between actions to be taken and outcomes to be expected. This NSS makes no attempt to do either. Promising to “deter aggression and prevent the proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons” is one thing; formulating a strategy for achieving those goals is another.
Nor does the NSS demonstrate strategic thinking when it states that the U.S will pursue its “interests within multilateral forums like the United Nations -- not outside of them.” The fact is the U.N. General Assembly is now largely under the control of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, while Russia and China routinely use their veto power to thwart U.S. interests in the U.N. Security Council. If there’s a strategy to change that, it’s not in the NSS.
I suppose the White House advisers who produced this document would say that the roadmap for getting from where we are to where we want to be can be found in the “commitment to renew our economy, which serves as the wellspring of American power.” But if that were the case, would the administration be increasing the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars -- more than the total debt accumulated since 1776? Does anyone seriously believe that Obama’s health-care plan is about economic power rather than its proponents’ conception of fairness? Surely no one can argue that “cap-and-trade” and similar measures intended to combat “global warming” will speed rather than slow economic growth.
Since coming to office a year and a half ago, President Obama has attempted to “engage” Iran. Oblivious to the outcome of that experiment, the NSS pledges to “pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions.”
Actually, Iran has mobilized an international coalition, one that includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Turkey -- all of which have shown themselves eager to undercut the United States. Our strategy to turn this around? Who knows? Certainly not the authors of the NSS, who say: “Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not.#...#Credible and effective alternatives to military action -- from sanctions to isolation -- must be strong enough to change behavior.” Agreed. So when will there be a serious effort to isolate Iran? Why isn’t Obama at least asking Congress to give him tough sanctions legislation as quickly as possible?
Commendably, the NSS does recognize that “the United States must now be prepared for asymmetric threats, such as those that target our reliance on space.” But the best way to prevent missiles from moving through space to reach their targets would be to deploy a space-based missile-defense system -- a project the Obama administration rejects.
Perhaps what is most troubling about the NSS is what it omits. The seminal role played by Iran since its 1979 revolution is never mentioned, much less explored. Such words as “Islamism,” “Jihadism,” “radical Islam,” and “Salafism” never appear.
Instead, we are warned that the “danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe” even as it has become apparent that the science supporting those assertions is shaky -- and that’s leaving aside whether “climate change” is a national-security issue. There are frequent evocations of “our most cherished values” with no attempt to say what those values are or what to do when they conflict. Such traditional values as freedom, democracy, and human rights get short shrift.
“Renewing American leadership,” we are instructed, will require “calling upon what is best about America -- our innovation and capacity; our openness and moral imagination.” Moral imagination? What does that even mean?
And, of course, there is this: “To deny violent extremists one of their most potent recruitment tools, we will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” Remind me: How is that strategy progressing?
-- Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.
"
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
An Islam of Their Very Own -- By: Andrew C. McCarthy
An Islam of Their Very Own -- By: Andrew C. McCarthy: "Well, at least he had it half right. For John Brennan, President Obama’s al-Quds lovin’ counterterrorism guru, that’s a significant improvement.
Last week, Brennan interrupted his search for the “moderate elements” of Hezbollah, and from his finger-wagging at Americans for their “ignorant feelings” about Muslim-man-caused disasters, to offer some signature insights about Islam at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In a pleasantly surprising start, he conceded that the United States has an “enemy,” which he further admitted was neither “terrorism”—a “tactic”—nor “terror” —“a state of mind.”
So far so good. For a guy who figures “20 percent isn’t that bad” a recidivism rate for released mass murderers, this was pretty good stuff.
Then he got to jihad.
Brennan admonished that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists.’” Why not? “Because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.” Right again. There is no gainsaying that jihad is deemed to be a divine injunction in Islam. If one regards all forms of Islam as “legitimate,” then jihad, too, must be legitimate. Yet “legitimate” is a slippery concept. It could mean that something is good. Or it could just mean that something is authentic -- something that it really exists, for good or ill.
Islam falls into the latter category. It exists. In many of its iterations -- not just al-Qaeda’s ideology but Islamist ideology, which is quite mainstream -- Islam means the West existential harm. This is why we are supportive of reformist Muslims, however pessimistic some of us may be about their prospects. The point, though, is that Islam is not going away. It is part of the hand we are dealt, like it or not. We don’t need to trash-talk it gratuitously, but neither should we pretend that it is an asset on our security ledger. It’s not.
Alas, the Hope administration doesn’t see it that way. For Brennan, as for Obama, Islam is immovably in the first category: “legitimate” as in “good” -- end of discussion. To sculpt this alternative reality, two things are required. First, we must ignore Islam’s many troublesome elements -- e.g., its supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc. Second, to the extent that the resulting atrocities can’t be ignored, we must pretend that what ails the Islamic world is our fault, not Islam’s.
Thus we get the priceless Brennan on jihad. According our counterterrorism czar (or is it now counter-tactic czar?), the “holy struggle” is wholly anodyne. Jihad, he insists, merely “mean[s] to purify oneself or one’s community.” Therefore, there can be “nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children.” If innocent men, women, and children are being killed, don’t blame jihad. There must be some other explanation: Israel, cartoons, Gitmo, South Park, teddy bears named Mohammed, dismay over the health-care bill -- anything but jihad.
In his never-to-be-missed Saturday column, Mark Steyn observes the fictional scenes imprinted on euro currency, a perfect emblem for the pie-in-the-sky vision of a united Europe. It’s as if Hope could make Change if you just pretended hard enough: “If you invent a currency for a united Europe,” Mark writes of the EU fantasists, “a united Europe is sure to follow.” So, too, do Brennan, Obama, and the rest set about dreaming up an Islam of their very own. They are far from alone in this. For years, the project has consumed progressive solons in America and Europe -- from Pres. George W. Bush’s “religion of peace” sermon, delivered while thousands of limbs were being removed from the rubble of the World Trade Center, to British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s Brennanesque insistence that terrorism had to be “un-Islamic activity” simply because it was terrorism.
Like Brennan, the Right Honorable Ms. Smith occupied a national-security position calling for clear-eyed realism, for counseling the government to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. Instead, we get Judy Garland singing “Somewhere over the Rainbow,” except Garland at least knew she was dreaming.
While our top officials imagine an Islam that isn’t, jihad is something the rest of us needn’t imagine, because it is all too real. And it is simple. Jihad is, always and everywhere, the mission to implement, spread, or defend sharia, the Islamic legal code. It is not exclusively violent; an army doesn’t need to be violent if its enemies are willing to give ground. But jihad only “means to purify oneself or one’s community” in a very narrow sense. It is not the syrupy quest to become a better person but the command to become a better Muslim; it is not the smiley-face mission to “purify” one’s community of crime but the command to cleanse one’s community of non-Islamic influences.
The inextricable bond between jihad and sharia is also easily explained. In Muslim doctrine, sharia is deemed the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society. Islam’s designs are hegemonic: Even in its less threatening iterations, it is taken as a given that believers must call all of humanity to the faith. What separates the true moderates from the faux moderates and the terrorists are the lengths to which one is willing to go in carrying out that injunction. That it is an injunction, however, is not open to debate.
Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.
"
Last week, Brennan interrupted his search for the “moderate elements” of Hezbollah, and from his finger-wagging at Americans for their “ignorant feelings” about Muslim-man-caused disasters, to offer some signature insights about Islam at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In a pleasantly surprising start, he conceded that the United States has an “enemy,” which he further admitted was neither “terrorism”—a “tactic”—nor “terror” —“a state of mind.”
So far so good. For a guy who figures “20 percent isn’t that bad” a recidivism rate for released mass murderers, this was pretty good stuff.
Then he got to jihad.
Brennan admonished that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists.’” Why not? “Because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam.” Right again. There is no gainsaying that jihad is deemed to be a divine injunction in Islam. If one regards all forms of Islam as “legitimate,” then jihad, too, must be legitimate. Yet “legitimate” is a slippery concept. It could mean that something is good. Or it could just mean that something is authentic -- something that it really exists, for good or ill.
Islam falls into the latter category. It exists. In many of its iterations -- not just al-Qaeda’s ideology but Islamist ideology, which is quite mainstream -- Islam means the West existential harm. This is why we are supportive of reformist Muslims, however pessimistic some of us may be about their prospects. The point, though, is that Islam is not going away. It is part of the hand we are dealt, like it or not. We don’t need to trash-talk it gratuitously, but neither should we pretend that it is an asset on our security ledger. It’s not.
Alas, the Hope administration doesn’t see it that way. For Brennan, as for Obama, Islam is immovably in the first category: “legitimate” as in “good” -- end of discussion. To sculpt this alternative reality, two things are required. First, we must ignore Islam’s many troublesome elements -- e.g., its supremacism, inequality, intolerance, denial of freedom of conscience, endorsement of violence, etc. Second, to the extent that the resulting atrocities can’t be ignored, we must pretend that what ails the Islamic world is our fault, not Islam’s.
Thus we get the priceless Brennan on jihad. According our counterterrorism czar (or is it now counter-tactic czar?), the “holy struggle” is wholly anodyne. Jihad, he insists, merely “mean[s] to purify oneself or one’s community.” Therefore, there can be “nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children.” If innocent men, women, and children are being killed, don’t blame jihad. There must be some other explanation: Israel, cartoons, Gitmo, South Park, teddy bears named Mohammed, dismay over the health-care bill -- anything but jihad.
In his never-to-be-missed Saturday column, Mark Steyn observes the fictional scenes imprinted on euro currency, a perfect emblem for the pie-in-the-sky vision of a united Europe. It’s as if Hope could make Change if you just pretended hard enough: “If you invent a currency for a united Europe,” Mark writes of the EU fantasists, “a united Europe is sure to follow.” So, too, do Brennan, Obama, and the rest set about dreaming up an Islam of their very own. They are far from alone in this. For years, the project has consumed progressive solons in America and Europe -- from Pres. George W. Bush’s “religion of peace” sermon, delivered while thousands of limbs were being removed from the rubble of the World Trade Center, to British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s Brennanesque insistence that terrorism had to be “un-Islamic activity” simply because it was terrorism.
Like Brennan, the Right Honorable Ms. Smith occupied a national-security position calling for clear-eyed realism, for counseling the government to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. Instead, we get Judy Garland singing “Somewhere over the Rainbow,” except Garland at least knew she was dreaming.
While our top officials imagine an Islam that isn’t, jihad is something the rest of us needn’t imagine, because it is all too real. And it is simple. Jihad is, always and everywhere, the mission to implement, spread, or defend sharia, the Islamic legal code. It is not exclusively violent; an army doesn’t need to be violent if its enemies are willing to give ground. But jihad only “means to purify oneself or one’s community” in a very narrow sense. It is not the syrupy quest to become a better person but the command to become a better Muslim; it is not the smiley-face mission to “purify” one’s community of crime but the command to cleanse one’s community of non-Islamic influences.
The inextricable bond between jihad and sharia is also easily explained. In Muslim doctrine, sharia is deemed the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society. Islam’s designs are hegemonic: Even in its less threatening iterations, it is taken as a given that believers must call all of humanity to the faith. What separates the true moderates from the faux moderates and the terrorists are the lengths to which one is willing to go in carrying out that injunction. That it is an injunction, however, is not open to debate.
Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.
— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)