061. The Dangerous
Denial of Jihad's Threat
October 15, 2007
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/10/jihad_is_not_a_joke.php
The Dangerous Denial of Jihad's Threat
By Jeffrey Imm
On October 12,
Taliban leader Mullah Omar declared that it had reached a "success
point" in its "jehad" (sic) against the Karzai government, and
called upon other Jihadist organizations to finish the job in the
Taliban's attacks on US and NATO forces, and to overtake the Afghan
government.
UK predictably responded today by standing behind Karzai's efforts
to negotiate with the Taliban who seek to overtake the Karzai
government, with the belief that it can "split" the Taliban,
disregarding the Taliban's Islamist
constitution and shared Islamist beliefs of the Taliban ideology, as
the
UK/UN/NATO/US State Department goal's remain focused on
"stabilization" of Afghanistan.
In the United States, also on October 12, U.S. presidential candidate
Mitt Romney issued an advertisement stating that his concerns
regarding "Jihadism - violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism... [and]
Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate. To
do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us."
These comments on Jihad were met with mockery, laughter, and scorn by
elements in the mainstream media, blogs, and a spokesman for the
Democratic National Committee.
Newsweek mocked Romney's concerns about Jihad,
the Atlantic called such concerns "ridiculous", bloggers issued
text and video
mocking comments about the concerns, and
Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera stated that
Romney's comments on Jihad showed "no understanding of the threat facing
our country".
On October 13, Steven Emerson appeared on FOX cable news and was
roundly condemned by Alan Colmes for his "offensive" use of the
terms "Islamic Jihad", "Islamic militant", and "Islamic extremist." Two
weeks prior, Alan Colmes similarly
mocked the Investigative Project's (IPT) concerns about ex-Virginia
immigration commission member Esam Omeish speeches calling for "the
Jihad way" as nothing more than "conservative political correctness".
The
Washington Post reported Esam Omeish's justification for "the Jihad
Way" as merely calling for "struggle", and reported condemnations of the
IPT revelations about Omeish as coming from "a small group of right-wing
anti-Muslim bigots."
This continuing dangerous denial of the threats of Jihad, its ideology,
and refusal to debate the issues of political Islamism represents yet
another fault line in America's national security. When concerns about
Jihad and Islamism are a source for mockery by American media and
political organizations, then clearly the Jihadists and the Islamists
are winning the War of Ideas.
Jihad is not a joke. Its ideology
embracing death and causing violence is demonstrated every day
throughout the world. Those mocking discussion of the threat and
ideology of Jihad continue to undermine the War of Ideas in the United
States, and undermine the efforts of moderate Muslims to fight Islamism
and Jihadists. The growing denial is a bi-partisan problem that cuts
across socio-economic backgrounds and levels of education.
But the denial is indefensible, regardless of the
lack of a coherent strategy
on Jihad and Islamism, and such denial must be publicly and vigorously
condemned. It is a national disgrace. The apologist gamesmanship with
the term
"Jihad" is an ongoing propaganda effort that must be addressed by
American political leadership.
As
pointed out by Dr. Walid Phares, an ongoing propaganda effort has
been made to try to redefine "Jihad". However, as
Dr. Walid Phares points out in his book "The War of Ideas", "[t]he
historical reality of jihad is intertwined with the evolution of the
Islamic state since the seventh century. It is emphatically not
a modern, recent, and narrow creation by a small militant faction".
Moreover,
Dr. Walid Phares points out that "democracies cannot recognize
ideologies and movements that call for warfare based on theological
grounds" and that a "redefinition [of jihad] can only be effective in
the wake of a reform in Islam that touches the theological level".
On October 10, 2007, the United States government issued a
"National Strategy for Homeland Security". Like its predecessor
September 2006
"National
Strategy for Combating Terrorism", you won't find the word "Jihad"
in it, nor will you find a strategy for addressing
Jihad or political
Islamism, because neither is addressed as within the scope of the
nature of the threat to the United States. The ambiguous terms
"extremist" and "terrorist" are used instead, and the result are
"strategies" without a precise and agreed-upon definition of the nature
of the threat, focusing on tactics and operations instead.
What is the value of such ambiguous terms as "extremist" and
"terrorist"? As shown in the documentary
Islam versus Islamists,
Tempe Wahhabist Imam
Ahmad Al
Shqeirat views anti-terror Muslims like
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser as an "extremist". Iran calls the CIA and the US
Army
"terrorists". The importance of defining Jihad and political
Islamism in our national security strategies is vital.
However, despite the apologist propaganda on Jihad, and the
lack of a sufficient
strategy, we all share accountability for knowledge. Since 9/11,
who in America, regardless of their age, background, or political
beliefs, can honestly say that they have no knowledge of the threat of
Jihad to this country? Who is genuinely ignorant about Jihad in the
United States? Is the dangerous denial of Jihad a fear of
accountability? Is that part of the monofocus on tactics, rather than
ideology?
The answer to ending this dangerous denial and to beginning an effective
counterattack in the War of Ideas remains the task of
developing a true blueprint
strategy on Jihad and Islamism. But that blueprint strategy does
not begin with the disciplining of great minds and analysts, but rather
with the national willpower and resolve to face the accountability
for what we already know, rather than busying ourselves with
distracting arguments on tactics, operations, and politics -- for an
enemy that we, as a nation, fear to identify. With great knowledge,
comes great responsibility. It is a responsibility that America must
accept, and it is a responsibility that America must demand that its
governmental leadership and its media accept.
In a subsequent article, I will focus exclusively on the blueprint
aspects of our war strategy, and why a use of hybrid methodologies may
be necessary to effectively deal with the complex definition and
identity of the enemy and the nature of the threat, so that the war
blueprint strategy provides the flexibility needed for the global war
against Jihadism. Until America's political leadership defines Jihad as
a military threat, and defines its position on political Islamism, the
War of Ideas will continue to be lost to those who espouse this
dangerous denial on Jihad's threat to America and the world... and those
who live in fear of the accountability that such knowledge of Jihadism
demands of them.
Sources:
October 12, 2007 - AFP: Taliban leader Mullah Omar boasts Kabul forced
to bargain with insurgency
October 12, 2007 - AP: Taliban chief Mullah Omar urges Afghanistan's
neighbors to help drive out foreign troops
October 15, 2007 - Guardian: UK backs plan to split Taliban from within
May 29, 2006 - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty: NATO sizes up task in
southern Afghanistan
October 12, 2007 - Video of Romney Campaign Ad
October 12, 2007 - Newsweek: The Gaggle: Romney ad - You call this a
jihad?
October 12, 2007 - The Atlantic: Romney Versus the Jihadists
October 12, 2007 - DNC: Romney's 'Jihad' Ad Shows Lack of Foreign Policy
Credentials
October 12, 2007 - AP - Romney Launches Tough-On-Terrorism Ad
October 12, 2007 - Wonkette: Mitt Romney Launches Jihad on Jihad!
October 13, 2007 -
Blogger Video Mocking Romney "Jihadist" Ad
October 14, 2007 - Newsbusters: "Colmes: Offensive to Call Terrorists
'Islamic,' Use 'Books Not Bombs' on Hamas"
October 10, 2007 - National Strategy for Homeland Security
September
2006 - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
September 29, 2007: Fault Line on Jihad: Why the Omeish Reaction is
Important - Jeffrey Imm
September 29, 2007 - Washington Post - Va. Muslim Activist Denies Urging
Violence
September 17, 2007 - 9/11
and the Inconvenient Truths about Jihad and Islamism - Jeffrey Imm
July 18, 2007 -- Family Security Matters: Preventing the West from
Understanding Jihad -- Walid Phares
The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy by Walid
Phares, February 20, 2007, pages 201-202, 205-206
|