Author: David Stokes
Publication: Townhall.com
Date: February 8, 2009
URL: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidRStokes/2009/02/08/would_you_turn_your_cheek_to_a_terrorist
During a recent interview with CNN's Anderson
Cooper, President Obama indicated that his administration is in fact moving
away from the of the phrase "war on terror." Recognizing that "we
have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations," he sees
those groups as not "representative of a broader Arab community."
Presumably, his use of the word "some" in reference to terrorist
organizations does not mean he thinks other terrorist organizations are less
dangerous, but is just a case of awkward phrasing.
Then again, he did say that "words matter."
The president told Cooper that "words
matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle
is through the battle of hearts and minds." My question is this: Are
we now trying to win over the hearts and minds of terrorists?
Certainly there are issues that need to be
debated in the marketplace of ideas. There are a vast number of Muslims in
the world who are not radicalized. And we certainly want to use reason, intelligent
argument, and appeals to justice, mercy, and compassion as part of a concerted
effort to prevent some from crossing over to the dark side.
But for those who are already indoctrinated,
immersed, and otherwise in bondage to a fanatical Islamist ideology, it is
foolhardy to think that any words from anyone in the west will disabuse them
of their destructive notions and deadly ambitions.
Mr. Obama reminded those gathered at the National
Prayer Breakfast in Washington the other day that he is not naïve. But
some of the signals being sent by him and his administration are, at best,
mixed on the subject. If you have to say you are tough, you're probably not.
And if you have to say you are not naïve, you just might be.
Frankly, I - along with so many others - have
never been a fan of the whole "war on terror" nomenclature. It smacked
of vagueness and misdirection, directing focus on one particular methodology
in a larger conflict. I have always thought we should be demonizing an ideology
- one very worthy of such a characterization.
We should have, all along, been saying that
we are in a war against a vile, loathsome, and pernicious ideology - Islamism.
It is only a combination of a misguided sense of political correctness blended
with a cowering fear of inciting dangerous people that has kept us from telling
it like it is.
If President Obama wanted to move away from
"war on terror" and toward "war on Islamism," he would
have my support. But his move away from George W. Bush's definition of the
conflict is in the wrong direction. He and those around him apparently think
that "war on terror" is just too strong.
At a time when this country needs to be vigilant
and focused on a very real enemy - one determined to end our way of life as
we know it - Mr. Obama has blurred the issue. He is moving us away from a
war mindset to something more surgical and limited. This should be no surprise
to observant Americans. After all, he didn't really have much to say on the
issue during his campaign.
To minimize or marginalize danger is to ignore
it. And to ignore danger is how to quickly become blind and vulnerable.
Make no mistake, anything less than a clear
commitment, born of national self-interest and concern for international justice
and stability, to destroy Islamism in this generation the way we defeated
Nazism nearly 65 years ago, is, in fact, the epitome of naivety. Reaching
out to moderate Muslims has its place, but not without a clear challenge to
them to be on the front lines of resistance to Islamism.
Islamism is not synonymous with Islam, per
se - but unless Muslims rise up and fight against the radicals, it may one
day be. Much is made of the fact that Islamists only make up a small percentage
of Muslims worldwide. But as I have written before, that kind of dismissal
ignores the fact that we are still talking about more actual people than the
total combined populations of Germany, Japan, and Italy, as the world went
to war in 1939.
There are, in fact, clear parallels - even
direct connections - between Islamism and the mechanisms of fascism and Marxist-Leninism.
As Daniel Pipes has noted, "Islam is
the most political of religions, the one most oriented toward power."
He further suggests that Islamism - the kind that is radical, utopian, and
totalitarian, "is a modern evolution of something that was always in
Islam but takes it to an ideological extreme."
It would follow, therefore, that Muslims themselves
- particularly those who fly the flag of moderation - must deal with the cancer
in their own religious body. Otherwise, they run the risk of ensuring the
ultimate identity of Islam with terror, hunger for power, and violence.
In the 1920s, when the Ku Klux Klan paraded
through the streets of America preaching a doctrine of bigotry and attaching
their venom to an image sacred to all Christians - the cross - it took many
Christians a long time to repudiate the hooded fanatics.
Why was that?
It was simply because many "Christians"
(all white ones, of course) found themselves sympathizing with some of what
the Klan stood for. They preached a form of patriotic Americanism that resonated
with many in America's heartland - especially during that decade of seismic
social change.
Sure they wore hoods and had funny titles
for everything, but they also waved the flag and carried the cross. So what
if they burned the latter. This is how some rationalized their sympathy with
such a glaringly un-Christian cause.
Using Christian imagery, clergymen, and even
churches, for a short time the KKK had a place in the hearts of many "God-fearing"
Americans. In some places, a person could not be elected to office without
Klan support - it was a big deal for a while. It was an ugly chapter in the
history of Protestantism in American church history.
When the KKK was finally repudiated as a major
movement in America, it still took some "Christians" a long time
to get it out of their system. The "nativist" instinct lived on,
though spoken of only in whispers and with subtle winks of the eye.
I suspect it is that way with many of our
Muslim neighbors these days. They may not buy into the terrorism and violence,
as they practice a more moderate Islam, but there may be a few things that
simply resonate with them. Possibly this is why it is so hard to find moderate
Muslims who will actually renounce Islamism.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney may well
be one of the most unpopular people in the country these days, but even a
broken clock is right twice a day. And when he warns us - as he did this week
- that the country is swiftly becoming more vulnerable to terrorist attack,
in light of the body language of the new administration, he may be on to something.
Cheney, speaking of Islamist terrorism in
general, and particularly Gitmo detainees, recently reminded us "These
are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning the other
cheek."
It's like that old story about the man who
sold a mule, telling the buyer that the animal would do anything as long he
was asked nicely. The next day, the buyer returned and shared a tale of frustration
because the stubborn mule would not do a thing - no matter how many times
he was asked nicely.
The seller picked up a wooden two-by-four
that was leaning against his barn. He walked right up to the mule and hit
the animal in the head. Then he whispered, "Please pull that plow."
The mule started moving as fast as he could.
"I thought you told me to never mistreat
your mule," the farmer told his neighbor with a questioning look on his
face. The farmer hesitated and said, "Like I said, talking nice to him
works every time. But, sometimes you have to get his attention first."
I am all for reaching hearts and minds, but German entnazifizierung (denazification)
could not happen until we had their attention by actually winning a war.
Re-education is much more effective as a post-war
exercise.