Overseas Contingency Operations and Such
by Victor Davis Hanson //
PJ Media
On the occasion of the outreach from Iran, and the embarrassment in
Syria, it is wise to remember why and how our leaders became so inept at
dealing with Islamists.
The Tsarnaev brothers killed and maimed in service to their version of Islam. So did Major Hassan, screaming
Allahu Akbaras
he shot his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The Middle East is undergoing
the greatest religious cleansing of Christians of the modern age. This
month, eighty Christians were blown up in a church in Peshawar, Pakistan
— charged, tried, and executed in a nanno-second by Muslim suicide
bombers. At about the very same time, gunmen of the Islamist terrorist
group Al Shabaab from Somalia, murdered nearly 70 shoppers — after
torturing and mutilating many of their victims — in a Nairobi shopping
mall during a children’s event.
None of these massacres had anything to
do with the West Bank, Americans in Iraq, maltreatment of Muslims in the
U.S., unkind immigration policies, undue attention shown Muslim
travelers, or much of anything other than the usual grievances such as
fighting back against terrorists.
Note that the West, Europe and the U.S., are largely silent on the
religious dimensions of this now almost daily violence. Apparently the
EU and America believe that their own domestic security protocols have
made it difficult for Islamists like the Tsarnaevs or Hassan, or bombers
from Peshawar to harvest civilians with regularity in the West — or at
least that they can be kept out of Chevy Chase, the Upper West Side,
Martha’s Vineyard and Santa Monica.
Here follow some random observations from Obama administration
officials about Islam and its role in energizing terrorists. John
Brennan, the present CIA chief and at one time the president’s chief
counter-terrorism advisor,
once advised us,
“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because
jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify
oneself or one’s community.” If Major Hasan or the Tsarnaevs do not
believe in jihad or in an Islamist worldview, what, then, drove them to
murder?
Losing a boxing match, or perhaps a slow-moving pathway to
lieutenant-colonel?
Here was the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
“The term Muslim Brotherhood is an umbrella term for a variety of
movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group,
largely secular.” Is
“largely secular” different from “secular?” If Clapper is right, why
would they not their change their name to the “Secular Brotherhood?”
“When I became the NASA administrator,” NASA Director Charles Bolden
told Al Jazeera in 2010, President Obama “charged me with three things.”
Bolden added that “Perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to
reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly
Muslim nations
to help them feel good about
their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
Apparently, if they can “feel good,” they won’t feel bad about us, at
least to the point of blowing us up?
Here was Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey on the aftermath of
the Fort Hood shootings, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in
our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our
diversity becomes a casualty,
I think that’s worse.” What a tragedy that would be — no more incompetent, but deadly Major Hasans fast-tracked to Major.
Here was Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, “In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,
I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters.
That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move
away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for
all risks that can occur.” Actually, Ms. Napolitano, your invention is
not a “nuance” but an embarrassment.
Worrying about the Tsarnaevs or
Major Hasan or the bombers in Peshawar is not “the politics of fear.”
Here was a memo from the Office of the Management and the Budget to
the Pentagon, “This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long
War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.]
Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’” Do overseas contingency operations respond to man-caused disasters or to workplace violence?
Here was President Barack Obama
on various occasions,
“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.
Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and
progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” And, “Islam is
not part of the problem in combating violent extremism –
it is an important part of promoting peace.” Where
do Islam and the West actually compete — Cal Tech versus what Islamic
university? iPhones versus what? Brain surgery at Cairo University
compared to the Stanford neurology department?
The point is not that these therapeutic musings are necessarily
always completely false, but rather why are they voiced at all, given
their banality and half-truths.
There are many more examples of such politically-correct naiveté. For
some reason, Obama’s rare platitudinous quotes about Christianity are
not nearly so complimentary. He speaks more harshly about his
conservative critics than he does the Muslim Brotherhood or the Iranian
theocracy. His interview with al Arabiya and various UN addresses
explain why so many of his obsequious subordinates want to outdo their
president in reconfiguring contemporary Islam. In his Cairo speech,
Obama fabricated all sorts of stories about the glorious tolerance and
brilliance of Islam, with invited Muslim Brotherhood attendees nodding
in agreement.
What drives such nonsense? I call it nonsense, since U.S. popularity
is no higher in the Middle East than under George Bush. Violence is
greater. Christian cleansing is far more prevalent. Iran is closer to
the bomb. Bashar Assad never before had so embarrassed a U.S. president.
Israel is never more isolated. The Arab Spring is a disaster. Coups,
revolutions, mass killings, chaos, and upheaval are the veneer of
greater poverty and misery on the Arab Street. There is no such thing
anymore as Middle East tourism. U.S. prestige is at all time low. The
idea that Assad might surrender his WMD in the manner that a terrified
Kaddafi did is absurd. Putin, not an American president, exercises the
most influence in the Middle East.
a) Obama and his subordinates see most of the tension between the
Middle East and United State not as existential, but of recent origin
and attributable mostly to one-dimensional American leadership that
under Bush heretofore had lacked his own sophistication on matters
Islamic. To paraphrase
the al Arabiya interview,
Obama’s own name, his racial heritage, his father’s Muslim lineage, and
his own prior residence in Muslim Indonesia would all ensure that he
could communicate and coax Muslims on our collective behalf, at least in
a way that evangelical Christians like George W. Bush could hardly
imagine.
In other words, most of the past violence was preventable had we
listened to the advice listed above, and adjusted our ideas about jihad,
the Muslim Brotherhood, and terrorism — or used NASA for its proper
larger purpose. I suppose the Iranians believe likewise in the power of
an iconic president, and so they are now trying to send us a smiling
imam, who is said to know the West and speak English, and writes us a
letter with every T-ball platitude imaginable. Presto, we will change
our opinion of the Iranians because of Rouhani in the way they must like
us because of Barack Hussein Obama?
b) Obama also looks to particular pretexts for Muslim outrage and in
that sense considers them somewhat legitimate. “Terrorism” can be a
hurtful word, and to such an extent that it might force otherwise
moderate Muslims to resort to it. Would-be terrorists might listen to
the Cairo speech or the NASA director and suddenly drop their violent
tendencies, snap out of their jihadist personal journeys, and appreciate
commonalities with the West and Christians heretofore forgotten or
unknown. Just as Barack Obama once wowed his Harvard Law Dean, so too
imams and ayatollahs will react to his mellifluous outreach, in the way
we too are charmed by the smoother, smiling president Rouhani.
Self-reflection to the point of self-condemnation is a common trait
among American liberal leadership. If the Israelis would just vacate
Sinai, peace might follow. If they withdrew from Lebanon, moderates
might respond. If they gave back Gaza, a settlement would be insured. If
we could just solve the “Palestinian Question,” then Arabs would like
us, and violence from Cairo to Damascus would subside. Few Americans
grasp that there will be no peace with Israel unless either Israel is
destroyed or its Arab neighbors accept consensual government and simply
no longer tolerate tribalism, religious fundamentalism, gender
apartheid, or anti-Semitism — a hope that may well be a century away.
The failure of Islamic culture to cope with the modern world also
ensures that it will be an elixir in the Middle East for perceived
global unfairness. For hundreds of millions who are quite reluctant to
change their views about women, other religions, tribal affinities, free
expression, and consensual government, it is far easier to blame the
logical consequences of their material backwardness on others — most
likely Jews, Westerners, and less observant Muslims. The mystery is not
that they believe such things, but that we do not believe that they do.
When Dr. Zawahiri cites “climate change” as one of the sparks that set
him off, I think we have entered the realm of lunacy.
c) Obama believes that something the Bush administration concretely
did might have provoked Muslims and explains the present tensions. If a
transgression sparked violence, then a non-transgression will prevent
it. If we could only close Guantanamo, get out of Iraq, promise to
withdraw from Afghanistan, lead meekly from behind in Libya, or stop
renditions, then again peace would follow and terrorism would wane.
Obama has little concept that terrorists strike when they feel they can,
but are more likely not to when they feel they can’t — or that they can
hate us for reasons that transcend what Americans do on any given day.
While their hatred, fed by envy, feelings of inadequacy, and
appeasement, cannot be moderated by euphemism, the expression of it
certainly can be by hard pressure on their sponsors — the very tactic
that Obama has derided, as he had sought normalization with Iran, Syria,
the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas.
d) In the multicultural world of our elites, religious expression and
the landscape in which it occurs, like everything else, is a sort of
buffet. People take what they want, each according to his taste, no one
selection any better or worse than any other. Islam is no different from
Buddhism or Christianity, which have had its own zealots and
mass-murderers. Islamists grasp the ramifications of this relativism far
better than we do, and expect latitude from the West that they would
never grant to non-Westerners. Apparently killing a cartoonist can shut
down a Western society’s free expression quite quickly. And blowing up a
church in an Islamic country is not at odds with demanding subsidies to
build a mosque in Europe.
These multicultural doctrines are not subject to empirical data. An
epidemic of Muslim terrorism can be ignored when we find isolated
examples of Christian intolerance. We can call such relativism moral
equivalence and cultural relativism, with a strong dose of utopian
pacifism. But the end result is that Western elites have no concept that
their culture, religious heritage, or contemporary values have made
them in any way exceptional. Apple is in Silicon Valley and not
Islamabad: no doubt the legacy of colonialism. Millions seek to reach
the U.S.; none wait in line to go to Egypt or Algeria: no doubt
imperialism still at work. There is no Princeton or MIT in Syria: again
racism or class oppression.
If our elites quoted above are unsure about themselves, why would they not be unsure about their enemies as well?
In terms of their amoral cost-benefit analysis, a few may die,
hopefully abroad, on the altar of multicultural piety, so that millions
more might live in ecumenical harmony.
The tragic truth is just the opposite: thousands will die on the
altar of multicultural piety, so that millions more will not live in any
sort of harmony.
. They were expected to rise up in vehement protest once the "cuts" went into effect.
Share This!
Print