New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
About Dr. Walid Phares
Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of the War of Ideas. Dr. Phares was one of the architects of UNSCR 1559. He is also a Professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University and a contributing expert to FOX News. Dr. Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He serves as the secretary general of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group on Counter Terrorism. Professor Phares’ is the author of two critical books on the Islamofascist threat to Western Civilization, "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West” and "The War of Ideas: Jihadism Against Democracy."
Past Articles
Obama's Withdrawal from the War with the Jihadists, Is Dangerous
Is Petro Jihad Behind Western Abandoning of Iran's...
Early Assessment of the Elimination of Taliban...
Australia: Down Under Jihad?
Nigerian Taliban: Oil & Caliphate in Africa
North Carolina: Meet Taqiyya Jihad.
US Should Encourage Democracy in Africa...
Africa’s Terror Threat Real
Obama Must Decry African Genocide
Iraqi Success Will Depend on the Next U.S. Strategy
Iran: The Uprising Is On and There’s No Turning Back
Iran’s Elections: A Nat'l Show to Delay Democracy
Cedars Revolution Defeats Hezbollah in Election
15 Hard Questions About the Cairo Speech
Arkansas' Lone Jihadist: How Alone Is He?
First Jihadi Cell of '09 Busted In the US
Countering Jihadi Strategies in the Sub-Continent
The Taliban 'AfPak' Strategy: A Jihadi Preemptive War
Jihadi Pirates on High Seas: What's Behind Them?
Britain's Double Vision of Hezbollah?
Syria's Strategy in Lebanon
The Myth of the Two Talibans
Iraq Withdrawal Can Only Work with Pressure on...
Love v. Jihadism: Valentine's Enflame the Middle East
President Obama's TV interview on al Arabiya
Iran's New Satellites: The Pasdaran in Space
Iraq’s Elections: The Way to the Future or...
Guantanamo’s Manipulators Leading the New Jihad
Middle East Challenges to the Obama Administration
Bin Laden: Gaza One of the Fronts of ‘World Jihad’
Bush Will Be Vindicated in the War on Terror
A Plan For Gaza: Demilitarization &...
Shadow of Iran Looms Large Over Gaza

Dr. Walid Phares
Obama's Withdrawal from the War with the Jihadists, Is Dangerous
August 14, 2009
 

This commentary is in response and conjunction to a report by Anthony Kimery titled, "Rejection of ‘Jihadist,’ ‘War on Terrorism’ Terms Draws Fire, Debate," as published in HSToday, Homeland Security Insight & Analysis.

Commenting on the Administration's report on dropping the use of words such as War on Terror and Jihad, the director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the author of, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West, and The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy, told HS Today: "as we read [Brennan’s speech], we realize that the administration is going backward in understanding the threat and explaining it to the public.

 

Going Backward

"They say the doctrine is ‘to safeguard the American people from the transnational challenge that poses one of the greatest threats to our national security -- the scourge of violent extremists who would use terrorism to slaughter Americans abroad and at home.’ What does that mean?

 

Nothing. It is as if they speak in abstract. Which ‘transnational challenge is posing the greatest threat to US national security?’ It is the global jihadist threat, with its two networks, the Salafists and the Khomeinists, not the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or militaristic regimes. Why is the Obama administration regressing into a level way below what most educated Americans understand?”

 

Wishful Thinking Can't Change Ideologies

Phares said "the administration criticizes the narrative of its predecessor and we do as well, but instead they propose something weaker and in some aspects dangerous to US national security. After eight years of confrontation with a world web of jihadists, both Salafists and Khomeinists, on two major battlefields in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in various regions of the world such as Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia, the Levant, the Maghreb, and as the threat penetrates the West with homegrown cells, the administration's doctrine on the threat understanding is entirely disconnected from reality.

 

"In short, " Phares said, "the new doctrine asserts that the US is no longer engaged in a ‘war on terrorism.’ They disengage from the conflict as if is in a wishful, thinking that they can redesign world realities in different colors and names. As if one party in a conflict can decide on the ideology and the strategies of the foe.”

 

We Are at War, Words Won't Change It

Phares stated that "this is a unilateral withdrawal from this conflict and its war of ideas but this policy decision is not going to change the fact that terrorism is going to continue to strike us and our allies. Actually, terrorism is escalating and expanding, not regressing from the moment the administration began its retreat from the confrontation. This policy is not going to change the fact that there is a ‘war.’ A war means mobilizing your national defense, intelligence and economic resources to defeat a foe of a size that can jeopardize your national security. As long as the administration and Congress are spending billions of dollars on several battlefields, deploying task forces around the world, funding the homeland security department and other agencies and talking about strategic communications across the defense institutions, they are still waging war. Such a policy is dangerous for the United States, as it puts it against international law, bypasses the will of its own people, and strengthens the enemy's ability to expand and to legitimize itself.”

 

Speaking to HSToday.us more specifically about the "administration's apparent intent to abandon the term, 'war on terrorism,' Phares said "the administration can quit using words it doesn't like, but that would not pull the other side away from conflict, won't deter it, won't sway hearts and minds against the terrorists, won't create a change in the terminology used by the jihadists.”

 

Fighting the SS But Not Nazism?

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,' yet [Brennan] said also Obama outlined a ‘new way of seeing’ the fight against ‘terrorism.’ So, it is about terrorism, it is about a fight, but they don't want to recognize it as such,” Phares said. "It would be to say that during WWII, the US was fighting the Wehrmacht, the SS, the Luftwaffe, but not at war with the global threat of Nazism.

 

"The only terminology the administration wants to use is that the US is ‘at war with Al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on Al Qaeda's murderous agenda.’ This slogan raises many questions: How can you be at war with Al Qaeda and not state what Al Qaeda's ideology is? What does ‘extremists’ mean? How can the US be at ‘war’ with a non-state actor if the administration has decided to abandon the concept of ‘war’ to begin with? It sounds like the architects of the new narrative have created a doctrine that doesn't add up.”

 

Turning his attention to the administration’s position that that fighting ‘jihadists’ is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve,” is "wrong,” Phares cautioned.

 

Jihadism Is an Ideology Not a Religion

"Jihad is not a simple legitimate term as described. Jihad doesn't mean to purify oneself because there are other terms to mean that. It is an effort 'fi sabeel allah' (on the path of Allah) on the theological level. And a secular government like the United States has no business to issue theological explanations of what theological jihad means,” Phares said.

 

"Historically, jihad was an injunction by the caliphs to mobilize for war. But today, we're talking about a jihadist movement; ideology in this century meeting us in battlefields and also attacking Muslim societies. The jihadist movement and the jihadists are one thing, which we can and have to deal with in national security matters, and jihad as a theoretical concept, which is a matter the US government must refrain from meddling in either positively or negatively.”

 

The Administration's Doctrine Is Dangerous to the US

Phares continued: "The secular government of the United States has no business declaring what term is legitimate and what term is not in religious affairs. The jihadists are a movement, with an ideology and strategies. The Nazis and the fascists were a movement and an ideology. You can't say that because nationalism and socialism are legitimate that national-socialism was as well.

 

"The declared doctrine of the Obama administration that this 'risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself' [is] absolutely wrong," Phares said. "By being precise that it is in conflict with the jihadists not with Muslims, the US will show that it is countering the actions of a radical terror network. There are Muslims fighting the jihadists in several countries: Iran, Algeria, Iraq, Sudan, and Lebanon, let alone in other places such as Nigeria. If the US will call off the confrontation with the jihadists, the Muslim moderates will loose the confrontation with extremism. The Obama administration is using a lexicon that goes against the national interest of the United States.”
Social Bookmarking
               

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review