How Can a President Tell the Truth About Radical Islam?

 

640px-EnterpriseTripoliFrom a weekly column by Rev. George Rutler:

Exactly 229 years ago this month, when the Barbary pirates were menacing ships of the newborn United States off the coasts of Tunis and Algiers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met in London with a Muslim diplomat representing the Bey of Algiers to inquire why his religion made his people so hostile to a new country that posed them no threat. They reported to Congress through a letter to John Jay, then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the ambassador’s explanation that:

“Islam was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

….[I]f God is pure will without reason, whose mercy is gratuitous and has nothing to do with any sort of moral covenant with the human race, then irrational force in his name is licit, and conscience has no role in faith. This is not the eccentric interpretation of extremists; it is the logical conclusion of the assertions in the Koran itself.

May we grant that Fr. Rutler is onto something here, namely that: a) “Irrational force,” as he calls it, is indeed consonant with the underlying Islamic worldview; and that, b) Muslims have been visiting violence upon the West for a very long time, as demonstrated by the depredations of the Barbary pirates (not to mention the conquest of Byzantium and Spain and the various attempts to invade Europe proper).

Grant all that, and you still end up with a difficult question about just what American diplomats and high officials — above all, of course, the president — should say. How is President Obama — how is his successor — to tell the truth about radical Islam without inciting civilizational anger on the part of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims? How?

Image Credit: “EnterpriseTripoli” by William Bainbridge Hoff (died 1903) – http://www.archives.gov/research/military/navy-ships/sailing-ships.html. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 112 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_259843 Inactive
    user_259843
    @JefferyShepherd

    Islam has been on a march of conquest and enslavement in the name of religion since 600AD. But, if Muslims want to clean up their act, and that’s in doubt, simply call it what it is: Muslim/Islamic terrorists, extremists etc.  The terrorists say they are doing it in the name of the prophet and Islam.    Very well, let those Muslims who deny it fix them and destroy them.  We’ll be happy to help.

    • #31
  2. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Claire Berlinski:

    Tuck:

    So it’s not possible to speak truthfully about radical Islam without pointing out that “radical” Islam is, in fact, fundamental Islam.

    Why not say just that? A term like “fundamentalist Islam” seems entirely serviceable. As would “Islamic fundamentalists.”

    Isn’t it OK to be an Islamic Fundamentalist, so long as one does not act in opposition to my freedom not to be one?

    Query:  Were a group of Islamic Fundamentalists to apply for a permit to march in Skokie Illinois, would we support or oppose the village granting the permit?

    • #32
  3. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Jeffery Shepherd:Islam has been on a march of conquest and enslavement in the name of religion since 600AD. But, if Muslims want to clean up their act, and that’s in doubt, simply call it what it is: Muslim/Islamic terrorists, extremists etc. The terrorists say they are doing it in the name of the prophet and Islam. Very well, let those Muslims who deny it fix them and destroy them. We’ll be happy to help.

    100% agreed.

    • #33
  4. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    I think a president should keep it simple.  “For those who wish to live in peace with us, we embrace you.  For those who wish to be at war, you will accept the consequences of your choice.”

    I don’t think it is seemly for a president of the United States to get too deep in interpreting other people’s religions.  Imagine Obama commenting on the true meaning of Judaism or Catholicism.  At most, you can include something so that you do not reveal total ignorance, but don’t overdo it.  It’s not like the Brandenburg Gate speech had more than a token amount of German and Reagan’s line to Gorbachev wasn’t in Russian.

    Respect is a two-way street.

    • #34
  5. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Tommy De Seno:

    Query: Were a group of Islamic Fundamentalists to apply for a permit to march in Skokie Illinois, would we support or oppose the village granting the permit?

    Oppose.

    • #35
  6. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Under ISIS’ adopted system government controlled production and distribution to the masses is exactly what they have.  Are you sourced otherwise?

    Nope.  We’re agreed here.  It’s just that fascism is explicitly government-controlled capitalism, or corporatist.  As I pointed out, other systems also control production and distribution, but they’re not fascist.  Nor are the Daesh, based solely on their control of production and distribution.  There’s certainly no capitalism involved; that’s anathema to them.  I’ve been able to identify no corporatist functions in them, either; have you?

    I find myself in an Internet discussion, the purpose of which as I understand it is finding words to properly identify this enemy.

    Properly identify them by understanding their imperatives and how they function.  Labels don’t add a lot to that.  Especially inaccurate ones.

    Look how much time is being wasted–and not just here–on labeling these terrorists rather than actually understanding them, for their more efficient destruction.

    Eric Hines

    • #36
  7. NYC Supporter Inactive
    NYC Supporter
    @RedFishBlueFish

    I think it depends on the goal.  If the goal to to continue to fight those who use Islam to justify actual violence occurring now, then we need to find a message that does in fact separate the terrorists from everyone else.  Not sure what those words are, but in part, not sure I care either.

    Because that is the wrong goal.

    The real goal needs to be to reform Islam so that the future terrorists do not materialize, all the while destroying the current ones.  In that regard, you need to actually make the case that Islam itself is not consistent with Western values.  It requires reform in order to prevent the next terrorist.  Parsing words won’t ever lead to reform.  You need to actually tackle the problem.  I am increasingly convinced you need to make the confrontation broader to solve the problem.

    That problem, as I am increasingly convinced, is Islam itself.  It needs the Enlightenment or its going to continue to produce these terrorists.  You are never going to get moderate Muslims to change their own religion by telling them that they are not part of the problem.  Rev. Rutler’s description of a God with reason, and not just will, is precisely the lesson of the enlightenment.  Christianity includes a concept of a moral covenant with God, which generates the self-propelling reasoned approach to relationships with God and among people, that is entirely missing from Islam.

    We need to confront Islam itself.  That is a hard thought to process in today’s Western normative world.  but in part, that is because Islam rejects today’s Western normative world.

    Just look at what Rev. Rutler said then – its still true today.  That should tell you everything you need to know about whether parsing words will get you the intended result.

    • #37
  8. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    Ball Diamond Ball:What the President (well *a* President) should say is:

    “There exists in the Muslim world a terrible evil which eats at their society and eats at ours. It tears apart their lives and it tears apart ours. It threatens them and it threatens us. Bad governance and perhaps just plain bad timing have left the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, who want to raise their kids just like we do, without any effective means of addressing this growing curse.” “As this threat grows, so must we become increasingly dedicated to wiping out the murderous ideology wherever we find it. This will not be an easy war, a short war, or a linear war. We will defeat them at one place only to be surprised by them in another. The whole world is the battlefield in a war that we did not choose. Let that sink in if it’s the first time you;re hearing it stated so bluntly.” “I not only have a duty to defend the people of my country, but the privilege of serving at a time when the freedom of billions around the globe hangs in the balance. It may see a small thing that a cartoonist in the Netherlands cannot draw what he wants, or that a blogger in Iran cannot speak as he wishes, or that not one person in Israel may sleep without fear of rockets blasting their children to bits, but these are not small things. How much larger does it have to get, before a moral duty to stand up to this intimidation becomes the key consideration?” “It’s plenty bad now. It’s far beyond any acceptable, background-level version of the problem. We do not have a choice about going to war. We only have a choice whether to win or lose, and based on any metric you’d like to consider, we are losing.”

    “That ends today. The vast majority of Muslims want nothing more to live in peace, and we look forward to their assistance wherever we can get it. I understand, however, that the vast majority are not in a position to resist. They are already terrified of resisting the awful tide for fear of what will happen to their families. Those in their midst who insist that the entire world must be subjugated are a menace to the majority of Muslims and to us.”

    “We have suffered enough wounds, and we are coming for those would-be conquerors.”

    Anyway, that’s a once-through draft, and I’m tired. What we don’t need to do is try to convince our enemies that we are right. They don’t care what we say. That’s asking for permission to live, which will not be granted, but they will be highly amused by the effort.

    1) I think this has some of the elements of the right speech.

    2) I would not give this or any other speech without a very good plan for following through. Speeches are nice, but if there’s no plan, it’s yet another speech from the US that has no connection to reality. The pattern of “speeches followed by inaction,” or “followed by a war with which we got fed up,” or “followed by an election in which we change our minds,” is devastating–absolutely devastating–to what was once quaintly called “US credibility.”

    3) I would not focus so much on the military aspect or language of the speech. Not because that’s not a massively important part of it (obviously not) but because it’s not going to be enough. We have to use many other tools, as well, that no one seems to think about.

    4) The key to assuring the Muslim world that we want to destroy their oppressors, but not them, is to do just that. Those parts of the Muslim world need reassurance they won’t be caught in the crossfire, made into collateral damage, used as pawns by dictators we’ve bought off and whom we tolerate because they’re helping us in some way no one discusses, and that we can be trusted not to leave them with their oppressors when we change our minds in the next election. If the speech says nothing about this–and nothing about how dismally we failed to make it right for the terps–it will not be particularly convincing. Many Americans don’t remember that. Guarantee it is not forgotten where it matters. There are many such issues. I go on and on about things like the Budapest Memorandum because yes, the conclusions people draw from such things if that if Americans themselves don’t remember what they recently said, we can hardly expect them to remember what they’re saying today in a few years’ time.

    5) You cannot win a “global battlefield” without allies. Nice to think so, but you seem to be a man with a solid grasp on things like “numbers.” Now is the time to show commitment to our allies–and they are not just Israel. What’s more, they’re not just the heads of state and governments of allied countries: They’re the people who vote for them or revolt against them in unpredictable ways. Treating France with contempt when no country of its size could conceivably be doing more in the Sahel–or know more about it (that is a very old historic relationship)–is about as self-destructive as it gets.

    6) We have to choose our allies carefully. It’s clearly no game to say, “Our new allies are the Kurds” without thinking through all the ways that breaking up Turkey–by no means a Western country, and one that has a recent history of real genocide–could go wrong. (And Turkey is in fact at exactly the point where a reasonable person should worry that this kind of hell could easily be unleashed.)

    7) We have to be consistent, long-term, in implementing this plan, using every tool at our disposal–and the military as little as possible. People need to think about things like nine million desperate Syrian refugees. They are–as described–desperate. Lots of Islamic fundamentalists are entirely eager to feed, house, shelter, and educate them. We are not. I have a baleful suspicion about where that’s going to end up.

    8) We have to figure out a way to be sure the plan looks consistent on every level, is indeed reasonably consistent, and communicated clearly and consistently through every tool we have (Go to State’s Twitter feed–in any country-to see how little we think about this.)

    9) We have to figure out a way to ensure this plan stays the same from one administration to the next, because yes, this problem will not be solved in the time frame considered by the founders when they considered “war powers.” This may even require constitutional reform. (Pause to take that one in.)

    10) We must be honest about how much this will cost, and the sacrifice to our budget and our own civil liberties. The answer is, “a lot.”

    11) We must be creative about it: We can bomb, invade, and occupy–and often, we will have to–but these are not the only strategies available to imperial powers. In fact, there is nothing at all absurd about the idea of “winning hearts and minds.” Americans need to be the people who solve problems better than Islamic fundamentalists do. We need to be the ones who build schools, roads, and hospitals, and bring trade and business. We need to be the ones who are committed to staying wherever we go and being the first people you’d ask if you needed a problem solved, not the last. This is certainly possible–although we have to really study the ways we failed to make that strategy work in Iraq. But if I can manage to make myself the “useful American” in most places I go, I doubt I’m the only one.

    11) We need language skills. There is no way to understand what’s happening in any of these countries if you can’t talk to people. There’s no way to avoid being bamboozled if the only ones you’re talking to are the ones who’ve studied you more than you’ve studied them.

    12) We need to decide what’s “not the American way, but tolerable,” and what’s “intolerable.” Where do we draw the line? Can we be allies with countries ruled by ruthless dictators who like killing Islamic fundamentalists, or is that short-term gain for long-term pain? Might it simply encourage the kind of dark and despairing anti-Americanism that makes Islamic Fundamentalism sound quite sensible? For this, we need to study to draw the assumptions, not have assumptions and then find the evidence that confirms our assumptions.

    13) We need to go far beyond “I’ve read the Q’uran and I can see what it says.” Any American who failed to do that within 24 hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers was surprisingly uncurious; and it is now 2015: We’ve had plenty of time not only to study it, but to study all the commentaries and all the ways people around the world understand it. They vary very widely. The question is not “what does it say,” it is  how it is interpreted in huge parts of the world, and why; what else is important to people in those parts of the world (in most “predominantly Muslim” places I’ve seen, it is one of many things that shape the local sense of geopolitics); what has worked so far and why; what hasn’t and why; and where it makes most sense to focus what are in fact limited resources.

    14) I suspect that we continue to have a massive problem with inter-agency communication. I see no sign that State, CIA, NSA Defense, and Congress are communicating as well as they should be (no less FBI and Homeland Security). We already have huge resources, but they do us a lot less good if they don’t share what they know with each other. Finding mechanisms to get them to cooperate–and yes bringing in our substantial academic resources, too–strikes me as a high priority.

    15) If we wait for the government to do all of this for us, we’re doomed. We are, each of us, better American ambassadors than most of ours. I would encourage anyone who can to go trade and do business in these parts of the world–unless they’re already so far gone that clearly, no American can set foot in the place. Nothing kills stereotypes of “Westerners” faster than meeting them. And vice-versa. Reality is always a good place to start when planning a global war.

    • #38
  9. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Eric Hines:Under ISIS’ adopted system government controlled production and distribution to the masses is exactly what they have. Are you sourced otherwise?

    Nope. We’re agreed here. It’s just that fascism is explicitly government-controlled capitalism, or corporatist. As I pointed out, other systems also control production and distribution, but they’re not fascist. Nor are the Daesh, based solely on their control of production and distribution. There’s certainly no capitalism involved; that’s anathema to them. I’ve been able to identify no corporatist functions in them, either; have you?

    I find myself in an Internet discussion, the purpose of which as I understand it is finding words to properly identify this enemy.

    Properly identify them by understanding their imperatives and how they function. Labels don’t add a lot to that. Especially inaccurate ones.

    Look how much time is being wasted–and not just here–on labeling these terrorists rather than actually understanding them, for their more efficient destruction.

    Eric Hines

    I’m not arguing it is a perfect fit into the label.  No system ever is; not even ours fits perfectly within a capitalist model.  The analysis is always one of “close enough” to allow the label.

    I agree that Fascism’s economic engine is Corporatism.  Corporatism involves either a mixing of private ownership and government ownership of company equity, OR private ownership with so much government controls they are effectively running the company.   Either way they control production, and under Fascism like Communism there is a distribution to the masses. Since the 1930’s America has run headfirst into the distribution concrete wall too, but our system is not Fascist because that label requires control of production, not just distribution.

    ISIS has sworn allegiance to socialist distribution, but their control of production is what does not disqualify the Fascist label.  But you need more than that to get to the fascist label.

    What you need for that is a rabid nationalism.  Italy and Germany both had it from dissatisfaction with the outcome of WWI.     ISIS has nationalism in spades.  They have it on the same level or worse than Hitler, who of course took it to a whole next level from Mussolini.

    I stand by the Fascist label for these totalitarians.

    If you disagree, where do you put them?

    • #39
  10. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Tuck:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Query: Were a group of Islamic Fundamentalists to apply for a permit to march in Skokie Illinois, would we support or oppose the village granting the permit?

    Oppose.

    Nothing of Voltaire?  You don’t disagree with what they say but are willing to die for their right to say it?

    I’m testing Claire’s idea here that identifying the enemy as “Islamic Fundamentalist” is sufficient.

    • #40
  11. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    I stand by the Fascist label for these totalitarians.

    If you disagree, where do you put them?

    I don’t: It’s not necessary to identify Daesh’s organizational system…only to understand the terrorists’ means of control–just like it is with al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Nusra, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, et al., in order to more efficiently destroy these terrorists.

    One quibble: Daesh aren’t totalitarians, they’re Islamic terrorists.  That’s my chosen label; it describes who they are and what they do without any political distractions.  Come to that, Islamic terrorists is a fine label for the lot of them; Daesh works for the particular group, as do al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc where it’s useful to refer to those other particular groups of them.

    What’s necessary, before and after the label (yours or mine), is to understand their methods and imperatives.

    Eric Hines

    • #41
  12. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Tommy De Seno:

    Nothing of Voltaire? You don’t disagree with what they say but are willing to die for their right to say it?

    You can only safely grant that privilege to someone who agrees with your goals, assuming your goal is a free society where each respects the other’s freedom.

    Islam, like Socialism, does not respect others’ freedom.  They are thus the enemies of a free, civil society.

    So to grant them the freedom to take your freedom away is to abandon your goal of a free, civil society.

    I’m not willing to give it up, just yet.

    Voltaire, I suspect, is in agreement with me.

    I’m testing Claire’s idea here that identifying the enemy as “Islamic Fundamentalist” is sufficient.

    What you call them is irrelevant.  It’s what you do about it…

    • #42
  13. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Claire Berlinski:

    1) ; 2) ; 3) ; 4) ; 5) ; 6); 7) ; 8) ; 9) ; 10); 11) ; 11) ; 12) ; 13) ; 14) ; 15) ;

    And in exchange for these, we get …?

    Before we start discussing how to approach them, it pays to discuss why we would want to approach them. Besides, why are we the ones expected to do the approaching?

    It makes no sense to design a grand strategy of approaching muslims unless you know why you want to do it in the first place.

    We make a distinction between the radical Islamicists who attack and kill, and the rest of the Islamic world, who -we presume- are just like every other foreign culture with whom we’d like to establish a profitable relationship.

    If the argument here is that military might won’t defeat asymmetric enemies, and we need the peaceful muslims to rat out the radical muslims, then we have to focus on actions that influence peaceful muslims to work for peace. It isn’t that we have to suck up to muslim sensibilities and schmooze them into ratting out their neighbors. That strategy – as experience shows – doesn’t work.

    Instead, they need a motive to stop protecting the terrorists who work from within their borders. Enticing them by appealing to them … hasn’t worked. But liking us isn’t the only motive we can provide.

    • #43
  14. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Tommy De Seno:

    Nothing of Voltaire? You don’t disagree with what they say but are willing to die for their right to say it?

    Apropos of nothing:

    a) Voltaire never wrote that. It’s a misquote.

    b) Voltaire did write, in a private letter to M. le Riche “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

    In other words, Voltaire’s sentiment was directed at a specific person, who just happened to be a close, personal friend.

    He wasn’t saying that he would defend just anybody’s right to say anything.

    Instead, he was saying he would defend his friend’s right to have a writing career, even though he thought his friend was a terrible writer.

    • #44
  15. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Quinn the Eskimo:I think a president should keep it simple. “For those who wish to live in peace with us, we embrace you. For those who wish to be at war, you will accept the consequences of your choice.”

    To use a well-worn phrase from the podcast, I think this is exactly right.

    • #45
  16. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Tuck:

    So it’s not possible to speak truthfully about radical Islam without pointing out that “radical” Islam is, in fact, fundamental Islam.

    Well, since “radical” and “fundamental” are essentially synonyms, I think any attempt at distinction would be rather moot.

    “Radical” comes from the Latin word for “root”. It generally means to replace a system entirely, tearing it up “by the root” so to speak.

    “Fundamental” comes from the Latin word for “foundation”.  i.e. essentially the same thing as “root”, but architectural rather than biological.

    • #46
  17. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Peter and All,

    First this isn’t about speech but about the meaning of the concepts employed. I think that there is a general consensus that a vague term like violent extremism doesn’t target who we are fighting or why. I see a number of candidate replacement concepts on this post.

    Islamofascist. This term has great resonance here in America and Europe. We know exactly what you mean by it. However, it fails on two main points. First, Fascists targeted their victims more specifically. They held Jews up as their primary target and that really isn’t true of Islam. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, anyone considered an apostate Muslim, are all targeted equally. It is an absolute declaration of war on all those who are not following Islam the proper way. Second, although it has great resonance in America & Europe it has much less meaning in the middle east where much of the problem occurs. It is a secular word describing a theologic problem and thus doesn’t completely translate.

    Islamic Fundamentalist or Islamist. This term certainly isn’t a secular term. It accurately describes a theological problem. The first problem here is not target but priority. Sharia Law, as is the History of the last 1,400 years, is a vast subject. Endless discussion about a huge number of complex issues doesn’t produce consensus for action. This would be especially true as we in the west discuss this until we are truly lost in the forest. The second problem, also about priority, is that it is vague in terms of its translation to the middle east. People who may wind up on one side or another of a death struggle need to know right away what the story is and what the differential concepts are that put them on one side or the other. Muslims are put in an impossible position. The third problem with this concept is that it assumes that there is no active propaganda force in the world who will try to twist your intent. This concept sounds much too much like a blanket indictment of Islam and would be easy prey for propagandizing demagogues like the one residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (for the moment).

    For all the reasons above I recommend using the concept Jihad and the appellation Jihadist when we refer to the problem and the problem makers. It is a theological term that describes the highest priority difficulty that we face. Jihad’s transnational absolute declaration of war is merciless and relentless. It requires maximum effort and international coordination to stop. It has the benefit of simplicity in that it is a single concept. The particulars can be argued in great detail but this narrows the focus tremendously. It makes it much more likely that we can reach consensus for action in the West. Meanwhile, it gives Muslims a difficult but clear choice. Renounce Jihad and join the coalition or embrace Jihad and prepare to be in a real war. A real war in which a well prepared enemy will seek to kill you before you can kill him. This brings up a point well made in one of the comments on this post. Once Jihad is clearly defined and the definition and its implications accepted we need not belabor theology. If someone has declared war upon you for no reason than your response must be first and foremost self-defense. Self-defense is the easiest argument to justify and the most likely to be accepted even at the U.N.

    Again, this is not just about words and their emotional effects on people. There is underlying meaning to concepts who’s full implications must be grasped. Once we take the time to do this I think we will be much more effective.

    The Lincoln quote goes, “If I had 1 hour to chop wood I’d spend the first 45 minutes sharpening the axe.”

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #47
  18. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Misthiocracy:

    Tuck:

    So it’s not possible to speak truthfully about radical Islam without pointing out that “radical” Islam is, in fact, fundamental Islam.

    Well, since “radical” and “fundamental” are essentially synonyms, I think any attempt at distinction would be rather moot.

    “Radical” comes from the Latin word for “root”. It generally means to replace a system entirely, tearing it up “by the root” so to speak.

    “Fundamental” comes from the Latin word for “foundation”. i.e. essentially the same thing as “root”, but architectural rather than biological.

    That would make them antonyms.

    One goes back to the root to preserve the root. The other goes back to the root to supplant the root.

    • #48
  19. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Tommy De Seno:

    Query: Were a group of Islamic Fundamentalists to apply for a permit to march in Skokie Illinois, would we support or oppose the village granting the permit?

    I oppose all officially-sanctioned parades as a violation of the public’s right to free movement on roads their taxes paid for, so this one’s an easy question for me to answer in the negative.

    This, of course, raises the question of the legality of non-sanctioned marches, but that’s a whole different question altogether…

    • #49
  20. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    ctlaw:

    Misthiocracy:

    Tuck:

    So it’s not possible to speak truthfully about radical Islam without pointing out that “radical” Islam is, in fact, fundamental Islam.

    Well, since “radical” and “fundamental” are essentially synonyms, I think any attempt at distinction would be rather moot.

    “Radical” comes from the Latin word for “root”. It generally means to replace a system entirely, tearing it up “by the root” so to speak.

    “Fundamental” comes from the Latin word for “foundation”. i.e. essentially the same thing as “root”, but architectural rather than biological.

    That would make them antonyms.

    One goes back to the root to preserve the root. The other goes back to the root to supplant the root.

    I suppose that way of interpreting the words is defensible.

    • #50
  21. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Misthiocracy:

    Well, since “radical” and “fundamental” are essentially synonyms, I think any attempt at distinction would be rather moot.

    Not so much.  You’re using the second sense, which still does not mean that a radical and a fundamentalist hold the same position.  A radical is opposed to the position of the fundamentalist: he wishes fundamental change away from the foundation, the fundamentalist wishes a return to it.

    • #51
  22. user_989419 Inactive
    user_989419
    @ProbableCause

    Peter, you are asking the right question.

    My best guess:

    We oppose those who would force us to submit to their religion.  We oppose those who would tell us how we are to pray and to whom we must pray.  We oppose those who would tell us that we must treat women as less than co-equal citizens.  We oppose those who would tell us who we can and cannot criticize.

    To the imams of Islam, I am told that your religion is peaceful.  If you seek peace, come here to these towers…

    • #52
  23. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    ctlaw:

    One goes back to the root to preserve the root. The other goes back to the root to supplant the root.

    To Peter’s OP: He should not ask “How Can a President Tell the Truth About Radical Islam?”, but “How Can a President Tell the Truth About Fundamental Islam, and Encourage The Radicals?”

    The non-violent interpretation of Islam is the radical one.

    • #53
  24. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Peter and All,

    I will extend my analysis of comment #47 directly at Peter’s original post.

    “Islam was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.

    The above (I’ve added the bold emphasis) is perfect. It is an exact description of Transnational Jihad. An absolute declaration of war on all non-Muslims justifying the most brutal and tyrannical means carried out by an absolute theological judgement.

    This is a report from a fact finding mission by no less than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. They are responding to an aggression by the ‘Barbary Pirates’ a Muslim Navy that was preying upon shipping in the Mediterranean. Necessity may be the mother of invention but it also focuses the mind for action. Especially when minds like Jefferson and Adams, capable of bringing the highest abstraction down to practicality, are put to the task. The conclusion reached is simple. The Jihadist nature of the Barbary Pirates make them impossible to negotiate with much less co-exist with peacefully. Force was required.

    Force was required then as it will be now. Force is always required to coerce a coercer. It is our right and duty to coerce this merciless, relentless coercer.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #54
  25. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    KC Mulville: Enticing them by appealing to them … hasn’t worked.

    I have not, frankly, seen much of an earnest effort to try. So I can’t say it hasn’t worked. Now of course, I can speak only for the places I’ve been, and the majority-Muslim country in which I’ve spent the most time is Turkey. But I can say with some confidence that if I’d wished to design a strategy to ensure an entire country of immense strategic importance holds us in suspicion and contempt, I’d try what I saw us doing there. I saw no real or sincere effort by the United States to make itself anything but loathed in Turkey.

    The miracle is that they largely do still like Americans–this doesn’t show up in the polls, I suspect, because when polled, my guess is that what they think they’re being asked is whether they like the American government. But they do like American people. We seem normal, friendly, and generally useful to them. The ones who blew up our Embassy were not Islamists, they were communists. (Although there, too, if you’d seen what I saw, you might have some sense of where that impulse comes from. It does not remotely justify it, but suffice to say, we do not present ourselves there in a way that does us justice.)

    In Morocco (where I spent very little time), I saw many signs of people who really liked us, very much wished to cooperate with us, and couldn’t understand why we weren’t signing up promptly to help them crush the kinds of Muslims they consider outright lunatics.

    In Israel, I met Muslims who are about as excited at the thought of being blown up by a suicide bomber as anyone would be. Quite a few, in fact. In some parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank, however, I saw Muslims who made me think, “I don’t want to sit down over a cup of tea and get to know them. I may be mistaken, but I’ll trust my instincts. Something tells me they’re a lost cause.”

    In both France and India, I encountered a huge number of Muslims (as they culturally identify themselves, and I won’t argue) who want to kill the fundamentalists far more than any American I’ve ever met. And have much better reasons for feeling this than most Americans do. They worry about Americans, though–they can’t quite figure out what we’re thinking. It makes them nervous, for understandable reasons, when it sounds as if we might want to kill them, too.

    So no, I don’t think we’ve done enough to entice them. I don’t even see much sign that we’ve spoken to many of them. But don’t take my word for it: Increasingly I feel that one trip to any of these places will shape your views on foreign policy far more meaningfully than anything I could say. And given the stakes involved, it seems to me something Americans should do. It’s not that expensive to fly to some of these places, and get a sense–a visual sense, an intuitive sense, the sense you get from talking to people–of the kind of strategy that might work and the kind that’s more likely to make things even worse.

    • #55
  26. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    James Gawron:Islamofascist. This term has great resonance here in America and Europe. We know exactly what you mean by it. However, it fails on two main points. First, Fascists targeted their victims more specifically. They held Jews up as their primary target and that really isn’t true of Islam.

    The historical inaccuracy of this statement has to be addressed.

    Fascism began in Italy, not Germany.  It was a pro-Italian movement seeded by Italy’s feeling slighted in the aftermath of WWI.  The nationalism that grew was not focused on any specific group, rather it held Italy up over every other place, exactly as today’s Islamofascists do.

    To say that Germany focused its Fascism against Jews (I see your “primary target” remark I’m not ignoring it) is just not correct.  The Master Race invaded Austria, Poland and France  among other places.  The aggression toward Jews was bigotry but don’t discount that Jews were an easy target being a diaspora with no army (thus the importance for Jews that Israel be a nation).

    Hitler was incensed at losing to guys like Jesse Owens and Joe Louis who very publically disproved the Master Race idea.

    It is inaccurate to say that either Fascist, Mussolini or Hitler, had specific targets of their nationalism.   It was everyone, just as the Islamofascists today wish to impose their religious nationalism on everyone.

    For all the reasons above I recommend using the concept Jihad and the appellation Jihadist when we refer to the problem and the problem makers. It is a theological term that describes the highest priority difficulty that we face.

    That won’t do what Peter asks.  It has been popular in Muslim communities for about 30 years  to refer to “Jihad” not just as a military term, which it apparently was for centuries, but as a dual purpose word that also covers personal struggles to better oneself.  Considering that, you risk encircling the peaceful guys with the terrorists, which is what Peter asked we not do.

    Also, Jihad is a religious term.  Fascism is not.  Islamofascist is the way to go here.   Keep the focus on the political where we don’t fall into false, distracting claims of religious bigotry.

    • #56
  27. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    I’d like a president to tell the truth about anything.

    Islam is the enemy of free civilization until proven otherwise.   Can one separate the religion from it’s radicals and manipulators?   Not my job, theirs.   This century will see the slaughter of tens of millions of Muslims because of their intrinsic problem with acquiescing to extremists.

    • #57
  28. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    Tuck:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Query: Were a group of Islamic Fundamentalists to apply for a permit to march in Skokie Illinois, would we support or oppose the village granting the permit?

    Oppose.

    Oppose, oppugn, calumny, and counter-protest, yes, but no, I would not overturn Brandenburg v. Ohio. It has served us well. We became–for a very brief moment in history–the only country ever in the history of the world to put into action on the ground ideals about freedom of speech that to the rest of the world sound impractical, radical, and lunatic. Oddly, it worked. Mind you, this may be because the problem was not huge to begin with, but in truth, our problem with Islamic fundamentalists in America is not orders of magitude larger.

    I suspect that the sight of Islamic Fundamentalists marching in Skopie would be more convincing by far, first to Americans who are unpersuaded that they are real; and second, to the rest of the world, which largely does not believe that there could be a place such that you are allowed to say anything in public. I believe that granting the permit would do more good than harm. It would prove that these people are entirely real–not an exaggeration–to Americans in doubt. It would prove that our principles are entirely real–not a species of hypocrisy–to those outside of America who find that idea preposterous, having never in their lives seen such a thing.

    I have not seen much of a neo-Nazi problem in the US since then. I don’t think that’s an accident.

    • #58
  29. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @GrannyDude

    I liked what Claire wrote, and for that matter quite a bit of BDB’s imaginary speech.

    My few additional thoughts:

    1) We should go easy on the “they would destroy us/our way of life” rhetoric. Al Qaeda, Saddam, the Ayatollahs, ISIS would all doubtless love to destroy America but they can’t. Hyperbolic remarks along the lines of “if we don’t stop them, we’re all going to be wearing hijaabs ” or even “if we don’t search the Keds of every granny who gets on a plane, we’re all going to die”convey a message that is both inaccurate and emasculating.

    2.) Same goes for comparisons with Hitler and Stalin. It gives them far too much credit. Yes, I know—what if they get a nuke? North Korea has a nuke, that doesn’t make the little Kimster into Stalin.

    3.) And yes, of course Islamic Fundamentalists can march in Skokie, assuming they’re American and unarmed. Are we more scared or disgusted by them than we were of Nazis? Really? 

    4.) We should close Gitmo and bring all our prisoners to the United States for trial and imprisonment. No, not because they’re misunderstood sweetie-pies, but because they are not super-villains who can make a mall explode with a malignant glance; they’re just men.

    We look silly and cowardly when we refuse to let some dumb jihadi who has been out of the game for more than a decade even touch a toe on American soil lest he magically summon demonic hordes to storm the gates of Leavenworth. Come on, America: Man up! If we could try Goering (and there were plenty of serious national security secrets and Nazi fanatics floating around in Nuremberg) we can try Osama’s wing man.

    5.) If we did not need their oil, our interest in whether and how the Islamic world evolves or fails to would be purely academic and/or humanitarian. We should’ve weaned ourselves from that toxic teat at least two decades ago.

    • #59
  30. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Claire Berlinski: The miracle is that they largely do still like Americans–this doesn’t show up in the polls, I suspect, because when polled, my guess is that what they think they’re being asked is whether they like the American government. But they do like American people.

    While I was still a Jesuit, I spent a summer in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the late 1980s. The observation that the people hated the American government but loved Americans was easily explained … their governments don’t “represent” them, so it didn’t occur to them that our government represents us. In their experience, “government” was just the latest gang to take power. It didn’t have any moral authority; the officeholders were just recipients of spoil for having won the latest turf battle. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. They just assumed that the same was true in America.

    A Jesuit missionary (who had grown up in Philadelphia, like me) once gave a homily on The Good Samaritan. He said that Americans don’t appreciate the power of that parable. In most of the rest of the world, the universal constant was “don’t stick your neck out for anyone.” When Jesus preached it, the locals would have considered Jesus’ advice to be stupid. Don’t stick your neck out. Maybe for family, but you can’t trust many others. Certainly not the government.

    That disconnect between government and people helps to explain a lot. If we’re building roads and schools, who are we trying to impress to help us?  The local people? Well, not to be crass about it, but in a war zone, there’s no point in trying to impress the people. They can’t do much for you, and won’t. At most, building a school is more useful as a political bribe to the real power … the local tribal boss, or warlord.

    If our diplomatic effort is based on the fantasy that the local moms and dads (grateful for us building them a school) are going to write a letter to their local warlord, and that will force the local warlord to reveal where the terrorists are hiding … that’s a misplaced fantasy. Mom-and-Dad pressure is a luxury that barely works in America; it definitely won’t work in a war zone.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.