Name that Enemy
Eli Lake thinks he knows why President Obama won’t name the enemy. In a Bloomberg column Lake says it’s because many of our allies in the Muslim world share the same beliefs but not the violent tactics of Islamic radicals. He cites a 2013 Pew Survey that says 74 percent of Egyptian Muslims favor Sharia law for Muslims and infidels alike.
Three-quarters of Pakistani Muslims support laws banning blasphemy. A majority of Muslim Iraqis said they supported “honor killings” of women who engage in premarital sex or adultery.
All of this gets to a paradox of the war on terror. It has never been a war on the tactic of terrorism, and it has always been a war against networks of radical Islamists. But in order to wage that war, the U.S. has had to ally with Muslim countries and people, many of whom believe the state should punish apostates, adulterers and blasphemers.
Can’t have a War without an Enemy
The administration doesn’t like to call it a war either – try overseas contingency operations. John Kerry in his 2004 run for the presidency called it a nuisance.
That would explain the detainees at Gitmo. If there’s no war they’re not POWs. If they can’t be prosecuted they have to be released.
Here’s a link to Roosevelt’s Day of Infamy speech.
We need to learn what percentage of American Muslims favor establishment of an “Islamic State”, to quote The Central Zakat Committee of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago. Even more important is to learn what percentage of Islamic leaders in America want an Islamic state. A fair estimate, I think, would be nearly 100%. Since the leaders comprise only a tiny minority of all Muslims in America, we would have to conclude—if multicultie logic were our guide—that those leaders must be just “extremists” who are unrepresentative of Islam.
[…] (By Chip Bok, see the original on his webpage.) […]