As always, the NY Post is up in arms about the latest outrageous expression of political correctness from President Obama, this time concerning his refusal to characterize certain acts of terrorism as expressions of “radical Islam.”
Do these knuckleheads really find it so hard to comprehend? To an infinitely greater extent than John Boehner, Bibi Netanyahu, Tom Friedman, and (thank God) the editorial board of the Post, President Obama’s public pronouncements actually carry important consequences for US national interests. He can’t just go out on TV and say whatever the fuck he wants, consequences be damned.
If Obama declared that we’re at war on “radical Islam,” sure Archie Bunkers around the country will gobble it up, but it would needlessly make it more difficult for people like the radically Islamic Saudi regime, or the leaders of radically Islamic Pakistan, to continue helping us in the war on terror. AsEli Lake points out, lots of radical Muslims aren’t violent Muslims, and telegraphing to the world that we’re at war on radical Islam only serves at best to confuse those people, at worst to radicalize them and make them violent, and provides in any case fodder to propagandists who want to distort the US government’s actual position. There’s just no useful purpose to be served other than throwing out red meat for domestic consumption.
For all their yammering about Obama being an unprincipled “campaigner-in-chief,” I just love it when the Post is actually begging President Obama to be more craven and more transparently political when it happens to suit their agenda.
What are radical Muslims who are not violent ones like, exactly? And who are they? And what are they radical about? And how do they express their radicalism?
“Radical” and “violent” plainly don’t always exactly overlap. The prohibition on women driving in Saudi Arabia is radical but not violent per se. A Muslim who mugs and kills someone is violent but not necessarily radical. Moreover, certain Muslims may be radical and violent but not necessarily threatening violence toward US interests. When the Saudis flog a blogger for blasphemy, that is certainly violent but is not directed at us.
So can Obama call it “violent Islam” or “violent Islamism,” or will he continue to ignore the 800-pound elephant whilst liberals hem and haw over whether it really matters?
Please spell out what useful purpose would be served by invoking Islam, and what policy recommendations flow from the fact that the enemy (according to you) is violent Islam per se as opposed to violent extremism.
Honest question, John Mace - do you think the president avoided using the term “radical Islam” in the SOTU as a ridiculous semantic game? You’re usually pretty reasonable, so when you post a ‘both sides do it, whaddya gonna do?’ post I stop to consider it. Help me see what you’re talking about.
Personally, I’m outraged that the President can’t seem to ever spit out the term “terrorist assholes”. I mean, that’s clearly what they are, and yet for some reason he continually weasels around that fact. Telling.
It serves the practical purpose of properly pinpointing the principal particular of the problem: young men who are radicalized by extremist Islam into committing acts of terror.
The policy recommendation is to closely monitor people who travel to these countries and to ensure that when they return they aren’t suddenly experts in killing who proclaim hatred of America and the infidels.
Ignoring that these men are driven to violence by Islamic leaders who invite them to Syria and Yemen and train them how to kill masses of innocent people is to lie by omission. It’s pathetic.
The continuous air raids and bombings, the drone attacks, the boots still in Afghanistan, the CIA renditions and NSA omni-spying could possibly be construed, by certain parties, as hints to that effect.
Might be a political angle, next presidential election cycle is just about to kick off. Would make a certain amount of sense, if he is simply running out his term to retire to the golf course, and let the crusade be taken up by the next dem.
Recognizing that the problem involves radical Islam and saying so publicly are different things. You can monitor people fitting the profile of potential terrorists without coming out and saying we’re at war with radical Islam. Again, what useful purpose is served by incorporating “radical Islam” into Obama’s speeches?