Speaking of the Washington Post, I think this Op Ed by John F. Lehman is well worth reading. Excerpt:
This not a war against terror any more than World War II was a war against kamikazes.
We are at war with jihadists motivated by a violent ideology based on an extremist interpretation of the Islamic faith. This enemy is decentralized and geographically dispersed around the world. Its organizations range from a fully functioning state such as Iran to small groups of individuals in American cities.
What is needed now is a separate domestic intelligence service without police powers, like the British MI-5.
I'm a libertarian and the "without police powers" part goes a long way toward assuaging my concerns, because I'm worried about violations of the 4th Amendment in a criminal law context, yet I acknowledge the insanity of treating jihad as crime.
Another Lehman remark hit much closer to home:
The indoctrination and recruiting of jihadists from Indonesia, South Asia and the Middle East are carried out through religious establishments that are supported overwhelmingly by the Saudi and Iranian governments. Even in the United States, some 80 percent of Islamic mosques and schools are closely aligned with the Wahhabist sect and heavily dependent on Saudi funding. Five years after Sept. 11, nothing has been done to materially affect this root source of jihadism. The movement continues to grow, fueled by an ever-increasing flow of petrodollars from the Persian Gulf.
There is no evidence that the administration has ever raised this matter with the Saudi government as a high-level issue, and -- just as damaging -- it has never acknowledged it as an issue to the American people.
Even in the United States?
Yeah, like rightaroundthecornerfromme! And instead of doing anything about it, the government finances the place with my tax money. The whole thing makes me worry about whether the war on terror is serious.
I think it is incredibly serious, but I think people forget. Denial is powerful, and it's an unaffordable luxury.
For the past couple of days I've written someveryfrustratingposts about what I can only call a genuine quagmire -- our national fetish of discrimination. Concerns about discrimination (especially the appearance of discrimination) now trump nearly every issue in the United States, including the Bill of Rights and national security, logic, and common sense.
Judge Posner opined that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." To that I'd add that the fight against discrimination should not be a suicide pact. This country is at war with jihad, for God's sake. Yet out of concern over discrimination, the plain existence of the enemy cannot even be acknowledged.
I don't know whether to call it insanity, decadence, or simple weakness of will, but it can't go on like this. One of the things I like about Lehman is that he's not afraid to look the specter of "discrimination" in the face:
Among Lehman's questions was this: "Were you aware that it was the policy...to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory?"
Rice replied: "No, I have to say that the kind of inside arrangements for the FAA are not really in my...." (Lehman quickly followed up: "Well, these are not so inside.")
Watching the hearings on television with the rest of the nation, I wondered what in the world Secretary Lehman was talking about. This, I'd never heard before. Was he saying that the security of our airlines had been sacrificed by political correctness? A few days after the klieg lights had faded, I had the chance to ask him.
"We had testimony a couple of months ago from the past president of United, and current president of American Airlines that kind of shocked us all," Lehman told me. "They said under oath that indeed the Department of Transportation continued to fine any airline that was caught having more than two people of the same ethnic persuasion in a secondary line for line for questioning, including and especially, two Arabs."
This is not an argument for or against racial profiling so much as it is an argument for common sense and against bureaucratized madness.
Waiting for things to get worse guarantees not only that they will get worse, but that in the inevitable reactive hysteria which would result, our freedom could be irreparably lost.
George S. Patton said that "the object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." (In this case, his sickening "cause.") Similarly, I'd rather take away freedom from the enemy than have it taken from me.
It's not as if there isn't an enemy.
UPDATE: Andy McCarthy offers a perfect example of the problem:
Bush backs off 'Islamic fascists'
Tones down war rhetoric to appease Muslim groups
President Bush has toned down his war rhetoric after Muslim-rights groups complained his description of the enemy as "Islamic fascists" unfairly equates Islam with terrorism.
The enemy calls what they are doing "jihad." For reasons of political correctness, we are forced to call it "terrorism."
How is it that the enemies call themselves what America is not allowed to call them?
UPDATE: My thanks to The Anchoress for linking this post!
UPDATE (09/03/06): My thanks to Socrates' Academy and Redstate for linking this post in a thoughtful and provocative analysis which concludes:
...pretending jihad isn't a problem won't make it go away.
It isn't as if pretending hasn't been tried.
posted by Eric on 09.01.06 at 11:11 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3982
Comments
I think part of the problem is the old one that people in government assume that the rest of us can't think very well on our own. If they called a spade a spade, goes the reasoning, the government might not act too horrifically, but the American sheeple would massacre Muslims in the street.
Also, my solution is that we should have called a spade a spade and attacked Saudi Arabia for being a state actor responsible for the terror attacks of 9/11.
Jon Thompson · September 2, 2006 05:12 PM
We shouldn't call what our enemies do 'jihad'; that's a term that has religious signification of being honorable, and grants two of their premises: first, that we recognize the honor but oppose it (a misunderstanding), and second, that we are therefor in a fight against Islam (ditto).
I am certain there is a Arabic/Islamic word or phrase meaning "dishorable illegitimate aggression". We should find it and use it.
We consistently make the error of not only allowing the enemy to choose which of its terms are employed, but to redefine our own terms to suit the enemy's purposes.
alene · September 2, 2006 09:57 PM
So, who exactly is our enemy? The terrorists are the only ones who attack us, and they are not controlled by any state.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I think part of the problem is the old one that people in government assume that the rest of us can't think very well on our own. If they called a spade a spade, goes the reasoning, the government might not act too horrifically, but the American sheeple would massacre Muslims in the street.
Also, my solution is that we should have called a spade a spade and attacked Saudi Arabia for being a state actor responsible for the terror attacks of 9/11.