Aiding Islamic Terrorists Is Our Foreign Policy

By Daniel Greenfield, FPM

obama khamObama says that we are not fighting a war on Islam. What he leaves out is that under his administration the United States is fighting in a civil war that is taking place within Islam.

It’s not a conflict between the proverbial moderate Muslim and the raging fanatic. That was an outdated Bush era notion. Instead Obama has brought us into a fight between Muslim governments and Muslim terrorists, not on the side of the governments we were allied with, but on the side of the terrorists.

It’s why Egypt is shopping for French planes and Russian nukes. Yemen’s government was run out of town by Obama’s new Iranian friends in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia. And the Saudis are dumping oil.

Iran and Qatar are the regional powers Obama is closest to. What these two countries have in common, is that despite their mutual hostility, they are both international state sponsors of Islamic terrorism.

 

Obama’s diplomats will be negotiating with the Taliban in Qatar. Among the Taliban delegation will be the terrorist leaders that Obama freed from Gitmo. And Iran gets anything it wants, from Yemen to the bomb, by using the threat of walking away in a huff from the hoax nuclear negotiations as leverage.

In Syria and Iraq, Obama is fighting ISIS alongside Islamic terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and Iran. In Libya, he overthrew a government in support of Islamic terrorists. His administration has spoken out against Egyptian air strikes against the Islamic State Jihadists in Libya who had beheaded Coptic Christians.

At the prayer breakfast where he denounced Christianity for the Crusades was the foreign minister of the Muslim Brotherhood government of Sudan that has massacred Christians. Unlike Libya, where Obama used a false claim of genocide to justify an illegal war, Sudan actually has committed genocide. And yet Obama ruled out using force against Sudan’s genocide even while he was running for office.

The United States now has a strange two-tier relationship with the Middle East. On paper we retain a number of traditional alliances with old allies such as Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia, complete with arms sales, foreign aid and florid speeches. But when it comes to policy, our new friends are the terrorists.

American foreign policy is no longer guided by national interests. Our allies have no input in it. It is shaped around the whims of Qatar and Iran; it’s guided by the Muslim Brotherhood and defined by the interests of state sponsors of terror. Our foreign policy is a policy of aiding Islamic terrorists.

It’s only a question of which terrorists.

Obama’s familiar argument is that ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters shouldn’t be called Islamic terrorists. Not even the politically correct sop of “Radical Islam” is acceptable. The terrorists are perverting Islam, he claims. The claim was banal even before September 11, but it bears an entirely new significance from an administration that has put Muslim Brotherhood operatives into key positions.

The administration is asserting the power to decide who is a Muslim. It’s a theological position that means it is taking sides in a Muslim civil war between Islamists.

This position is passed off as a strategy for undermining the terrorists. Refusing to call the Islamic State by its name, using the more derogatory “Daesh,” denying that the Islamic terrorists are acting in the name of Islam, is supposed to inhibit recruitment. This claim is made despite the flood of Muslims leaving the West to join ISIS. If any group should be vulnerable to our propaganda, it should be them.

But that’s not what this is really about.

According recognition to a state is a powerful diplomatic tool for shaping world politics. We refuse to recognize ISIS, as we initially refused to recognize the USSR. Obama resumed diplomatic ties with Cuba. His people negotiate and appease the Taliban even though it was in its own time just as brutal as ISIS.

Obama is not willing to recognize ISIS as Islamic, but he does recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as Islamic. Both are violent and murderous Islamists. But only one of them is “legitimate” in his eyes.

Those choices are not about terrorist recruitment, but about building a particular map of the region. Obama refuses to concede that ISIS is Islamic, not because he worries that it will bring them more followers, this is a tertiary long shot at best, but because he is supporting some of their rivals.

The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism has brought a covert strategy out into the spotlight. Despite its name, it’s not countering violence or extremism.

The new director of the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, the axis of Obama’s CVE strategy, is Rashad Hussain who appeared at Muslim Brotherhood front group events and defended the head of Islamic Jihad. In attendance was Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, yet another Muslim Brotherhood linked group, who had urged Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI and defended Hamas and Hezbollah.

In Syria, the United States is coordinating with Assad and backing the Syrian rebels, who have their own extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and even Al Qaeda. This could be viewed as an “enemy of my enemy” alliance, but this administration backed the Brotherhood before it viewed ISIS as a threat. Top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, had focused on outreach to Assad under Bush.

They’re not allying with Assad and the Brotherhood to beat ISIS. They’re fighting ISIS to protect the Brotherhood and their deal with Iran.

In the White House, Obama has tried to shape an Islamist future for the Middle East, favoring Islamist governments in Turkey and Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. He saw his role as paving the way for the next generation of regional regimes that would be explicitly Islamist.

The Arab Spring was a deceptive code name for a clean sweep that would push out the old leaders like Mubarak and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood and other likeminded Islamists. Islamic terrorism, at least against the United States, would end because their mission had been accomplished.

Stabilizing unrest by putting the destabilizers in charge wasn’t a new idea. Carter helped make it happen in Iran. And the more violent an Islamic terrorist group is, the more important it is to find a way to stop the violence by putting them in charge. The only two criteria that matter are violence and dialogue.

So why isn’t Obama talking to ISIS? Because ISIS won’t talk back. It’s impossible to support a terrorist group that won’t engage in dialogue. If ISIS were to indicate any willingness to negotiate, diplomats would be sitting around a table with headchoppers in less time than it takes a Jordanian pilot to burn.

And that still might happen.

Obama isn’t trying to finish off ISIS. He’s keeping them on the ropes the way that he did the Taliban. Over 2,000 Americans died on the off chance that the Taliban would agree to the negotiations in Qatar. Compared to that price in blood, the Bergdahl deal was small potatoes. And if Obama is negotiating with the Taliban after all that, is there any doubt that he would negotiate to integrate ISIS into Iraq and Syria?

Obama’s foreign policy in the region has been an elaborate exercise in trying to draw up new maps for a caliphate. The inclusion of terrorist groups in this program isn’t a mistake. It’s not naiveté or blindness. It’s the whole point of the exercise which was to transform terrorist groups into governments.

Stabilizing the region by turning terrorists into governments may sound like pouring oil on a fire, but to progressives who believe in root causes, rather than winning wars, violence is a symptom of discontent. The problem isn’t the suicide bomber. It’s our power structure. Tear that down, as Obama tried to do in Cairo, and the terrorists no longer have anything to fight against because we aren’t in their way.

Bush tried to build up civil society to choke off terrorism. Obama builds civil society around terrorists.

Obama does not believe that the terrorists are the problem. He believes that we are the problem. His foreign policy is not about fighting Islamic terrorists. It is about destroying our power to stop them.

He isn’t fighting terrorists. He’s fighting us.

*
Don’t miss The Glazov Gang’s recent episode: Obama: Deflecting for Islam:

February 21, 2015 | 9 Comments »

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. The Picture Of Dorian Gray

    Author: Oscar Wilde

    Year: 1890

    “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”


  2. Posted on February 20, 2015 by Scott Johnson in Laughter is the Best Medicine

    Thoughts from the ammo line

    Keeping up with the Obama administration, Ammo Grrrll is PIVOTING TO JOBS:

    Every few months, this wretched Administration announces with great fanfare that, having succeeded in ruining everything else, it is now going to “pivot” to jobs. Of course, as anyone who has ever played basketball knows, you pivot enough, you just go in circles, unless your pivot foot slips and you get called for the ancient foul of “traveling.” Now in the NBA you can walk the ball from the door of your mansion to the basket, no problem. But I digress.

    The pivot happened again last week, only they weren’t even pretending to talk about American workers. No, we need to provide jobs for psychotic jackasses lest they become jihadis. Michelle Malkin had her usual brilliant takedown on the “poverty” of the leading jihadis. Well worth a read – take notes! – if you missed it.

    But this strategy is surely worth a try. Why, I remember when Granddad, fresh from a stint in the Crusades, sat me on his knee and said, “Honey, we are so bleeping marginalized. We are one of the few families in this little South Dakota town that is neither Norwegian nor even Lutheran. I have no job except trying to raise a few pigs in the back yard. If I don’t get a job pretty soon, I may be forced to behead someone. It’s one of the few perks of marginalization.”

    And Grandma just nodded and continued cooking for her tiny cafe where you could get (true story) roast beef, mashed potatoes, a slice of homemade bread and butter and a piece of apple pie for a quarter. She had a job that she created herself but it only occupied her about 15 hours a day so she had plenty of time to sew orange jumpsuits for the doomed.

    Down the block (another true story) there lived a man whose enterprising 10-year-old son had a popcorn wagon and this kid made more money in a week (sometimes several dollars) than the man himself did. So, the man had no choice, no choice at all, but to go to the neighboring town and kidnap all the female persons and “marry” them off to his friends. Who could blame him, being underemployed and all? On the way back, he dropped in to the high school to behead the teacher in front of the students. Yay – job opening!

    Yes, during the Depression, what with 25 percent of the workforce unemployed, and the other 75 percent mostly underemployed, there was a lot of beheading, crucifixion, kidnapping, stoning, and immolation. These side effects of unemployment have been hitherto relatively unknown but that will be corrected with Depression History Month coming up in August right after High Horse Month where all the terrible, no good, very bad things that Christians and Jooz have done will be highlighted. (Sure, you might think the Salk polio vaccine and Wasserman tests for syphilis were good, but, hey, autism!)

    Meanwhile, back in South Dakota, because of unemployment, all the young girls also had to have mutilation of important lady bits, and several “bachelor” farmers were thrown off the barns and stoned if they survived. What a lot of bad stuff can happen when you don’t have a good job! After the Depression, that little popcorn wagon boy became a multimillionaire (still true story) and prosperity reigned. Beheadings tapered off to almost nothing.

  3. Unwelcome mat: White House tries to counter Netanyahu visit…….
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ff9318d691b24de0b81ae7c0e727be7b/white-house-mulls-how-counter-netanyahu-iran

    the big story is that Obama has no rebuttal to charges of his incompetence and dishonesty in pushing the Iran deal…. if he did he would not have to rely on this childish fake drama to divert attention from his failure.
    He spends valuable time dreaming up ways to get back at BB like a petulant little girl. Must be all that time spent in Chicago Bath Houses

  4. Through their alliance with Iran, Turkey and Qatar, the US administration is supporting Shia and Sunnis Jihadists against the western world. Many of POTUS advisers are Islamists. Not moderate Muslims.