Obama’s Head-in-the-Sand Speech on Terror

By Barry Rubin, PJ MEDIA

President Barack Obama’s speech at the National Defense University, “The Future of Our Fight against Terrorism,” is a remarkable exercise in wishful thinking and denial.

Essentially, his theme: the only strategic threat to the United States is posed by terrorists carrying out terrorist attacks. In the 6400 words used by Obama, Islam only constituted three of them, and most interestingly, in all three instances the word was used to deny that the United States is at war with Islam. In fact, this is what President George Bush said precisely almost a dozen years ago, after September 11.

If one wanted to come up with a slogan for the Obama Administration it would be that to win the war on terrorism one must lose the war on revolutionary Islamism because only by showing that America is the Islamists’ friend will it take away the incentive to join al-Qaida and attack the United States.

So: why have not hundreds of such denials had the least bit of effect on the course of that war?

To prove that the United States is not at war with Islam, the Obama administration has sided with political Islam throughout the Middle East to the extent that some Muslims think Obama is doing damageto Islam — their kind of Islam.

Along the way, the fight against al-Qaeda resulted in a policy that has — however inadvertently — armed al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria.

Once again, I will try to explain the essence of Obama’s strategy, a simple point that many seem unable to grasp:

Obama views al-Qaeda as a threat because it wants to attack America directly with terrorism. But all other Islamist groups are not seen as a threat by Obama. In fact, Obama believes they can be used to stop al-Qaeda.

 This is an abandonment of a strategic perspective. “Islamism” or “political Islam” or any other version of that does not appear even once. Yet this is the foremost revolutionary movement of this era, the main threat in the world to U.S. interests, and even to Western civilization.

Yet, according to Obama:

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Tunisia, that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria, that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

If a regime whose viewpoint is basically equivalent to the Muslim Brotherhood — albeit far more subtle — dominates Turkey, that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaeda. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

These and other strategic defeats do not matter, says Obama:

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al-Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al-Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

And yet: the Taliban is arguably close to taking over Afghanistan, and has spread to Pakistan. The rule of law in Afghanistan is a joke.

And soldiers there know that the Afghan government still uses torture.

Meanwhile, Obama:

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Well, it is quite true that security measures within the United States have been largely successful at stopping attacks. But the frequency of attempted attacks has been high. Some of them were foiled by luck, some by the expenditure of one trillion dollars.

Elsewhere, countries have been taken over by radical Islamists who can be expected to fight against American interests in the future.

Obama continues:

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.

But he never actually defines it, except to suggest that: a) al-Qaeda has spread to other countries (which does not sound like a victory); and b) its affiliates and imitators are more amateurish.

Indeed, rather than describing a movement and ideology like Communism and fascism, Obama sounds like a comic-book superhero describing life in Gotham City:

Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society.

Yet — his advisor on this issue, CIA director John Brennan, has said that the United States cannot be at war with terror because terror is merely a tactic. Which is it? Is the problem just “the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings,” as if the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas are equivalent to the Newtown, Connecticut shooter?

 

 

May 25, 2013 | 19 Comments »

Leave a Reply

19 Comments / 19 Comments

  2. Is this Pr. doing what it takes to weaken America from inside and from outside. What is his ultimate goal? How much of his Islamophilia is at work?

  5. yamit82 Said:

    The United States has in the past and present used Islamists as partners and surrogates when it thought convenient

    From at least the 1970’s to the present day, if it had not recently appeared to start up again I would probably not have re-visited 9-11. Now that the alliance is again in operation it is hard not to see a false flag in 9-11. what possible explanation can the govt have for returning to alliance with al qaeda in the same way as before: through the saudis. why assume they was ever a divorce?
    yamit82 Said:

    what was the American Ambassador doing there in the first place? Who was he meeting and why.

    there have been succeeding explanations running from the BS video story to opening an embassy in benghazi and needing to get the funds before they expire to needing to buy back the manpads before they wind up in terror hands(lol and more lol). In my view the only reason to send a high level ambassador to meet was that the message could not be sent through anyone lower down either as a requirement of whoever was being met or more likely because it should not compromise Hillary, who it is now proven to have sent him. The details of discussion would probably bring down Hilary’s candidacy for pres.(buying back and shipping arms through turkey to AQ) why benghazi, I would say that the one being met could not be met elsewhere without raised eyes.(a jihadi head).
    yamit82 Said:

    Was he set up to be assassinated?

    this is possible, whoever wants Hillary may want to remove the only definite link leading to her. It could be an arms deal gone bad. It could be Syria/russia/iran sending the US a message about arming the syrian rebels. getting advanced info would have been easy.
    yamit82 Said:

    Was those same American and CIA surrogates al Qaeda the assassins?

    I remember reading that there were two branches of jihadis operating, one foreign and one local or N. african. Any side could have hired either AQ to do the assassination or others masquerading. every side has motive, inc. conservatives seeking to get Obama, the demo wing that supported obama against hillary to dash her hopes, etc etc etc. It would not be rocket science. All one needs to look for alternatives is a little lack of trust in the players.

  6. @ Laura:
    The United States has in the past and present used Islamists as partners and surrogates when it thought convenient.

    United States supported, funded and armed Saddam Hussein against Iran. The United States funded and armed Osama and the Mujahedin against the Russians. Osama was a CIA Agent seen many times in both the pentagon and CIA Langley. The Mujahedin became the Taliban but before were Reagan’s honored guests in the White-house. America used Al Qaeda brought in to Libya from Afghanistan to topple Gaddafi by arming and funding them in the 8 month nearly failed operation. Yet those same al Qaeda fighters are now being used and supported by the CIA against Assad and are responsible for much of the death and destruction the right wing pundits and media blame on Assad. So Al Qaeda and Islamist are enemies sometimes and useful allies to America at other times.

    The politicized FBI has played every side according to the political wishes of their heads and whoever is in the White house. They like all intelligence operations and operators are not above creating false flags and railroading those they wish to bring down or send messages to…The list is long with substantiated examples and I could begin with Ethel Rosenberg. Jews have been a prime target for them and if you have a short memory I can list the ones set up. You will not find more than the fingers on your right hand the number of Jews accepted as agents in the FBI and in the CIA only slightly more.

    If you want to continue to believe in the FBI and CIA are any better, more truthful and more patriotic than the NY Slimes and mother Jones,go ahead your choice. I may not like or generally read or quote the Times but when they print the truth and credible information I don not discount it out of hand because I don’t like the Times editorial policy or it editors and publisher, Same goes with BBC or CNN. I filter but never ignore.

    We may never know the full truth of the goings on in government but like jig saw puzzles you take bits from many diverse sources and see if they fit. In Benghazi one pertinent question seems never asked like what was the American Ambassador doing there in the first place? Who was he meeting and why. Why would he assume the risks he had recognized and complained about? Was he set up to be assassinated? Where the ones he was to meet his killers? Was those same American and CIA surrogates al Qaeda the assassins? We are on Fox news distracted by stupid inquiries into talking points and other less relevant wasted time when the real questions of inquiry are not even on the table.

    What you see are republicans trying to win elections but not bring Obama down which they could have from almost the beginning of his first term.

    Either they are deviously devilish or just stupid incompetents, I see no middle political point of placing them.

  7. @ Laura:you did not comment on the second link re the FBI surveillance of the Bombers. Ask yourself: how do you explain that they had them under surveillance for years, talked to the mother repeatedly, warned by the russians but still did not catch them. How do you explain this to yourself? Any answer must lead to criticism of the FBI and a lack of confidence in their performance and credibility. It’s not about beliefs but about facts and inescapable logic.

  8. Laura Said:

    If the FBI hadn’t come up with these operations to snag would-be terrorists, eventually they would really have perpetrated an attack.

    The FBI haven’t snagged any real terrorists even when given them on a silver platter. The boston bombers were given to them by the russians, they questioned them and the mother over years, one goes back for q while to Dagestan and still the FBI is clueless. Either they are unbelievably incompetent or they are the bullshitters. It isn’t saying much when all you can catch are the terrorists you create. If they weren’t spending time fabricating situations, profiling grandma at the airport, pretending there is no muslim terror maybe they could get some success with real terrorism. Whats their record? They didn’t even prevent the shoe bomber, it was the other passengers. a lot of money is being spent, a lot of rights being curtailed, a lot of inconvenience at airports but the result is a make busy appearance of doing something. That’s where the “bullshit” is. The current administratiions record for honesty and competence is very poor.
    Laura Said:

    the FBI prevented these would-be jihadis from eventually coming in contact with real fellow jihadis

    I note that even you know who is real and who is not.

    Laura Said:

    The NY slimes makes the typical bullshit entrapment argument that apologists for islam make

    I think this is the problem. It appears that you view everything in relationship to being on someones side. I can’t imagine how criticism of the FBI, and well deserved judging from Boston, is taken by you to be somehow on the side of the Islamists. If anyone is on the side of the islamists it is the govt who is entering into global alliances with them, silencing everyone who questions them(as you are doing here)and muslims, employs every agency possible in an effort to deceive the american public including the FBI. Why do you defend an FBI who is run by DOJ which is Holder who has no problem in exerting every govt agency to further his administrations violations of their constitutional responsibility. Holder uses his office to attack sherrif Joe who I belive you support. The FBI is Holder who is Obama. They are making a pretend show of protecting americans against terror as if inconveniencing grandma demonstrates they are on the ball. The Israelis have a much better security system but theirs is not based on putting on a “bullshit” show but is based on getting results.
    Did you actually read the details of the links yamit provided, do you deny the facts in the stories?

  9. @ yamit82:
    Seriously Yamit, the NY slimes and Mother Jones?

    The NY slimes makes the typical bullshit entrapment argument that apologists for islam make. No one can be coerced into committing mass murder. These jihadis already had it in them. Thank G-d the FBI prevented these would-be jihadis from eventually coming in contact with real fellow jihadis to massacre hundreds or thousands of Americans. If the FBI hadn’t come up with these operations to snag would-be terrorists, eventually they would really have perpetrated an attack.

  10. yamit82 Said:

    Awesome!!!!“The heavens declare the glory of G-d, and the sky tells of the work of His hands.” Psalm 19:2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UjR6on46u3w

    Great!! microcosm and macrocosm, incredible,humbling; what was the last scene in the video, was the spiral a DNA strand or section ,what was the blue sphere resembling a comet? I have often thought we are like a bacteria on the earth or even sperms fertilizing the earth as an egg in a greater macrocosm.

  11. yamit82 Said:

    Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.
    Was the FBI Monitoring Boston Bombing Suspects for Years?

    I have also read both these stories before and they must be taken into consideration in evaluating the claims of the govt and the FBI. the govt appears to be in a modus operandi which has no problem in deceiving the public in a wide range of arenas(benghazi, IRS, Justice dept, state; all have scandals attesting to this behavior) If one ignores this then one is a “useful idiot”. (I must be careful because the marine who the govt attempted to put in a looney bin posted less than what I post here 🙂 )

  13. yamit82 Said:

    Lex Gabinia

    excellent links

    Because most Roman territory was within the 50-mile limit around the Mediterranean, the law gave Pompey, who was then just 39, power over almost every province.

    It is my understanding that either homeland security, immigration and customs, border patrol or another agency have been given the same powers at a distance from US borders and that within those zones constitutional rights are suspended: fundamentally within those areas they are non existent for practical purposes. Those zones, or distances from the border, take in an overwhelming majority of the population of the US as most US population centers are within the zones. I saw the maps but am now struggling to remember where i read all this. Perhaps someone else saw the same and can post it.

  14. @ Bernard Ross:

    Civis Romanus Sum
    “Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
    But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law. ” “Lex Gabinia”

    READ:


    Pirates of the Mediterranean By ROBERT HARRIS

    “Terrorism was one step along the way to the death of the Roman Constitution.
    Should America be worried? It too has seen erosion of liberty since 9 11.”

    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither”… Ben Franklin
    But it is more accurate to say that they will have neither in the end.