Tuesday, June 20, 2006

`It's an Islamic Jihad, stupid!'

Washington Times columnist Diana West joins the growing number of commentators who realize that calling the current conflict a `war on terror' is a basic and possibly fatal error.

Back when I started this site in September of `05, I caught a lot of flack for calling it a `digest and commentary on the War on Jihad'. many people thought that was `inflamatory' or `racist'. As time goes on, more and more people (though most emphatically NOT our president) wake up to the realization that calling this a `war on terror' is the equivalent of President Roosevelt going to congress on December 8th, 1941 and asking them to declare war on aviation.

Here are some excerpts from Diana West's must-read piece:

"Discussing the "war on terror" has been endlessly awkward. Terror -- like a blitzkrieg, sneak-attack or disinformation -- is a tactic, not an enemy. But in our politically-correct era, we dwell on the tactic, never defining the enemy. Drop 500-pound bombs on his head if we must -- and we must -- but don't describe him as an Islamic jihadist in the age-old tradition of Islamic jihadis going back to Muhammad. Such historical precision might be hurtful and insensitive, and we wouldn't want that.

Indeed, as a matter of American foreign policy, we don't want that. Better to keep things vague and indirect, much as the Victorians are reputed to have done to avoid giving offense in the drawing room. Once upon a time, We the People were crass enough to have repelled a German blitzkrieg, defied Japanese sneak attack, and even, some of us, combated Soviet disinformation. Now, We the Peoples are "enlightened" to the point where we send armies out for years to fight generic "terror" -- no matter how specifically Islamic that it is.

There are many reasons why this matters, not least of which is that, without understanding the religious nature of jihad (holy war), along with its sister institution of dhimmitude (inferior status of non-Muslims under Islam), there can be no triumph over jihad and no avoiding dhimmitude. There can also be no understanding of the religiously rooted attitudes toward jihad movements among even non-violent Muslims, generally ranging from a tacit ambivalence to wild adulation." {....)

Indeed, as Ms. West suggests, were we serious about winning this war, we would be addressing jihadist threats wherever they occurred, whether in Iran, Syria, Gaza or Saudi Arabia or here at home, our borders would be secure and mosques and madrassahs preaching jihad would be closed or under surveillance.

As is usually the case, many of our current politicians are simply out of step with the common sense of the average American. But as more and more people wake up to the fact that we are in an existential war and that it is not possible to make nice to the jihadis and go back to sleep again, the West will get the leadership it needs to lead it to victory.

1938 doesn't last forever.


Anonymous said...

ff said:
many people thought that was `inflamatory' or `racist'.

what's your point?????

Freedom Fighter said...

Oh, just commenting on some of the fan letters I get..and doing a little chest thumping about how I was ahead of the curve..once again.

And how the general perception has changed since then.

This is a positive trend,because sooner or later the West will have to wake up and dclare who its enemey is, and mor and more of them are doing so.

You can't win a war when youdon't even acknowledge who you're fighting!