Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist

Sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny by U.S. intelligence but welcomed into the national-security apparatus.      

Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” – as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.

Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” – it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.

To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.

Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.

For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.

Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems – in fact, it is – more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.

As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas – a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement – is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists:

(1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences.

(2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq).

(3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable).

(4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability – rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.”

As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate – but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes – then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted.

The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find.

On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability.

The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability – cooperation with rogues – is no friend of freedom.

The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States – an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical.

Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists.

Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits:

First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations.

Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack – which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge.

Full article: Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist (Family Security Matters)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s