Phares: How can these counterterrorism bureaucrats process bin Laden’s words which they can’t use or touch “when dealing with Terrorism”?

In “Good Jihadists and Bad Jihadists?,” the always excellent Walid Phares brilliantly explains what’s wrong with the new State Department gag rules on using the word “jihad” and other words. I tried to explain it here and here, but Walid does it better.

In his latest audio released by As-sahab (media arm of al Qaeda), the organization’s Zaeem (supreme chief) elaborates on the difference between the pure Jihadists and those Islamists who lost their way and determination to continue the fight in the path of the founding fathers, which he calls the “Salaf of Islam.” This complex speech (by Jihadist standards) can be only understood - and thus explained to decision-makers and the public - if the listener-analyst is able to grasp the multi-layered world of Jihadism.

But this task has been made unnecessarily difficult for most citizens and certainly impossible to those who in the U.S. bureaucracy are supposed to do the job. By disseminating the so-called “Lexicon”, the Bush administration, bureaucrats are prohibited from using the words Jihad, Jihadism, Caliphate, Salafism, Islamism and the like when writing about and analyzing matters related to terrorism. This ridiculous proposition is now put to test when al Qaeda leaders - and other Jihadist high profile figures - broadcast their statements.
Just imagine the poor analysts at the various counterterrorism centers who chose to apply the new directives to the bin Laden letter. How can these counterterrorism bureaucrats process bin Laden’s words which they can’t use or touch “when dealing with Terrorism”? One can imagine them staring at these “forbidden words” attempting to replace them with “Lexiconic” terms. So how will they handle such texts? Some are suggesting that the end product of these “Lexiconic” analysis will not only be absurd, but will further confuse the consumers of the intelligence assessment, from the defense and national security sectors up to the highest congressional leaders and of course, the President.

Read it all.

Raymond Ibrahim, editor of the essential Al-Qaeda Reader (he translates Arabic to English) also disagrees

You and Ed are simply wrong and most disagreed with him on that thread.

A final word from Spencer (without Christian apologia) on the subject:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021257.php

And many others have agreed with Ed. I respect your consistency but find your take on this matter to be flat-out wrong and dangerous in prosecuting this war. This is my last post on this now old thread so if you wish any further response please choose a newer thread or send me an email. Thanks.

Btw, you or Robert Spencer may wish to take Ed Morrissey to the woodshed for this post:

John,

As you can see, I and many others already have.

I don’t know about dancing divinely, but I certainly do disagree with your premise.

The erroneous meme that you accuse me off I am not aware, but I hope it is not as apparent as mis-labeling a historical biography of Muhammad from mainly authentic Muslim sources as an apologetics piece.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/02/on-jihad-maybe-state-had-a-point/

I responded to your proclamation of major gains against al-Qaeda (which is factual) in Iraq with a response that their ranks are endlessly replenishable. al-Qaeda is not limited to the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military is finally doing what it should do in a war…kill people with guns and bombs who are trying to kill you.

That being said, only time will tell how long the liberation of Iraq will remain a success and at what price. Recent history has shown that when the Taleban was routed in Afghanistan, the US redeployed out only to see the Taleban re-emerge. Normally whern enemies are defeated, they don’t miraculously regenerate.

but in all reality, this is all peripheral BS, as you well know. it really boils down to the definition of the enemy:

Islam itself and all those who practice this faith are not our enemy, in the secular sense. It is Islam as practiced by those who would use violence to further their goals and those whose belief about their religion makes it antithetical to Western values and mores that is the enemy.

This mental conundrum is typical. Islam is not the enemy, but Islam is the enemy. It is obvious that Islam itself is inanimate and cannot be an enemy, but rather the adherents to Islam are the enemy, although not all adherents.

No matter how you try dress it up, Islam is still the common denominator. It is obviously logical that not all 1.2 billion Muslims are enemies, otherwise a good old fashioned global holy war would be in full effect at the moment, but that is not the point at all.

The point is that by your definition of the enemy that it is impossible to differentiate between the two and therefore valueless. Education that because of ideological points inherent in Islam allow for the potential of any and every Muslim to become the latter is what matters.

I have no asperations of “prosecuting” this particular war at all and have made no suggestions to do so. What I, and others have tried to do is to demonstrate that the revelation and acknowledgement of the truth about our enemy is a far better alternative than continuing with this “fictional” charade.

Spencer’s site is primarily pedagogical in nature and I would be remiss to call him a policy guy. The truth is always the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

Absolutely correct. There are no more uniforms, nationalistic borders, unifying flags of the enemy, with one exception…they all share a uniquely similar ideology…Islam.

Now you are starting to get it!

I “got it” quite awhile ago. You are being very slippery in changing your argument by giving erroneous analogies on the one hand only to retreat from them and claim a different position when they are shown to be seriously flawed. I noticed you skipped entirely the questions and points I raised but instead focused upon burning down strawmen. So again…

Explain why then Al Qaeda is bemoaning its losses in Iraq even though we haven’t adopted the tactics you suggest. While you’re at it, explain how these tactics would aid us in both Iraq and Afghanistant - the former of which is showing remarkable progress thanks to leadership like that shown by General Petraeus. Do you really think the ISF would be doing as well as they have been or even bothering to work with us if we adopted your approach? Get real. I see no benefit at all to what you propose but a helluva lot of lives lost for nothing more than defeat. Are you sure victory is really what you want or simply a shot at at sticking it to the Muslims en masse because their religion pisses you off? No, your way guarantees a lot more American soldiers and Marines will be wounded and killed in an unwinnable war that will bring on another 9/11. Thank you but I’ll pass.

Let’s add to this the assessment of the CIA Director that’s in the news now:

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda’s allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group’s core leadership.
While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.
All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
“On balance, we are doing pretty well,” he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally — and here I’m going to use the word ‘ideologically’ — as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam,” he said.

Awake:

There is no correlation to what I am calling for and starting a Crusade. That sentiment is histrionical.

On the contrary, when you use such reasoning to make enemies of folks who themselves are not our enemy, grounding this in an interpretation of a shared faith that is NOT held by all adherents, you are indeed calling for such. Well, the Crusades of popular myth that is. Islam itself and all those who practice this faith are not our enemy, in the secular sense. It is Islam as practiced by those who would use violence to further their goals and those whose belief about their religion makes it antithetical to Western values and mores that is the enemy. What you are proposing to do as matter of public policy in prosecuting this war has not been shown to provide us a reasonable path towards victory but in my estimation has every potential of dooming us to failure. Get around that and address the realities as that exist without the “histrionics” and perhaps you’ll have a point. Until then, you are simply tilting at windmills.

Asymmetrical warfare is NOT the same as what we faced in WWII.

Absolutely correct. There are no more uniforms, nationalistic borders, unifying flags of the enemy, with one exception…they all share a uniquely similar ideology…Islam.

Now you are starting to get it!

This is a long war to be fought on many fronts. Islamic supremacy, the mandate to spread Islam as the sole ideology with dominion over all the Earth, as is mandated in Islam.

It is seen on the battlefield, in mosques and schools around the world, in governments, through litigious aperations under the false claim of victimhood. It all serves a singular purpose., to compel capitulation to and further the cause of Islam.

Denying that, the basest base of truth is fallacious. We need to enlighten the masses in the West to this reality. We have the right to defend ourselves first and worry about what the Muslims will do as a secondary concern only.

There is no correlation to what I am calling for and starting a Crusade. That sentiment is histrionical.

I have defined the enemy as I perceive it to be. Do you care to give your definition?

I find it odd that it has taken longer to eliminate this disorganized rag-tag “extremist” group, al-Qaeda, then it was to crush the axis powers of WW II.

You find it “odd” because your analogy is deeply flawed. Show me the Berlin to be captured that Al Qaeda holds and then perhaps you’ll have a point. Asymmetrical warfare is NOT the same as what we faced in WWII. Not by a longshot and General Petraeus is the first commander we’ve had in this conflict who understands that. Hence one good reason we are seeing success now.

You don’t honestly think that the Muslims who aren’t engaged in violence don’t know what’s going on? Do you think they dont know what their religion calls for as far as war goes?

Who cares? In the final analysis it isn’t a matter of whether their holy texts call for violence or not that is important: it is what they themselves believe about it and what they do with that belief. Many do not share the views of Al Qaeda in this and most in Iraq now strongly oppose them.

I wonder if people in the past sat around pulling their dick “Hey Marv.. is every single person in Germany at war against us or just some of them?” “Well Roger it says that only 23,284,399 of them are.” “Thanks.. It is so much clearer now, Marv”

Are you seriously comparing a largely homogenous united country from 60 years to a hodge-podge of ethnicities and countries - many of whom despise each other - just because of what groups like al Qaeda claim? Give me a break.

Get one thing right.. They’re at war against us.. not the other way around. I really don’t give a damn about distinguishing people who refuse to disguinish themselves.

Hey, if you want to play crusades (at least the one of popular myth) and bring down Islam feel free to raise your own army and give it a shot. You’d better have something far greater than misguided paranoia if you’re going to demand more American blood be shed than is necessary in this fight.

Stupidly like misnaming the war at the onset? Not actually getting a formal declaration of war? Allowing the enemy to form networks in our terroritory? Lying to the public about the religion of the enemy? Lying to ourselves that we can fight them and somehow not get our nails dirty?

On the contrary, each one of these is an example of straying too far to the left and how the Bush Administration has bungled its handling of the war effort. Their failures, however, does not mean that we overcompensate by wildly swinging so far to the right, as you suggest, that we foolishly spark a greater war we cannot win.

The ranks of al-Qaeda are endlessly replenishable from the pool of 1.2 billion Muslims. Even a victory here in Iraq, and Afghanistan without identifying the root cause of it, Islamic supremacism and jihad, will do nothing to stunt Islamic agression in the future.

This vicious cycle will continue, because Islam does not evolve because no one has sufficiently called it out and forced it to evolve. It is still an all-encompassing ideology from the 7th century in obvious conflict with the 21st.

I find it odd that it has taken longer to eliminate this disorganized rag-tag “extremist” group, al-Qaeda, then it was to crush the axis powers of WW II.

Your link to the marine conversion rumors illustrates that point perfectly. The occupiers are humiliating Islam and when the Muslims are strong, they will show the Christians what is right.

Really? Explain why then Al Qaeda is bemoaning its losses in Iraq even though we haven’t adopted the tactics you suggest. While you’re at it, explain how these tactics would aid us in both Iraq and Afghanistant - the former of which is showing remarkable progress thanks to leadership like that shown by General Petraeus. Do you really think the ISF would be doing as well as they have been or even bothering to work with us if we adopted your approach? Get real. I see no benefit at all to what you propose but a helluva lot of lives lost for nothing more than defeat. Are you sure victory is really what you want or simply a shot at at sticking it to the Muslims en masse because their religion pisses you off? No, your way guarantees a lot more American soldiers and Marines will be wounded and killed in an unwinnable war that will bring on another 9/11. Thank you but I’ll pass.

We are at war with a central ideological foundation contained within Islam: The concept that jihad and striving in the way of Allah, as is mandated in the canonical Islamic texts, is obligatory for all Muslims for all of time.

Once that reality is addressed and not glossed, it will be a start.

Are we at war with all Muslims? I say absolutely not, but the unknown number of Muslims who do, or will at some point, embrace the Islamic supremacy doctrine is far greater than 1% or what anyone would care to acknowledge. Several polls have already adequately proven that.

Your link to the marine conversion rumors illustrates that point perfectly. The occupiers are humiliating Islam and when the Muslims are strong, they will show the Christians what is right.

They speak the truth and there is no “fiction” inherent in their words.

Are you saying that we are at war with ALL Muslims?

How dramatic. I guess I’ll have to repeat what I said..

“So Muslims are in a religious war against us”

You don’t honestly think that the Muslims who aren’t engaged in violence don’t know what’s going on? Do you think they dont know what their religion calls for as far as war goes?

Believe me they know.. they’re not stupid.

Is this a war against all aherents of Islam or with a group of them, even if they represent a sizeable amount of Muslims?

I wonder if people in the past sat around pulling their dick “Hey Marv.. is every single person in Germany at war against us or just some of them?” “Well Roger it says that only 23,284,399 of them are.” “Thanks.. It is so much clearer now, Marv”

Get one thing right.. They’re at war against us.. not the other way around. I really don’t give a damn about distinguishing people who refuse to disguinish themselves.

I argue it’s the latter and if we try to fight the former kind of war we will lose.

So like I said.. interesting tactic… let them get stronger and eventually establish their empire. Once they have a Caliph, the authorityh is in place for them to engage in a global conquest.

How much money you want to bet they’re not asking themselves if they’re being insensitive?

No, we fight like hell as if our lives depended upon it but we don’t do it stupidly

Stupidly like misnaming the war at the onset? Not actually getting a formal declaration of war? Allowing the enemy to form networks in our terroritory? Lying to the public about the religion of the enemy? Lying to ourselves that we can fight them and somehow not get our nails dirty?

I argue it’s the latter and if we try to fight the former kind of war we will lose.

So Muslims are in a religious war against us.. but we’re supposed to pretend they aren’t and instead it’s some abberant group of people who are against us.

Are you saying that we are at war with ALL Muslims? Is this a war against all aherents of Islam or with a group of them, even if they represent a sizeable amount of Muslims? I argue it’s the latter and if we try to fight the former kind of war we will lose.

So we do nothing… because you’re saying if we fought them as if our life depended upon on it

I never said nor even implied that. How you conclude that from anything I’ve said is beyond me. No, we fight like hell as if our lives depended upon it but we don’t do it stupidly.

So we do nothing… because you’re saying if we fought them as if our life depended upon on it, then all the Muslims would join the fight because they would be defending themselves from attack, which is compulsary for a Muslim to do, though it will be on our time and choosing.

Ok.. so the altenative is to not do that.. as time goes by and a Caliphate state is declared , and a Caliph is installed, the Caliph is the one with the legal authority to declare a Holy Offensive Jihad against the world..which is what he will do.. and then we will have to fight them at that time.. on their time and choosing.

Hmmm. I choose religious war now instead of later.

Iraqis: Marines Try to Convert Muslims

The Founders were, of course, creatures of the Enlightenment (not medieval Christendom).

Good article. Notice that even the author used a distinguishing term: “Islamists”. The Founders were indeed “creatures of the Enlightenment” but they were also products of their time, which included such things as established official churches in just about every colony (I think RI is the exception off the top of my head) and where early America could indeed have been classified as a “Christian nation”. While Christianity predominates still in America, this cannot be said today. Different times and wars call for different tactics. Take, for example, our campaign against Muslim rebels in the Phillippines during the early 20th century. Tactics used against them were somewhat controversial at the time, but how much more so would this be the case today? We can’t even agree on confining folks we nab at Gitmo without talking about “constitutional rights”. No, if we attempted to do as you ask we would lose our will for certain and the entire conflict. I want victory and as long as this “fiction” is useful and one of the best ways of achieving it, I’m all for it.

Look at your own sentence construction. The Islamo-fascists have already made it a religious war. I.e., for them, it is (and always has been) a religious war. And they draw moral support and inspiration from Islam’s founding documents, events and figures.

Of course. Their motivation is clear to see even without an in-depth analysis of the texts they draw support from. That doesn’t change the fact that we shouldn’t give them what they want by making it a religious war. IOW, let them claim this is a War on Islam all they wish but as long as we make it clear that this isn’t so that gives an edge. Taking their bait will cost us victory. Put it this way, yesterday it was reported that Al Qaeda is bemoaning their losses in Iraq. During the whole time they have been fighting us they’ve been using the poor pitiful Muslims being attacked by crusaders rhetoric, while we have strongly rejected this (screwing up along the way unfortunately as well). What part of rejecting Islam as a “religion of peace” rhetoric contributed to this success? I would argue none and that instead such propaganda has helped us in this fight.

I do say that we need to simply tell the truth about Islam. It is not a “religion of peace”. And victory begins with acknowledging the truth.

Efforts by individuals like Spencer, or even the news made by Cardinal Tauran is one thing and whether either want to or not does help the war effort. Yet to make this public policy and have the United States or other Western governments drop this would be a very serious mistake IMO. This does NOT mean it should be taken to the extremes one sees on the Left, nor that these governments shouldn’t encourage “moderate” Muslims, but this “fiction” is a useful tool and the intended audience is not those we are fighting against. If it does effect any of them that would be a nice bonus but ain’t exactly the goal.