RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

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 damage to 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 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?

Obama continues:

What we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.

In other words, it is not a strategic problem, but a law enforcement problem.

At another point, Obama added:

Deranged or alienated individuals … can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

“Appears”?

So Fort Hood and the Boston bombing are still not considered by the American president as part of a war against America, but perhaps due to that evil that lies in the hearts of men?

And what is the nature of that criminal conspiracy?  

Today, the core of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al-Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with al-Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula — AQAP — the most active in plotting against our homeland.

One would never know, however, that al-Qaeda was always basically decentralized. Al-Qaida in Arabic means “the base,” and what Osama bin Laden did was to create a focal point to start off a global jihad. Bin Laden is dead but he accomplished his short-term objective. Moreover, al-Qaeda’s partner, the Taliban, is doing very well.

Who cares whether they directed the attacks in Benghazi (apparently it wasn’t a video) and Boston? They inspired those attacks.

“Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria,” says Obama, a man who clearly need not fear the mass media turning his phrase against him. After all, it wasn’t just unrest, but Obama’s policies that armed al-Qaeda in Libya and helped it participate in a successful revolution. And the same point is true in Syria. Indeed, if Bush was responsible for unintentionally magnifying the appeal of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Obama did the same thing in Syria — except Obama didn’t fight them, but instead helped supply the weapons!

At least he called Hizballah a “state-sponsored” terror network, though it might have been nice if he mentioned that the state in question is Iran, which also supported terrorists who killed Americans in Iraq. That is another point that Obama left out and yet could easily have mentioned.

And of course he mentioned Oklahoma City — which happened 20 years ago — in order to suggest that right-wing extremists are also involved in terrorism, and Fort Hood and Boston are due to some vague cause.

Here’s the kicker:

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Yet clearly Obama has no notion — or will not admit to one — of what that “common ideology” might be, except for a misunderstanding about American intentions. Which, presumably, his outreach will correct.

In fact, in the sense that they speak of it, the United States is at war with Islam — the revolutionary sort of Islam, of course. To help any country resist radical political Islam is, in their eyes, opposition to proper Islam. Perhaps this is why the Obama administration seeks to help turn other countries toward Islamist regimes.

Of course, the United States is not at war with Muslims, but not only al-Qaeda but Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, the Taliban, and dozens of other groups, ideologues, and militants know that America is their enemy. No matter what Obama does, he will not persuade them and their millions of supporters that the United States is their ally. Even though Obama has often actually made America their ally.

It would be like helping Communism in the Cold War to take over countries in order to show that America is not at war with the Russian people; or to do the same with Nazism to show that America is not at war with the German people; or to help Gamal Abdel Nasser or Saddam Hussein to take over the Middle East to prove America is not at war with the Arab or Muslim people.

 A more accurate picture is offered by a Saudi writer in al-Sharq al-Awsat:

The most acute [aspect of] the problem is that Obama is laying down the systematic groundwork for the development of extremism and sectarian violence that will make us miss the al-Qaeda of George W. Bush’s era, while deluding himself that he eliminated Al-Qaeda when he killed Osama bin Laden!