Congratulations, President Trump! Now what? Reversing the ostrich complex

“ISIL [The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is not ‘Islamic.’” – President Barack Obama[1]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels[2]

Why does our government recoil “at the notion that we might actually want to scrutinize an ideology that fuels anti-American militarism”?[3] The purge of “Islam,” “jihad,” “sharia,” and other related words from our National Security documents, counter-terrorism training, and intelligence analysis is eerily reminiscent of the warning George Orwell described in his seminal work – 1984.[4] “The purpose of Newspeak was…to make all other modes of thought impossible…by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meaning”[5] This policy is the “Ostrich Complex,” a synonym for Jihad Denial Syndrome (JDS).[6] [7]

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have effectively ascribed to a “see no evil” policy when it comes to Islam.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] The problem is that “words convey reality,” and it is our duty as military officers to be connected to reality.[20] Our oath requires us to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”.[21] Yet this administration has tasked us to focus on the euphemistic “violent extremists”, which aside from being woefully ambiguous, ignores those who may not meet the narrow definition of violent extremists – yet still meet the broader threshold of being enemies.[*][22]

In 2004, The 9/11 Commission Report identified the enemy as “twofold: al Qaeda, a stateless network of terrorists that struck us on 9/11; and a radical ideological movement in the Islamic world, inspired in part by al Qaeda, which has spawned terrorist groups and violence across the globe.”[23] It went on to note that “ Islamists consider Islam to be as much a religion as an ‘ideology.’”[24] In spite of this, President Obama “and his subordinates, in consultation with advisors from Islamist organizations [like the Muslim Brotherhood], have purged training materials used to instruct national security agents of information deemed to be unflattering of Islam.”[25]

In December 2014 , the Commanding General of a key organization leading the fight against the Islamic State – Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) – admitted, “We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it. We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”[26] Major General Nagata was speaking of the Islamic State, the rebranded name for al Qaeda in Iraq – an offshoot of what is now called “core al Qaeda.”[27] Regardless, almost a decade and a half after the slaughter of almost 3,000 Americans, this is inexcusable.

Although there are multiple, competing interpretations of Islam, it is beyond the scope of this white paper to attempt to broker the differences, but rather to ensure we are able to address the aggressive, supremacist ideology that constitutes a continuing national security threat based on our enemies own statements claiming legal and theological accuracy and justification for their actions.[28]

“Does concern for multicultural or religious sensibilities justify relinquishing free speech in public discourse and scholarly endeavors?”[29] This report argues in the negative…and that, in fact, such an order to subordinate national security interests and intelligence analysis to anything less than a full and factual analysis constitutes dereliction of duty on behalf of the practitioner and an illegal order on behalf of the party responsible for issuing the order, policy or regulation.[30] [31]

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana[32]

“Today there are two great threats facing the survival of the modern liberal West. The first is its exaggerated confidence in the power of reason;the second is its profound underestimation of the forces of fanaticism.” – Lee Harris, The Suicide of Reason[33]

We have faced a totalitarian, supremacist ideology bent on world domination before.[34] Adolf Hitler told us what his goal was in Mein Kampf when it was published in 1926.[35] [36] The problem was, almost no one believed him. And people could not imagine the depths of evil of which the Nazi regime was capable. In fact, the word “genocide” was not invented until 1944.[37] Hitler said to the German people, “‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flung itself at his feet.”[38] Effectively, so too did Muhammad – by his words and actions.[39] [40]

Some will find the comparison of Nazi ideology to Islamic ideology offensive. This warrants further exploration. Dr. Bill Warner, Center for Study of Political Islam, has analyzed the anti-Semitism in Mein Kampf (7%), the Meccan Koran (1%), the Medinan Koran (16.9%), Sahih al-Bukhari (8.9%) and the Sira (12%).[41] Overall, the trilogy of Islamic texts averages 9.3% anti-Semitic content – clearly more anti-Semitic than Mein Kampf – especially when total word count is considered. [42] With respect to violence, only 5.6% of the Hebrew Bible is dedicated to violence.[43] By comparison, 9% of the Koran, 21% of the Hadith of Bukhari, and 67% of the Sira are dedicated to violent jihad. [44] The complete Islamic trilogy is 31% dedicated to political violence. [45]

And it’s not just a matter of an academic analysis of the doctrine. Words and declarations precede actions. We effectively ignored al Qaeda’s fatwa that constituted a declaration of war – despite the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the deadly attack on the USS Cole – until 9/11.[46]

According to Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to explain the concept of progressive revelation with respect to the Qur’an, but suffice it to say that Qur’an 4:89 “Slay them wherever you find them” remains a commandment from Allah that is fully in effect and applies to all Muslims for all times (as does Qur’an 9:29, and 9:5’s “Sword Verse” for that matter).[47]

“Militant Islam may actually pose an existential threat to the United States. At a minimum, it constitutes a formidable strategic threat.”[48] Despite the onslaught of Islamic inspired terrorism, the Ostrich Complex manifested itself visibly just last week, when the Obama Administration released its final National Security Strategy.[49] The only mention of Islam is to “reject the lie that we are at war with Islam.” [50] There was no mention of the doctrine of jihad or sharia law. Yet a study of Islamic doctrine and the proclamations of the jihadists attacking us, makes it clear that Islam is the justification for those attacks.[51] In the jihadists’ minds, it is clear that they are at war with us.

The problem is: how can you defeat an enemy you cannot name? How can you know and understand an enemy you are prohibited from analyzing? This prohibition subverts the intelligence analysis process and leaves us strategically blind to the enemy.[52]

In 2009, during one of his first major foreign policy speeches overseas, President Obama declared “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[53] A review of the U.S. Constitution reveals no such duty.[54] But the President had set the tone and effectively the policy for his administration with respect to Islam when he said those words in 2009. And so doing, we see that “the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word.”[55]

As Josef Pieper warned, “the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language.”[56] So too is our National Security apparatus is being subverted by this policy.

The problem is partially rooted in a misunderstanding of our own Constitution, which affords religious protections under the First Amendment.[†] This is understandable because “Many people confuse politics and religion.”[57] However, Islam is not just a religion – it is a complete civilizational alternative that includes a legal, political, economic, social and military doctrine known as shariah law.[58] As comprehensively explained in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum, [59] the strategy for subverting the US Constitution to comport with shariah law is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” which calls for “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”[60] This makes it clear that although the Muslim Brotherhood varies in ways and means from al Qaeda and the Islamic State, their ends – the end state – remain the same.

Although religion is only a portion of Islam, shariah makes it is impossible to separate Mosque and State in Islam.[61] “The religion of Islam is what a Muslim does to go to paradise and avoid hell. Political Islam determines the treatment of unbelievers and the governance of Muslims.”[62] It is the political focus on non-believers that raises the national security interests. Were the religious and the political not inseparable in Islam, we would remain unconcerned with what we would deem to be the strictly religious aspects of Islam. The scope of the problem is exacerbated by the fact that 61% of the Qur’an, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith is dedicated to the political. [63] This is why David Yerushalmi argued that “the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code),” where Jewish law, Christian dogmas and Catholic canon do not.”[64]

Perhaps the most high profile case of Islamic suppression of free speech (before the attack on Charlie Hebdo)[65] was the fatwa[‡] that constituted a death sentence against Salman Rushdie as a result of his publishing The Satanic Verses.[66] [67] 25 years after the original fatwa was issued calling for his death, it was renewed.[68]

But the Islamic war on free speech dates back to the time of Muhammad himself when in 624 he first started ordering the assassination of poets who mocked him (Al-Nadr bin al-Harith,[69] Uqba bin Abu Muayt,[70] Asma bint Marwan,[71] Abu Afak,[72] Kab bin al-Ashraf,[73] [74] Ibn Sunayna,[75] a one-eyed Bedouin,[76] and one of Abdullah bin Katal’s two singing-girls. [77] [78])[79] For those unfamiliar with Islamic jurisprudence, it warrants pointing out that the first source is the Qur’an, the second is the example of Muhammad – who the Qur’an cites is the model for Muslims to emulate. Hence the significance of these events.

In addition to physical threats of violence, Islam also employs jihad of the pen. As an example, much of the academic aversion to discuss Islam honestly can be attributed to the aggressive tone of Edward Said’s Orientalism that amounts to intellectual terrorism as a result of “spraying charges of racism, imperialism and Eurocentrism from a moral high ground.”[80] [81] If only Ibn Warraq’s seminal Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism were as well read in academic circles.[82]

On October 19th, 2011, in order to advance their efforts to silence critical examination of Islam in relation to the threat, a number of Muslim groups sent an open letter to John Brennan, who was then serving as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor.[83] In it, they accused “the federal government’s use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” and demanded a purge of the offensive training materials from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and the DoD.[84]

That same month, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense Strategy and Force Planning Jose Mayorga formally requested that the Director of the Joint Staff task the “Combatant Commands, Services, National Guard Bureau and Component Commands” to determine the criteria for instructors on “countering violent Islamic extremism.”[85] After that tasking did not have a sufficiently chilling effect on “offensive” counterterrorism training, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey himself signed a letter further reiterating his concern about “ideas, beliefs, and actions that are…disrespectful of the Islamic religion.” And that the review should ensure that programs exhibit “cultural sensitivity, respect for religion and intellectual balance…”[86] [87]

In so doing, Chairman Dempsey violated his own duty to the American Public when he silenced those who would honestly analyze the threat.[88] His actions placed the ideology of multiculturalism over his responsibilities as an officer in the US Military who has sworn an oath of office,[89] despite his duties as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[90] It appears as if his primary concern was not with American values and security, but rather with not offending the Muslim world. [91]

It is a shame General Dempsey has failed to heed the advice of his predecessor, General Pete Pace, who warned:

“I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote Mein Kampf. He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”[92] [93]

Or for that matter, General George Washington, who prognosticated, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[94]

Two of the organizations leading the efforts to subvert our ability to even discuss Islam in the context of National Security are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The United Arab Emirates (UAE) named both the Muslim Brotherhood and the CAIR as designated terrorist organizations.[95] [96] Additionally, CAIR has been extensively linked with Hamas – a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).[97] [98] [99]

The Muslim Brotherhood has been extensively documented as a terrorist organization,[100] [101] and was banned in Egypt in 1948, and is now once again outlawed in Egypt.[102] Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood has been designated as a terrorist organization by Egypt,[103] [104] Russia, [105] [106] Syria,[107] Saudi Arabia[108] and the United Arab Emirates.[109] [110] [111] The 9/11 Commission Report recognized the Muslim Brotherhood as a principle ideological inspiration for al Qaeda.[112]

The actions of these two organizations (Muslim Brotherhood & their front group – CAIR) in particular, I will argue – as Andrew McCarthy did in his conviction against Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”) – constitutes seditious conspiracy,[§] that is “a confederation to wage war against the United States.”[113] [114]

A Judicial Watch Special Report titled “U.S. Government Purges of Law Enforcement Training Material Deemed ‘Offensive’ to Muslims” extensively documents the history of the purge within the Department of Justice.[115] Which begs the questions as to why the Pentagon is listening to Hamas-linked and designated terrorist organizations?[116]

Can you imagine a scenario where, during World War II, if Nazis complained to us about our analyzing Mein Kampf or the Enigma machine, we would have stopped?[117] Or where we would have appointed Nazi party members or open supporters and advocates to senior leadership positions within the Executive Branch departments or as special assistants to the President?[118] [119] [120] It would have been insane to fight a war that way.

And yet that is exactly what we are doing now with this policy and this administration. Islamic doctrine, as codified in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and sharia law, is the Enigma machine with which we can decode the actions and intentions of the threat. But Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from even purchasing the Qur’an.[121]

The reality that Islam currently has over a billion adherents creates a tremendous apprehension about the possibility that these adherents follow an ideology that is rooted in an aggressive, totalitarian, supremacist doctrine bent on world domination. Even if President Obama is correct when he states that “99.9% of Muslims” reject that interpretation of Islam, that still leaves over a million jihadists committed to global Islamic reign.[122] And polls show that number is actually much higher than what the President is portraying.[123] It is that fear [of the possibility that there are over a million people that ascribe to a violent ideology] that allows the lie – of Islam as a religion of peace – to live. As David Horowitz said, “A lie grounded in human desire is too powerful for reason to kill.”[124]

In fact, the size of Islam’s followership is one of the arguments used by Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers simultaneously as both evidence of Islam’s validity and an implied threat.[125] But behind that argument is a logical fallacy – the bandwagon –that holds that an ideology has credence because many people ascribe to it.[126] And more importantly, the size of Islam’s adherents exponentially increases the severity of the danger from the ideology spreading.

As Thomas Paine said, “I prefer peace. But, if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”[127] The problem is, “It is simply delusional to think there is no correlation between what a person believes and how they are likely to act – as delusional as it is to think there is no correlation between Islam’s doctrinal summons to violence and Islamic terrorism.”[128]

Ideally, the U.S. Government would reverse the policy to ban the examination of the same Islamic doctrine that our declared enemy says they follow. Recognizing that this administration will not reverse this policy leaves national security professional with a tremendous ethical dilemma. If we are obsessed with political correctness, policies, and promotions, we are negligent in our highest duty: to support and defend American lives.[130]

“In the battle between open discourse and terrorist intimidation, the immediate philosophic issue is: how does one settle competing claims? Such claims cannot be avoided and are inherent in living in a social setting. … Fundamentally, there are only two methods by which to settle such claims: by reference to persuasion, debate, arguments – i.e. by appealing to reason – or by knives, guns, and bombs – i.e., by reference to the threat or actual initiation of physical force.”[131]

Right now, our options are limited to challenging the status quo or violating our professional oaths, not to mention professional canons. We should continue to conduct personal professional development through extensive reading of both primary Islamic source material, e.g. the Qur’an,[132] Sahih al-Bukhari (specifically Volume 4, Book 56[133] and Volume 9, Appendix III[134]), the Sira,[135] the Reliance of the Traveller,[136] War and Peace in the Law of Islam,[137] The Quranic Concept of War[138] and Freedom of Expression in Islam[139]; secondary source material that predate political correctness, like Moslems: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Politics[140] or shun political correctness, like The Suicide of Reason[141]; books by counter jihadists like Raymond Ibrahim,[142] Robert Spencer,[143] [144] Stephen Coughlin,[145] [146] Frank Gaffney,[147] the Team B2,[148] Walid Phares,[149] and Brigitte Gabriel,[150]; as well as books written by apostates like Ibn Warraq,[151] [152] [153] [154], Ayaan Hirsi Ali,[155] [156] [157] Nonie Darwish,[158] [159] [160] and Wafa Sultan.[161]

Others outside the Executive Branch, specifically the Legislative Branch and the press, can continue to press the Administration for information about the actions they are taking and to expose the ill-advised and ill-guided policies being forced on the Executive Branch. In this respect, articles exposing Administration, supported by information gained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits can assist in righting this ship.

Once Chairman Dempsey leaves this summer, we can work towards educating the new Chairman about the nature of the threat – both foreign and domestic – and push to have him rescind or supersede Chairman Dempsey’s purge letter. [162] [163] We can encourage the new Chairman to update professional reading lists to include primary Islamic source materials as well as the politically incorrect books that nonetheless accurately identify, assess, and diagnose the threat. Additionally, we should review and update our policies and training in accordance with the recommendations of the US Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee in accordance with their special report A Ticking Time Bomb[164] regarding the Fort Hood attack, rather than the politically correct report produced for the Federal Bureau of Investigation[165] and the Department of Defense’s report, which only mentions Islam once, and that reference was buried in a footnote.[166] Despite Secretary Gates’ guidance, this has not been done.[167]

Regardless of the results of the Presidential election in 2016, we must push the new administration to designate both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. During the Holy Land Foundation trial, Judge Solis directly associated CAIR with a designated terrorist organization.[168] As previously mentioned, this has already been done by Egypt,[169] [170] Russia, [171] [172] Syria,[173] Saudi Arabia[174] and the United Arab Emirates[175] [176] [177] – and we should follow their leads in this case. This may be no easy task depending on who wins the White House, given that CAIR has already started attempting to manipulate the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates publically.[178] [179]

One of the ways to eliminate political correctness from intelligence analysis would be to hold National Security professionals and Intelligence Analysis products to a legal standard. As Andrew McCarthy explains in his book, Willful Blindness:

“Trials have been a priceless elucidation of alarming truths. A trial is a crucible like no other. Political correctness and sloganeering melt away. … [Jurors] have to be told a story that comports with reality, or they won’t convict the person whose fate lies in their hands. A trial is not an exercise in rhetoric or spin. You don’t get to make blithe pronouncements – that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that jihadists are a bare fringe distorting the true faith, or that terrorists acted because of poverty, alienation or, needless to say, Israel. You actually have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to depict the world as it is, not as we wish it were.”[180]

Finally, we can determine if my political heresy has been the result of some blend of xenophobia and conspiracy theories, or if it is the result of an honest intellectual development that can be replicated and shared throughout the National Security apparatus, and if so, how.[181]

We, as military officers, have failed to treat linguistics – the war of words – with the level of importance to which it deserves. As summarized in Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech:

“The war against Islamism is as much a war of ideas as it is a physical battle, and therefore the dissemination of information in the free world is paramount. The manipulation of Western court systems, the use of Western “hate speech laws” and other products of political correctness to destroy the very principles that democracies stand for, must be countered.

Unfortunately Islamist lawfare is beginning to limit and control public discussion of Islam, particularly as it pertains to comprehending the threat posed by Islamic terrorist entities. As such, the Islamist lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat not only to our constitutional rights, but also to our national security.”[184]

“We need to re-examine our commitment to free expression. When an institution such as the Executive Branch needs to suppress scholarly work and legitimate intelligence analysis because of the theoretical possibility of violence or the offended feelings of a select group, it grants legitimacy to censorship and casts serious doubts on our commitment to freedom of expression, and more importantly – our commitment to winning this trans-generational war. The failure to defend our right to examine threat doctrine, as promulgated by the enemy, emboldens those who would attack us and undermines our national security. It is time for the Chairman, the President and the Congress to exercise moral and intellectual leadership.”[185]

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” [186] Just as “Mein Kampf’s existence denied the free world the excuse of ignorance”,[187] so too does the Qur’an,[188] Sahih al-Bukhari,[189] [190] the Sira[191] and Islamic law[192] itself deny us the excuse of ignorance about the trans-national, trans-generational, totalitarian, supremacist, genocidal threat we face from Islam today.

If we do not study the threat, we won’t be able to accurately distinguish friend from foe and hence, ultimately lose the ability to defeat the enemy. The challenge is finding a way to understand the evil that motivates totalitarians like al Qaeda, the Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk, while still being able to leverage those Muslim leaders, nations and populations who actively support the United States in this war against supremacist, totalitarian jihadism – from King Abdullah II of Jordan,[193] and President al-Sisi of Egypt,[194] to Malala.[195]

Now we have a president who recognizes Islamic terrorism!

GWB’s entire “Islam is Peace” speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZoroJdVnA

As Michael Medved once said on his radio program (paraphrasing):

A religion of peace...as never practiced on this earth.

GWB in that video: "The American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's (9/11) attacks, and so were Muslims all across the world."

Sure, but how many Moslems were outraged? A very small % of their 1.6 million adherents, I reckon.

Trump needs to halt all Moslem immigration immediately and deport the ones already here who don't yet have American citizenship, which could very well be close to 2 million of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.