Jihad: The Real Terrorist Enemy

President Bush says we're waging a "War on Terror," but the terrorists have made it clear what they're fighting for.

Kerry, of course, has already famously said, "I think there has been an exaggeration" of the terror threat by the Bush White House. Others on the Left go even farther, complaining that the word terrorism itself is being kept deliberately imprecise: "Few American politicians or commentators," asserts John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer based in Saudi Arabia, in Tuesday’s International Herald Tribune, "dare to question the conventional wisdom that ‘terrorism’ is the greatest threat facing America and the world. If so, the real threat lies not in the behavior to which this word is applied but in the word itself."

The word, Whitbeck says, "is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning" —used by Bush and Co. to justify whatever geopolitical misadventures their masters at Halliburton order them to pursue next. Whitbeck suggests that "perhaps the only honest and globally workable definition of ‘terrorism’ is an explicitly subjective one — ‘violence that I don’t support.’" And, of course, the principal problem is that the U.S. is "relying on the word to assert, apparently, a right to attack any country it dislikes."

Kerry, of course, will fix this right up. "Perhaps John Kerry," muses Whitbeck, "will have the courage and genuine patriotism to question the wisdom of continuing to wage a perpetual ‘war’ against a subjective epithet and, by doing so, to set us free, restoring some measure of sanity and more mature and constructive priorities both to American society and to America’s relations with the world."

Bush has made himself vulnerable to this criticism by speaking in vague terms of America’s foes as "evildoers" and a "network of haters." Only in connection with foreign fighters in Iraq has he ever used the word "jihadists." If he began to use the word "jihad" the way those he identifies as terrorists and evildoers do, he could in one stroke remove charges of opportunism and lack of focus from the Democrats’ arsenal.

For this is in fact the war we’re in: a war against people who identify themselves as jihadis, not as terrorists. The evildoers themselves, and their sympathizers, have on many occasions disdained the term "terrorism" for the same reasons Whitbeck does. But they aren’t left as bereft of understanding as he seems to be; as the Saudi Sheikh Wajdi Hamza Al-Ghazawi put it in a sermon: "The meaning of the term ‘terror’ used by the media . . . is Jihad for the sake of Allah." Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia, Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza in England, Mullah Krekar in Norway, and other radical Muslims around the world have been unanimous in declaring that they are not indiscriminate purveyors of mayhem — terrorists — but mujahedin: jihad warriors. They have declared again and again that they are fighting to unify the Islamic people under a restored caliphate, and to establish the hegemony of Islamic law over the reunified umma, as well as over the non-Muslim world. In doing this, they say, they are acting in complete accord with the commandments of their religion, which mandates warfare against non-Muslims in order to establish Islamic rule. And they have declared that in this struggle, the United States is their principal foe.

Why not take them at their word? Why not acknowledge that the war on terror is a defensive action against global jihadists?

The obvious answer, of course, is that to do so would alienate moderate Muslim regimes, as well as the Muslim population in the United States. But there is no reason why this must necessarily be so. If Western Muslims are genuine moderates, who truly regard jihad solely as the prevailing rhetoric has it — as a spiritual struggle — then they should have no trouble with a conflict against these men who have "hijacked" their religion. For Bush to declare an anti-jihad, in other words, would not be to declare the much-touted "war against Islam." It would simply be to acknowledge fully the challenge that has been made to America and the Western world, and to take up that challenge.

This clarification would also apply to the war in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein, contrary to media claims, was up to his teeth in the global jihad. According to Deroy Murdock’s revealing article "Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror" in the Fall 2003 issue of American Outlook, Saddam operated training camps for jihadis from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States at Salman Pak. This information comes from Khidir Hamza, former head of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. Hamsiraji Sali of Abu Sayyaf, a radical Muslim group allied with al-Qaeda that has carried out bombings in the Philippines, says that he was offered Iraqi help by Hisham al Hussein, an Iraqi diplomat in Manila. Phone records substantiate his claims. Saddam also paid as much as $25,000 to the families of jihadist suicide bombers. And yes, there are numerous links between his regime and the 9/11 highjackers.

But these men didn’t operate within some fraternity of terror. They made common cause in a shared vision of jihad. By identifying these jihadists forthrightly as our enemy, as they themselves have done, the President would bring much-needed focus and clarity to the war on terror, disarm his opponents, and give America a way to understand the depth and gravity of the ideological struggle we are facing, which involves nothing less than two opposing visions of the most basic values for individuals and society.

Mr. Bush, it might be worthwhile to end this phrase, "The War on Terror." Let’s go after those mujahedin instead.

Are we still afraid to point out that the Jihadis are the terror, including all those who aid and support them, because of the industrial world's dependence on oil from the Islamic countries? If so, why don't we get serious and do something about it, starting with acknowledging the problem?

"[an anti-jihad] would simply be to acknowledge fully the challenge that has been made to America and the Western world, and to take up that challenge.

I can see good reasons for Bush not to have done this right off the bat - you might consider this a grace period for American Muslims to decide which side they're on. But I think it's got to come to this, sooner rather than later.

I'm not sure how much more Islamic treason in the armed forces, plots in the universities, etc. we can ignore before being forced to call the enemy by name.

BTW, did anybody see that very sad post by a Freeper whose sons had become Muslims, the first one during Gulf War I and the second one joining his brother later? The Freeper said that his sons are loyal Americans - but they would not "let" him put up a small American flag after 9/11 at the business that they all run jointly.

I think they understand their allegiance better than we do.

I'm not sure how much more Islamic treason in the armed forces, plots in the universities, etc. we can ignore before being forced to call the enemy by name.

Agreed.

BTW, did anybody see that very sad post by a Freeper whose sons had become Muslims, the first one during Gulf War I and the second one joining his brother later?

No, can you provide a link ?

I wish I could. I read it a couple of days ago, and it has stayed with me. I don't remember the poster's name (I'd seen him before, but he's not a day-in-day-out poster that I'd remember offhand), nor do I remember the title of the thread. His story was so depressing that it caught my attention, however.

I am willing to acknowledge this, we are a few years away from a stable enough oil production flow to prevent massive recession in the west if we were to take on all the jihadis at one time, or invade their main base which is Saudi Arabia.

Bush is handling this well in my opinion, and is being as patient as the enemy in waiting for the moment to kick things up a notch. Also, these countries which harbor the terrorist threat are crumbling from within and maybe we won't have to defeat them all. (Libia down, Iran anyone?)

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.