Will We Ever Be at War with Islam?

After the 9/11 attacks, the response of the president was understandable. In light of the millions of peaceful Muslims in the world and of our peaceful relations with certain Islamic countries, President Bush was mindful not to overgeneralize and offend friends and allies around the world. Bush correctly noted that no country had attacked us and that a specific terrorist organization was responsible for the mass murder and mayhem.

Though they committed the mass destruction in the name of Islam, they were deviants, perverting the true nature of one of the great world religions. In no uncertain terms, Mr. Bush proclaimed that Islam is a "religion of peace."

Hence, we were at war, not with a country nor with a religion, but with terror. The U.S. became engaged in a "war on terror," employing the power of its military against the elusive enemy. Mr. Bush denounced the "ideology" of the terrorists. The terrorists held an ideology opposed to freedom. They hated freedom; therefore, they hated the United States.

The problem, of course, is that an indistinct war on terror can never be won. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a good thing in terms of humanitarianism, but no war was won. The United States' campaign in Afghanistan has already brought much humanitarian aid, but the war will not be won.

Under present objectives, there is no war to win.

The violent infrastructure of Islam remains undisturbed and capable of producing a seemingly endless supply of suicide terrorists and jihadists.

It was a mistake for the president to characterize Islam as a religion of peace -- it would have been more accurate to say that millions of Muslims ignore the violent fundamentals of Islam. And by declaring a war on terror, the president sent the U.S. into unwinnable wars -- better to have evaluated the situation as it really was (and still is) than to have fallen prey to mischaracterization.

Now, of course, we have a new president repeating the myths of the war. Mr. Obama doesn't use the term "war on terror," but his objectives are even less defined than his predecessor. In fact, his objective of somehow bringing peace via sympathizing with terrorists and the Muslim world is even farther removed from protecting U.S. interests.

President Obama recently said this at the ninth anniversary of 9/11 at the Pentagon:

They [Islamist terrorists] may seek to spark conflict between different faiths, but as Americans we are not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. It was not a religion that attacked us that September day -- it was al-Qaeda, a sorry band of men which perverts religion.

To be consistent, if only al-Qaeda is responsible, then we should not be targeting any Islamist terrorists or "extremists" other than members of the band. Earlier in the speech, Mr. Obama stated that

the highest honor we can pay those we lost, indeed our greatest weapon in this ongoing war, is to do what our adversaries fear the most -- to stay true to who we are, as Americans; to renew our sense of common purpose; to say that we define the character of our country, and we will not let the acts of some small band of murderers who slaughter the innocent and cower in caves distort who we are.

Twice Mr. Obama refers to the "ruthless, evil, filthy, and beheading sadists" as a "band" -- a "sorry" and "small" band.

Much has been said about a president who could use the words "a sorry band of men" (the same words which might be used to critique his administration) to describe the monsters who commit crimes against humanity. That level of sympathy trumps even the administration's policy of providing Miranda rights to captured terrorists and affording them civilian trials in the United States.

Having access to all the intelligence of the military and CIA, does Mr. Obama really believe that our enemy consists of a "small band" of extremists?

One aspect of the Bush Doctrine, that we are at war with all countries that aid terrorists, was discarded early on with the exceptions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The implications of that doctrine are staggering. The doctrine effectively means controlling the radicalism (the fundamentals) of Islam -- something which may be essential to our survival, yet something that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Mr. Obama knows that the greatest supporter of Islamist terrorism is Iran. What motivates the mullahs of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- i.e., the government? Does Mr. Obama believe that "ideology" or "extremism" disconnected from peaceful Islam motivates Iran?

If the United States were to overtake Iran and stop the death-to-America rhetoric of its radical mosques (the seedbeds of terrorism) and eliminate the atmosphere that produces and aids terrorism, we would be at war with Iran. But would we also be at war with Islam?

What if the United States did the same with regard to the Hamas-governed sections of the Palestinian Territories? In that case, there is no country. So would we be at war with Hamas? Islam? Or both?

If our enemy consists of only a "small band of men," then why is it that at any perceived offense to Islam, massive crowds of tens of thousands will gather in Islamic cities across the globe with shouts of "death to America"? How do we forget the memories of throngs of Muslims across the Middle East joyfully celebrating the attack on 9/11? And why is there no universal condemnation of such rejoicing and of terrorism itself by the vast majority of moderate Muslim leaders?

Maybe Mr. Obama is right. Maybe we will never be at war with Islam. After all, the president, at the recent 9/11 remembrance, had the audacity to admonish us with "Scripture": "get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."

It's too bad Mr. Obama confuses the "Scripture's" application again. Maybe he should have quoted from the epistle of Romans of the Holy Bible, which provides the jurisdiction of the state to execute terrorists: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. ... For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

But then, according to Mr. Obama, "our American values" seem to be those which accord with having a victory mosque at Ground Zero and protecting Islam from offense.
After the 9/11 attacks, the response of the president was understandable. In light of the millions of peaceful Muslims in the world and of our peaceful relations with certain Islamic countries, President Bush was mindful not to overgeneralize and offend friends and allies around the world. Bush correctly noted that no country had attacked us and that a specific terrorist organization was responsible for the mass murder and mayhem.

Though they committed the mass destruction in the name of Islam, they were deviants, perverting the true nature of one of the great world religions. In no uncertain terms, Mr. Bush proclaimed that Islam is a "religion of peace."

Hence, we were at war, not with a country nor with a religion, but with terror. The U.S. became engaged in a "war on terror," employing the power of its military against the elusive enemy. Mr. Bush denounced the "ideology" of the terrorists. The terrorists held an ideology opposed to freedom. They hated freedom; therefore, they hated the United States.

The problem, of course, is that an indistinct war on terror can never be won. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a good thing in terms of humanitarianism, but no war was won. The United States' campaign in Afghanistan has already brought much humanitarian aid, but the war will not be won.

Under present objectives, there is no war to win.

The violent infrastructure of Islam remains undisturbed and capable of producing a seemingly endless supply of suicide terrorists and jihadists.

It was a mistake for the president to characterize Islam as a religion of peace -- it would have been more accurate to say that millions of Muslims ignore the violent fundamentals of Islam. And by declaring a war on terror, the president sent the U.S. into unwinnable wars -- better to have evaluated the situation as it really was (and still is) than to have fallen prey to mischaracterization.

Now, of course, we have a new president repeating the myths of the war. Mr. Obama doesn't use the term "war on terror," but his objectives are even less defined than his predecessor. In fact, his objective of somehow bringing peace via sympathizing with terrorists and the Muslim world is even farther removed from protecting U.S. interests.

President Obama recently said this at the ninth anniversary of 9/11 at the Pentagon:

They [Islamist terrorists] may seek to spark conflict between different faiths, but as Americans we are not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. It was not a religion that attacked us that September day -- it was al-Qaeda, a sorry band of men which perverts religion.

To be consistent, if only al-Qaeda is responsible, then we should not be targeting any Islamist terrorists or "extremists" other than members of the band. Earlier in the speech, Mr. Obama stated that

the highest honor we can pay those we lost, indeed our greatest weapon in this ongoing war, is to do what our adversaries fear the most -- to stay true to who we are, as Americans; to renew our sense of common purpose; to say that we define the character of our country, and we will not let the acts of some small band of murderers who slaughter the innocent and cower in caves distort who we are.

Twice Mr. Obama refers to the "ruthless, evil, filthy, and beheading sadists" as a "band" -- a "sorry" and "small" band.

Much has been said about a president who could use the words "a sorry band of men" (the same words which might be used to critique his administration) to describe the monsters who commit crimes against humanity. That level of sympathy trumps even the administration's policy of providing Miranda rights to captured terrorists and affording them civilian trials in the United States.

Having access to all the intelligence of the military and CIA, does Mr. Obama really believe that our enemy consists of a "small band" of extremists?

One aspect of the Bush Doctrine, that we are at war with all countries that aid terrorists, was discarded early on with the exceptions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The implications of that doctrine are staggering. The doctrine effectively means controlling the radicalism (the fundamentals) of Islam -- something which may be essential to our survival, yet something that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Mr. Obama knows that the greatest supporter of Islamist terrorism is Iran. What motivates the mullahs of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- i.e., the government? Does Mr. Obama believe that "ideology" or "extremism" disconnected from peaceful Islam motivates Iran?

If the United States were to overtake Iran and stop the death-to-America rhetoric of its radical mosques (the seedbeds of terrorism) and eliminate the atmosphere that produces and aids terrorism, we would be at war with Iran. But would we also be at war with Islam?

What if the United States did the same with regard to the Hamas-governed sections of the Palestinian Territories? In that case, there is no country. So would we be at war with Hamas? Islam? Or both?

If our enemy consists of only a "small band of men," then why is it that at any perceived offense to Islam, massive crowds of tens of thousands will gather in Islamic cities across the globe with shouts of "death to America"? How do we forget the memories of throngs of Muslims across the Middle East joyfully celebrating the attack on 9/11? And why is there no universal condemnation of such rejoicing and of terrorism itself by the vast majority of moderate Muslim leaders?

Maybe Mr. Obama is right. Maybe we will never be at war with Islam. After all, the president, at the recent 9/11 remembrance, had the audacity to admonish us with "Scripture": "get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice."

It's too bad Mr. Obama confuses the "Scripture's" application again. Maybe he should have quoted from the epistle of Romans of the Holy Bible, which provides the jurisdiction of the state to execute terrorists: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. ... For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

But then, according to Mr. Obama, "our American values" seem to be those which accord with having a victory mosque at Ground Zero and protecting Islam from offense.