President Bush Admits He Misnamed the War on Terrorism
This important concession follows growing criticism of the misleading term"war on terror" (how can one fight a tactic?) and replaces it with the more accurate"war on ideological extremists." With this change, the battle of ideas can begin.
But who exactly are those ideological extremists? The next step is for Mr. Bush to give them a name.
In fact, on occasion since September 11 he has spoken candidly about their identity. As early as September 2001, he referred to the enemy being"a fringe form of Islamic extremism" which seeks"to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children." This Islamic extremism also is heir to"all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century," including"fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism."
In January 2002, Mr. Bush was more specific yet, adding that the terrorist underworld includes"groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, [and] Jaish-i-Mohammed." In May 2002, he pointed out that a"new totalitarian threat" exists whose adherents"are defined by their hatreds: they hate … Jews and Christians and all Muslims who disagree with them" (implying that they are Muslims). Those adherents, he noted, feel entitled to kill"in the name of a false religious purity."
A year later, in May 2003, the president provided details about the Islamists' goals, observing that"nineteen evil men—the shock troops of a hateful ideology—gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of [Ramzi Binalshibh, the Al-Qaeda leader accused of directing the 9/11 operation], that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.'"
The terrorist acts of the past two decades, Mr. Bush noted in April 2004, are the work of fanatical, political ideologues who"seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror."
Last month, Bush for the first time used the phrase"Islamic militants," perhaps his most explicit reference until now to the Islamist threat, saying that until he closed a so-called Islamic charity based in Illinois, the Benevolence International Foundation, it" channel[ed] money to Islamic militants."
Rolling these comments into a single summary statement establishes how Mr. Bush – and by extension the whole of the U.S. government – sees the enemy: A false doctrine of Islamic purity inspires a totalitarian ideology of power and domination. In its ruthlessness, murderousness, and global ambition, it resembles the Nazi and communist ideologies. The extremists who advocate this doctrine see America as the chief obstacle to achieving their goals. To defeat America, they initially seek Washington's retreat from the outside world. Ultimately, they hope to bring about a collapse of America as it now exists. Toward this end, they are prepared to murder any number of Americans.
This is a fine description of Islamism, its mentality, methods, and means. It also shows that Mr. Bush draws the subtle distinction between the personal faith of Islam and the political ideology of Islamism (or militant Islam).
In this, he parallels what a number of Muslim leaders – including even some Saudis – have said. Following acts of terrorism in Riyadh in May 2003, Interior Minister Prince Naif publicly attributed this violence to"ideology" and"fanatical ideas." And if Naif – himself an Islamist – attributes the problem ultimately not to acts of violence but the ideas behind them, surely Americans can say no less.
Mr. Bush has already alluded to America having to confront its third totalitarian ideology. Now he should name that ideology. I hope he will surround himself with a group of distinguished anti-Islamist Muslims, foreign and domestic alike, and formally announce America's acceptance of leadership in the war against Islamism.
Only with such specificity can the civilized world start on the path to victory over this latest manifestation of barbarism.
This article is reprinted with permission by Daniel Pipes. This article first appeared in the New York Sun.
comments powered by Disqus
Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007
With Orwell live his warnings about Ministries of Truth which propagandize, politicians who doublespeak, and never-ending wars against Eastasia this week, Oceania next. After Bush's "unwinnable" (in his speech today) "war on terror", comes this article that wants to declare a "war on Islamism".
It won't fly. Thanks in part to the internet, people are not going to forget the past, not without a much bigger Police State than third-rate rejects like Ashcroft can even contemplate. Especially when these “wars” are based on patent lies and are endlessly bungled by incompetent chickenhawks trying to “spin” their way in and out of them.
Too many of us remember that the Civil War was not the "War against Secession" or the "War against Popular Sovereignty". World War Two was not the "War against Blitzkrieg". Nor was the arrest of McVeigh a victory in the "War against Militiaism". Osama’s lucky day of horror three years ago, did not come close to being a “war” except in his fantasies, Rove's schemes, and the foolish ignorance of the dumbed-down mainstream American news media.
The web is based on words, as well as images and sound. English will protect us against would-be Big Brothers George Pretzel Bush and Daniel McCarthy Pipes.
Bill Heuisler - 9/4/2004
Amazing! You wrote, "Since Saddam Hussein had nothing--NOTHING!--to do with the events of September 11..." Your shift-key work is excellent and very convincing. But.
There's the minor - almost insignificant? - matter of the Mukhabarat training camp called Salman Pak only a half-hour drive from Saddam's main palace in Baghdad. Senate intelligence Committee testimony, Chairman Rockefeller and ex-CIA Director, Woolsey all detailed on the public record how the Iraqi secret police used a parked airliner in Salman Pak to train terrorists to highjack a civilian airliner without firearms. Woolsey said Salman Pak was the only training camp that taught that special talent.
Oh, by the way, 9/11 was the first instance airplanes were ever highjacked without the use of firearms.
Perhaps if you italicized the word, nothing, Mr. Green...?
Michael Green - 9/1/2004
What Mr. Pipes misses in his usual slavering support for anything George W. Bush does is where, exactly, Iraq fit into this shifting definition of terrorism. Since Saddam Hussein had nothing--NOTHING!--to do with the events of September 11, how do this criminal war and ineptly run "peace," with mission accomplished, of course, fit into the definition. The answer is, whoever Bush feels like going to war with in a misbegotten attempt to prove his manhood and create his own record of heroism in war.
Arnold Shcherban - 8/31/2004
Well said, Peter.
I know you don't need my "encouragement", but thanks anyway.
- David Rosand, an Art History Scholar Whose Heart Was in Venice, Dies at 75
- NYT interviews Rick Perlstein about his book
- OAH issues a statement in support of the AP standards
- Daniel Pipes says in interview that the absence of anti-Israel protests in Muslim countries is highly significant
- A historian who studies China has discovered an overlooked angle in the debate about the Middle East. Could he have figured out a key reason for Iraq’s failure to defeat ISIS?