By Supna Zaidi
Many liberals are voting as I speak in hopes of ending what they perceive as an illegitimate "war on terror." To liberals, McCain is the old white guy who is one missing heart-beat away from a Palin red-neck presidency. The only difference between the last eight years and the next four, then, would be a skirt and caribou on the White House menu.
Barack Obama on the other hand, is Mr. International. For liberals he is the embodiment of post-colonial multiculturalism in JFK packaging. If elected, all nations that "crusader" George W. alienated will be friends with us again.
But the problem is that neither 9//11, nor the bombings in London or Madrid happened because of President Bush. The enemy has a clear strategy because it has a clear enemy, western democracy, which bin Laden has called the "principles of heresy" against Islam.
The war on terror began with the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran in 1979 which positioned America as "the Great Satan" for subsequent decades and inaugurated the American presence abroad as a legitimate target for all Islamists who seek to divide the world into Muslim versus non-Muslim. The hostage crisis was followed by:
1. April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut;
2. October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut;
3. December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait;
4. January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed;
5. April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain;
6. September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again);
7. December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran;
8. June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut;
9. 1993 World Trade Center bombing;
10. 1996: Khobar Towers attack;
11. 1998 U.S. East African embassies attack;
12. 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack in Yemen.
Stopping before 9/11 leaves many terrorist attacks from this list, but should be a clear reminder to readers in 2008 that whether one supported or hated the Bush administration, it did not create the war on terror.
It is very likely that now liberals will have to sit and absorb these violent attacks and create policy to defend the US against the "terror" that remains undefined 7 years after 9/11. Any promises of timelines, dreams of isolationism, or tea parties with Islamists like Ahmedinijad will go out the window when the above reality sets in.
If you didn't like the "war on terror", clean it up. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Pick an enemy and label it.
Islamism is the clearest term that distinguishes apolitical Muslims from Islamists. Let analysts in government call the war on terror - Islamist, jihadi, etc., so they can finally do their job. Acknowledging Islamism's origins from Islam forces Muslim governments abroad and even the Muslim American community here, to counter Islamist interpretations of the Quran, and offer Muslims a non-violent, democratically compatible interpretation of their faith. Moreover, it will finally allow an educational campaign to teach the western world what Islamism is.
2. Only after articulating who the enemy is, can the US create policy beyond military strategy.
Free speech is under attack every day through litigation and lobbying by Islamists. The Islamist goal to spread Sharia or Islamic law in the west challenges basic tenets of secularism, democracy and, specifically the separation of church and state doctrines in each case. Asking questions, debating each incident locally, or at the national level leaves critics at the mercy of Islamists, who accuse them of Islamophobia, defamation, or even racism. But, if the Islamic nature of the enemy is accepted in policy, the term "Islamophobia" will finally lose its viability. The word will no longer have its chilling effect on free speech.
Let's not forget that at a global level, 57 countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference realize the value of throwing the word Islamophobia around. It is the OIC that continues to lobby for a Resolution Against Defamation of Religon," though most signatories are notorious for their ill-treatment of minorities in their own nations.
3. Muslim Nations Will Be Empowered to Fight the Enemy At Home.
The majority of victims in the war on terror are Muslims. Its time Muslims realized this and fought back. Just by example, consider Pakistan. Currently, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari calls the fighting against radical Islamists in Pakistan "our war" in interviews, almost defensively. It is as if the Pakistani people still need convincing that they are under attack. This is very odd, considering the dramatic bombings at the Lal Masjid Bombing and Marriot hotel this year in Islamabad, which were just two from over fifty attacks Pakistan in 2008 alone.
Yet, Zardari may have a point in focusing on reminding his citizenry of the point when one considers the rampant anti-American sentiment the various English, Urdu and Punjabi papers throughout the country. Islamism hurts Pakistan even more than the United States. If the US fought for a clear articulation of the enemy, then real coalition building would finally be possible. No matter how pious Pakistanis are, I guarantee the majority do not want Pakistan to become Talibanized in any way.
The US has to fight the war of ideas abroad by re-connecting this war on terror to the attacks from 1979, to 9/11 and the Marriot bombings in Islamabad to the same enemy, who see the west and non-Islamist Muslims as equal enemies. The US is merely the poster child of western cultural hegemony that Islamists hate because it is the sole superpower today. If the US disappeared today, the war on terror would continue because France or Britain would be in its place, with its freedom of speech, gender equality, defense of all faiths and minorities.
It is the liberals turn to fight this war. (Most likely since election results are still pending at the time of this writing). It won't go away by ignoring it or appeasing it. But liberals addressing it might finally bring the country together against it and allow us to win sooner than later.
Many liberals are voting as I speak in hopes of ending what they perceive as an illegitimate "war on terror." To liberals, McCain is the old white guy who is one missing heart-beat away from a Palin red-neck presidency. The only difference between the last eight years and the next four, then, would be a skirt and caribou on the White House menu.
Barack Obama on the other hand, is Mr. International. For liberals he is the embodiment of post-colonial multiculturalism in JFK packaging. If elected, all nations that "crusader" George W. alienated will be friends with us again.
But the problem is that neither 9//11, nor the bombings in London or Madrid happened because of President Bush. The enemy has a clear strategy because it has a clear enemy, western democracy, which bin Laden has called the "principles of heresy" against Islam.
The war on terror began with the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran in 1979 which positioned America as "the Great Satan" for subsequent decades and inaugurated the American presence abroad as a legitimate target for all Islamists who seek to divide the world into Muslim versus non-Muslim. The hostage crisis was followed by:
1. April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut;
2. October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut;
3. December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait;
4. January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed;
5. April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain;
6. September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again);
7. December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran;
8. June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut;
9. 1993 World Trade Center bombing;
10. 1996: Khobar Towers attack;
11. 1998 U.S. East African embassies attack;
12. 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack in Yemen.
Stopping before 9/11 leaves many terrorist attacks from this list, but should be a clear reminder to readers in 2008 that whether one supported or hated the Bush administration, it did not create the war on terror.
It is very likely that now liberals will have to sit and absorb these violent attacks and create policy to defend the US against the "terror" that remains undefined 7 years after 9/11. Any promises of timelines, dreams of isolationism, or tea parties with Islamists like Ahmedinijad will go out the window when the above reality sets in.
If you didn't like the "war on terror", clean it up. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Pick an enemy and label it.
Islamism is the clearest term that distinguishes apolitical Muslims from Islamists. Let analysts in government call the war on terror - Islamist, jihadi, etc., so they can finally do their job. Acknowledging Islamism's origins from Islam forces Muslim governments abroad and even the Muslim American community here, to counter Islamist interpretations of the Quran, and offer Muslims a non-violent, democratically compatible interpretation of their faith. Moreover, it will finally allow an educational campaign to teach the western world what Islamism is.
2. Only after articulating who the enemy is, can the US create policy beyond military strategy.
Free speech is under attack every day through litigation and lobbying by Islamists. The Islamist goal to spread Sharia or Islamic law in the west challenges basic tenets of secularism, democracy and, specifically the separation of church and state doctrines in each case. Asking questions, debating each incident locally, or at the national level leaves critics at the mercy of Islamists, who accuse them of Islamophobia, defamation, or even racism. But, if the Islamic nature of the enemy is accepted in policy, the term "Islamophobia" will finally lose its viability. The word will no longer have its chilling effect on free speech.
Let's not forget that at a global level, 57 countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference realize the value of throwing the word Islamophobia around. It is the OIC that continues to lobby for a Resolution Against Defamation of Religon," though most signatories are notorious for their ill-treatment of minorities in their own nations.
3. Muslim Nations Will Be Empowered to Fight the Enemy At Home.
The majority of victims in the war on terror are Muslims. Its time Muslims realized this and fought back. Just by example, consider Pakistan. Currently, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari calls the fighting against radical Islamists in Pakistan "our war" in interviews, almost defensively. It is as if the Pakistani people still need convincing that they are under attack. This is very odd, considering the dramatic bombings at the Lal Masjid Bombing and Marriot hotel this year in Islamabad, which were just two from over fifty attacks Pakistan in 2008 alone.
Yet, Zardari may have a point in focusing on reminding his citizenry of the point when one considers the rampant anti-American sentiment the various English, Urdu and Punjabi papers throughout the country. Islamism hurts Pakistan even more than the United States. If the US fought for a clear articulation of the enemy, then real coalition building would finally be possible. No matter how pious Pakistanis are, I guarantee the majority do not want Pakistan to become Talibanized in any way.
The US has to fight the war of ideas abroad by re-connecting this war on terror to the attacks from 1979, to 9/11 and the Marriot bombings in Islamabad to the same enemy, who see the west and non-Islamist Muslims as equal enemies. The US is merely the poster child of western cultural hegemony that Islamists hate because it is the sole superpower today. If the US disappeared today, the war on terror would continue because France or Britain would be in its place, with its freedom of speech, gender equality, defense of all faiths and minorities.
It is the liberals turn to fight this war. (Most likely since election results are still pending at the time of this writing). It won't go away by ignoring it or appeasing it. But liberals addressing it might finally bring the country together against it and allow us to win sooner than later.
Source: Muslim World Today
 |
Posts
