Friday
Apr162010
US "National Security": Obama to Break Link Between Islam and Terrorism?
Friday, April 16, 2010 at 13:33 
Darrell Ezell writes for EA:Preparations are under way by key National Security Council officials, reshaping the US National Security Strategy, to break the Bush-era linkage of Islam to terrorism. While this symbolic move is essential to restoring relations with the Muslim world, it promises to unleash a firestorm among conservatives in Washington.
According to sources, Pradeep Ramamurthy, head of the White House Global Engagement Directorate (a four-person NSC team), and his deputy Jenny Urizar are making progress in their rewrite of US national security documents set for release before the President’s trip to Indonesia in early June. They are focusing on the dynamic of language and how a respectful tone in communication, avoiding loaded religious rhetoric, may aid in restoring US–Muslim relations in the world.
It is no secret that the language in the Bush period linking the religion of Islam to terror contributed to ideological tension between the US and Muslims after 9/11. Statements by President Bush such as “This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile…” or academic arguments presented by Bernard Lewis and Samuel P. Huntington that America is facing a “clash of civilizations” contributed to a misinterpretation of the religion of Islam and Islamic society by U.S. officials. This narrow misreading provided the intellectual framework and vocabulary for the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS), which asserted, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century and finds the great powers all on the same side – opposing the terrorists."
The 2006 NSS accomplished, on the surface, two specific goals: 1) It identified in clear terms America’s “new” enemy (“Islamic radicalism”, terrorists, and rogue states) against whom the US planned to defend itself at all necessary cost militarily; and 2) It set out a course of action for rebuilding key nations in an effort to promote effective democracies within countries identified as failed states.
To assure the Obama administration does not fall into the ideological traps set up by this approach, Ramamurthy’s office will pursue a set of 2008 recommendations outlined by the Counter-Terrorism Communications Center ("Words that Work and Words that Don’t") and the Department of Homeland Security ("Terminology to Define the Terrorists").
Acknowledging the damage caused by the Bush administration’s choice of language, the January 2008 DHS report made the recommendation that the U.S. government consider more strategic terminology.
The terminology that senior government officials use must accurately identify the nature of the challenges that face our generation....At the same time, the terminology should also be strategic – it should avoid helping the terrorists by inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of their ideology…If senior government officials carefully select strategic terminology, the government’s public statements will encourage vigilance without unintentionally undermining security objectives.
That is, the terminology we use must be accurate with respect to the very real threat we face. At the same time, our terminology must be properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.
The shift in national security language indicates the Obama Administration is comprehending the dynamic of communication as a tool to improve or further deteriorate future relations with Muslims. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh declares, “It’s a good message of assurance, and differs from the former American administration’s position on this matter which showed no real understanding of Islamic countries….This decision by Obama will help to reform the image Muslims have of America.”
The conservative backlash has already begun with FOX News featuring the assertion of Senator Joseph Lieberman (as a former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, a key ally for Obama's opposition) calling the shift in national security language “dishonest, wrong-headed, and disrespectful”. Arguing against the White House’s use of more strategic language, Lieberman insists:
It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists.
Senator Lieberman’s position points to the danger of a continued marriage of the terms Islam and radicalism in US national security documents. Underneath the surface, he, like most conservative writers, seeks to keep the current war on terror framed in religious/ideological terms. That position may make it easier for scholars to follow the narrow-minded resolution of Lewis and Huntington through the call for the religion of Islam to "reform", assuring its compatibility with the West. However, the use of the loaded terms sustained the ideological context of a global debate dominated by the tension between US foreign policy and groups like Al Qa'eda and the Taliban.
By dropping the unhelpful vocabulary, the White House sends the message that it is willing to discern the value of promoting a language of understanding over the theme of "combat". It is essential that the Administration make this linguistic shift, not just to apply political correctness to U.S. foreign policy, but to implement a more engaged framework of communcation before the President's summer address to the Muslim world in Indonesia.
Reader Comments (44)
Catherine,
Here is a article I came across few years ago and actually bookmarked. I don't agree with the apologetic tone but in my humble opinion it does a good job of explaining the political nature inherent in Isalm. What I feel it falls short on is dealing with the manifestation of that Islamic system as it pertains to non Muslims whether they are under it or in another state. Thus it is best to view the article from the context of being a Muslim and I think the author was trying to get the reader to view it that way. Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world
Thx
Bill
Hey Bill,
This seems to be our live chit-chat day. I was still planning to read the Wiki page anyway with the proverbial grains of salt on hand. RE your new article, I remember the incredible controversy stirred up by Rowan Williams' suggestion to allow Islamic courts to handle marriage and divorce (and other family law issues as well I believe?). This also caused a huge debate in the Netherlands, where 6% of the population is Muslim. I'll read this one on the treadmill (a place of honour where I am still working through your response to Eric Brill, little by little, day by day...).
Bill,
Re your post # 14
Yussefi Eshkevari's conference is only a very general introduction into the subject, as he notes himself at the beginning of his speech. Translating it into English is too difficult for me, but you can find a Persian transcript at Jaras site: http://www.rahesabz.net/story/11517/
More in depth informations are probably to be found here: http://www.drsoroush.com/PDF/E-CMO-20041000-The_Search_for_Human_Rights-Shadi_Mokhatri.pdf
Arshama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWmUXjPXNP4
There are 4 parts to this. It's very very very interesting.
Jump around to the other parts if you wish...
If the Obama administation wants to change the tone of the discussion, then so be it. They want to fight this war in a broader way, and frankly after 9 years of war in Afghanistan, if this idea has a possibility of working it should be tried.
The statement by Senator Liberman, however, doesn't really show discontent by the conservative side of the isle. I'm not saying discontent is not there, but the Senator makes very valid points about making the distinction between Islamic extremist and the majority of Muslims around the world. Not making that distiction is kind of a slap in the face to Muslims, including the ones here in America. I mean the Taliban do in fact call themselves Muslims, so we can't act like they are not Muslim, but we do have to make a distinction between the idiots and the moderates.
Finally, as the President promotes the "language of understanding" I think it's important to realize that the White House has a responsibility to use every weapon it has. If we can make gains in the dipolmatic arena, then let's do it. The Military is more than capable of keeping up the combat tone by itself, without the President having to do it every week on televison. Let's hit the bad guys on every side possible. The President can be the cheif Dipolmat that he is supposed to be, and Gen. McCrysta and othersl can keep the combat rhetoric up as the soldiers on the ground keep calling them every name in the book and making up more names along the way!
Arshama,
Thank you I was able to use a translation program that allowed me to read most of it. It was hard to grasp at first because the translation program I have stinks but I did come with a base understanding. If I am correct this gist of this article was a compare and contrast of traditional Islam vs modern Islam and what is needed to balance the two out. In short I came away with the belief the author was arguing we need to reopen our scripture and reinterpret it for modern times. One word that led me to this conclusiong was Ijtihad. It is interesting he brings this up because for the Sunni world the closure of the gates of Ijtihad by Al Ghazali about a thousands years has stagnated their legal code. Shia's on the other hand are more open to Ijtihad and I would presume the author wants more faster! All in all a good find!! So did I get it?
Thx
Bill
Catherine,
Another example of the politics in Islam is to observer the OIC's behavior is within the UN. Some things they have done:
1) Some how managed to get any discussion on Islam and Sharia banned from being used in any UN Human Rights Council meetings. Ironically they then created the Cario Decleration of Human rights which is only based on Sharia. The document clearly does not grant equal rights by geneder or religion. The amazing part is when discussions come up about the subject they cannot not even talk about the Sharia implications without getting an overulling by the OIC states to block it.
2) Actually was allowed to state this in defense of the Cario decleration: "This equality has been associated with preserving human dignity, a concept that goes far beyond that of human rights." Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu Sec General OIC. Got it its diginity that holds more value in the Islamic world than rights.
3) Since the early 90's their have been to close to 300 resolutions against Israel and a total of 15 against Sudan. Each time Darfur was brought up the majority of Muslim countries defened it stating it was an attack on Islam---but hold on I thought we couldn't discuss Islam. Typical double standard Islamists will use when it benefits them. All the while 2 million died in Darfur and it was the west left with feeding them to boot.
4) Any point ever raised on draconian practices such as Stonning, killing apostates, child brides, female genital mutilation, or terrorists invoking scripture is met with points of orders from most Islamic states. The tactic is used to intimidate the NGO and force the discussion to be closed off. The defense is that this talks about sharia and they will not have sharia smeared!! Gee I thought the value of human life was greater than the Sharia. Now if the NGO insists to continue the OIC forces a vote then and there to block it and they win every time.
5) Continually try to get all seperatist movements Muslims are waging labeled as defensive wars against occupiers. They do this not only for Israel but also Thailand, The Phillipines, Kashmir, Bosnia, Kosovo, and literally ever other one and mean all of them. They are never at fault it is the state trying to stop these wakos from creating a state within a state in their minds.
6) Trying to force down the UN the anti free speech legislation called Defamation of Religions that only mentions Islam by name. Hold on again were not supposed to talk about Islam? Worst of all the OIC by far is the world leader when it comes to religious apartheid states and general persecution of religious minorities.
Now your asking yourself how in the world can they get away with all of this. It is simply the UNHRC is ruled by a majority and one seat is given for each nation. This means the OIC has defacto control of the UNHRC because they have the most seats. Its why this council is often called a joke because the OIC will only allow its critique of others but not of theirs. Instead they hide behind the severe restriction of not discussing Islam or Sharia in these councils. Sadly its brilliant because you can't critique much in the Islamic world because the so many of the abuses are rooted in their faith!! This is a prime ecample of the politics on display in the Islamic world.
Ironic is it not that we have 23% of the world comprising the worst of the worst human and religious rights abusers telling us how to deal with Human Rights? My god the fox is loose in the Chicken coup!
Thx
bill
Bill,
For your interest -- http://vimeo.com/10719650
Dave
Dave,(Catherine watch Dave's video link just above)
Hot damn that video just proved all my points in one fell swoop!!! Thanks for the reference. I have actually viewed a number of videos from the UNHRC but for some reason I never came across this. God the OIC states were like a bunch of lemmings just waiting to protest. I especially like the Egyptian delegate and his quite clear threat. It's no wonder nothing get done with that group!!
Thx
Bill
Dave,
Re your post 7, are you pooh-poohing the courses I took a priori, or just the fact that I've mentioned having taken them? :-)
Fortunately they were anything *but* the underwater basket weaving variety! Since both focussed in part on the rise of political Islam from the 1970s on, "political Islam" was my first association with a phrase like “The fact remains Islam is inherently political", which is why I asked Bill what he meant. Now I know exactly what he meant ;-).
Thanks for the excellent article 'Beware progress: Unlike medieval Christianity, a reformation is not what Islam needs',
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12161
which I think Rev Magdalen and Bill should also read if they haven't yet done so.
The point made in the article is the very reason why I purposefully use the terms evolution or development (see for example my post 20 on the influence of outside factors in the evolution of Islam), not a "reformation", which in most religions (except Judaism?) means a move back to basics. Many Calvinist-based confessions even include the word "reformed" in their name, as in Dutch Reformed Church.
Hi Bill,
RE your post 26, thanks for that excellent NYT article on Shariah. I was already familar with what Shariah is, and the differences with Fiqh, but the analysis of why Shariah worked in the Caliphate and perhaps wouldn't work so well now is very illuminating. You should post it in a relevant MENA House thread in connection with the idealisation of and nostalgia for Shariah by modern Islamist movements.
@Bill #22
Here's an excellent (Dutch) website to compare notes:
http://www.bibleandkoran.net/
Also: where do we find the largest Islamic population? In Asia! Almost 62%. Compared to the Middle East and North Africa: almost 21%. And some 15% live in Sub Saharan Africa. What is the largest Islamic country in the world? Of course: Indonesia, making up almost 13% of ALL Muslims around the world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
Where's Obama traveling to in June?
"Isn’t peace and justice in this world the purpose that both Muslims and Christians can share together?" Read this lovely, peaceful, Indonesian article: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/04/20/a-broader-assessment-president-obama%E2%80%99s-view-islam-and-indonesia.html
Bill,
Re your post #31
"Shia’s on the other hand are more open to Ijtihad and I would presume the author wants more faster! All in all a good find!! So did I get it?"
Without being an expert I would say yes. At least rebellious Shiites (read: Iranians) always had to fancy their own style of Islam, being always more critical than the Sunnis (literally traditionalists, from Arab. sunna).
The problem of our religious "newthinkers" is however, that they refrain from a genuine Reformation, trying to find a compromise, which does not work out.
But an Iranian friend told me even they have recognized after the elections that their insufficient compromise has failed to convince the Iranian majority, which is much more ready for a secular state by now.
If the modernists, whom Eshkevari represents, were honest, they would abandon their concept of "Islamic Republic" and promote a secular state as well. But until now they prefer to keep their "holy" government with some liberties as experienced during the Khatami era, i.e. Eshkevari pretends to adhere to a "modern" or "modernized" Islam, but he suppresses the fact that it is as political as the other...
Take it as an attempt to explain the problem in my own simple words, please, without any guarantee.
Regards
Arshama
WitteKr,
That's a cool site - and very handy. But it doesn't seem to include Shia doctrine. I mention this because I had understood that Shias believe that Jesus and the Mehdi will actually appear on earth together at the end of days and do battle against the Antichrist, but neither 'Antichrist' nor 'Mehdi' give any search results. Still, it's interesting to csee the comparisons that *are* in there.
Catherine
"Shias believe that ------"
Isn't this the problem right around the word? Humans believe that ----- !! For humans, think Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, etc - whatever.
Humans have vivid imaginations and come up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "beliefs" I guess they have since we came down out of the trees!! - but we are grown up now!!!
In the nation of Vanuata (which is a wonderful place, the people are so happy with their lives and they say that they live in Paradise) on the island of Tanna, the people believe in "John Frum" http://www.worldisround.com/articles/280911/index.html
I guess in their case, their beliefs are harmless - they don't try to force them onto any others. But that is not normally the case with humans - possibly in their case, because they are such beautiful people. But they are still human - and while they have not attempted to force their "John Frum" beliefs onto others on other islands, they did in the past like to eat their opponents http://www.tafea-tourism.com/?Tanna
I have no time for human religious beliefs - they are simply figments of imagination in the minds of those who hold them. They are essentially a matter of the accident of birth of an individual - you can bet that almost everybody born to a family in Iran is going to have Muslim "beliefs" - except for those unfortunates who find themselves born into a family of Bahai believers.
Religion -- Phooey!!! - it is certainly "The ghost in the machine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine
Barry
Catherine,
I assumed you knew about Shariah but provided it because it did a nice job of explaining the political aspects of Islam. However it is important to note, and I believe you do, that Shariah itself is the goal and the foundation for the political structure of an Islamic state. The two are connected at the hip.
I'm also glad you caught my use of "reformation" because it was a bad choice of words. It was so because as the speaker in the article said Islam can not be reformed in its current state. Islam's very own scripture precludes this from happening by stating it is the word of god and thus perfect, beyond critique, and transcendent for all time. Ironically Saudi Wahhabi in the US like to use the term "reform" as a way to describe redirecting Islam back to its core. Of course when one really looks at it they are following a literalists Salafist approach that wants to harken back to the Islam of 700 AD. Their reform means death or chop chop for apostasy, homosexuals, blasphemy, and stealing among many others. Yikes!!!! I did like your words of evolution or development but I think you will still have the same problem--the message of the Quran is still inviolate, beyond critique, and see itself as end be all message for all time. Sort of hard to reform, evolve, or develop something that specifically says its static and prescribes death to those who dare queston it. Double Yikes!!!! Frankly this is the crux of the problem and you can see when mixed with politics how such a system lends it self to tyranny and dictatorships so well!!
Thx
Bill
WitteKr,
Thank you for the references. I hope you understand my posts were based on the puritanical interpretations of Sunni Islam and not reflective of the entire Islamic world. What I was trying to do was to show the political manifestations of Islam in various instances. I fully realize those who fully practice the political side are in the minority, but many miss despite being the minority these groups are largely ideological steer the Islamic world. Those groups are the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabists, the Deobandi school of thought, the 12'er Shia school, and a few others. Thus my arguement was not per say against Islam but in direct reference to the politics employed by the Islamists of the aforementioned groups I listed. The only caution I have is that neither article trully address a fundamental issue that being how to reconcile the inviolate mandates in Islam that clearly clash with Western values. These conflicts are what are causing a majority of the issues. The core one being that Muslims think Sharia is the law of the land and us non believers saying its secular man made law. I don't have all the answers but we need to find them if we ever want to all be able to play together in the same sandbox. By the way my two best friends happen to be Shias and yes we have some animated discussions on faith!!!
Thx
Bill
Arshama,
Thanks!! I agree the "reformation" is the key especially considering the Sunnis kill your for doing it and the Mullahs call you an enemy of god for it. Sort of hard to get anything done if you have the "chop chop" verdict hanging over your head every time you want to talk reform. Sadly these "shackles" are often blindly self applied because thats what scirpture or my Imam said we should do. Makes you wonder why did God bother to give us a brain with that kind of thinking!!! Arggh this type of stuff just frustrates me!!!
Thx
Bill
WitteKr,
Thanks for that article about the Indonesian perspective on Obama's Muslim "connections". It was not what I expected from the title! I think Obama is broad-minded enough to understand the author's point, but if he does get a public reception from a group in Indonesia welcoming him as a "Muslim brother", I hate to think how the US media and other noise+wind machines will react :-)