Here’s an excellent example of the thinking that drives the present and former administrations’ policies in regards to Islam. At various points during his administration(s), GWBush could be heard using different terminology to define the enemy the US is fighting against. He at first used terms like “radical Islam” and later on Islamofascim (the better of the two), which were then tempered with a reminder that supposedly Islam is a “religion of peace”, or that “Islam is a peaceful religion” etc. etc..
As the Tundra Tabloids has stated on previous occasions, at the top governmental level where domestic and foreign policy is debated, formulated and implemented, it’s not “PC thinking” at play, but the particular policy of “denying Muslim terrorists any opportunity of representing “true Islam”, while opening channels for moderates to exert their control and authority.” Supposedly by doing so, you don’t end up alienating the entire Islamic world, while steering them into the camp of the moderates.
Here’s a former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who encapsulates that very thinking while commenting for the following article on sharp differences between and in the camps of both Republicans and Democrats concerning the Ground Zero mosque.
“Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone.”
It’s a highly failed policy that has infected US decision makers in both parties, and while one can’t seriously think that every Muslim is a potential enemy, (as in any other ideology, there exists certain levels of ferver, as Robert Spencer has explained time and again, from the highly orthodox to the secular which means Muslim in name only) the fact remains that it matters little how many “moderate or mild” Muslims there actually are.
When looking at Islam through the prism of world history, there have been some moderate periods (when straying from traditional Islam), with Muslim leaders and movements sprouting up but only to be cut down by Islam itself, death for opastacy is a strong inducement to tow the line. Since Islam induces the Muslim mentality to promote street vigilantism, the problem is compounded.
The fact is, the Islamic ideology remains a highly destructive force that has proven itself to be resistant to change, denying that fact invites a losing strategy time and again. You have to use Islam against itself, that means understanding its “achilles heel” and develope strategies that will contain it, and cause it to turn on itself (read= feel defeated and give up the jihad).
The present failed policy of both administrations loses hands down on the stealth jihad front as well, for the jihad subversives who are advancing the cause of their sharia in the US and elsewhere, will continuously do an end run around it while being championed as “enlightened moderates”.
The only logical thing to do is to call a spade a spade, while making attempts not to target people who have no desire themselves to live under sharia, let alone engage in violent jihad. No doubt they will be offended, and the US should not be weak in the knees about it, but I would rather have people offended than for sharia to permanently gain a toehold in the US. The Ground Zero mosque is one such litmus test, if the stealth jihadis “gain ground” here, you can expect the list to grow. KGS
Politico.com The harsh Republican response to President Barack Obama’s defense of a mosque near ground zero marks a dramatic shift in the party’s posture toward Islam — from a once active courtship of Muslim voters to a very public tolerance after Sept. 11 to an openly aired sense of mistrust.
Republican leaders have largely abandoned former President George W. Bush’s post-Sept. 11 rhetorical embrace of American Muslims and his insistence — always controversial inside the party — that Islam is a religion of peace. This weekend, former Bush aides were among the very few Republicans siding with Obama, as many of the party’s leaders have moved toward more vocal denunciations of Islam’s role in violence abroad and suspicion of its place at home.
The shift plays to a hostility toward Islam among many Republican voters, and it fits with traditional Republican attacks on Democratic weakness on security policy.
“Bush went against the grain of his own constituency,” said Allen Roth, a political aide to conservative billionaire Ron Lauder and, independently, a key organizer of the fight against the mosque. “This is part of an underlying set of security issues that could play a significant role in the elections this November.”
Obama’s remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence