Dimwits burp up a truism but remain befuddled because they’re still dimwits…
So the problem, you see, is that “our partner government has disenfranchised this group,” and these disenfranchised Muslims turn to jihad. If only we stopped disenfranchising Muslims, they wouldn’t turn to jihad. Zimmerman likely doesn’t know it, but in Islamic law the goal of jihad is to establish the rule of Sharia. So what she is recommending is that we give them their goal, the rule of Islamic law, so that they won’t have to fight for it.
Yes, it’s absurd, but it’s exactly what we did in both Afghanistan and Iraq: we fought wars to install Sharia Constitutions in both countries, ignoring the fact that Sharia directs Muslims to wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims. Did it lessen the jihad? Obviously not.
These mainstream counterterror analysts are in agreement: we will never defeat the jihadis if we only “tackle the symptoms and not the underlying causes of jihadist insurgency.”
On that they are absolutely correct. They demonstrate here, however, that they haven’t the first foggiest clue as to what those underlying causes really are, and instead are determined to reapply the same old failed analysis that has already led U.S. foreign policy down innumerable blind alleys.