No Jihad In Obama's World View

The Washington Post has mostly praise for Barack Obama's world view, to the extent that he revealed it, via an address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. But the questions the WaPo raises because of what he didn't say might make for more interesting discussion.

In a 40-minute address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama described a foreign policy that centers on continued American leadership in the world and a strong defense but that sharply differs with the Bush administration on Iraq and, at least in tone, on the fight against terrorism.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, he does not use the phrase "war on terrorism." More remarkably, he doesn't mention Islam, much less Islamic extremism -- which Mr. Bush has described as a critical ideological threat to freedom inside and outside the Muslim world. Mr. Obama's advisers point out that much of the speech is directly or indirectly devoted to strategies to combat terrorists, counter their recruitment, and rescue failed or failing states. Still, Mr. Obama ought to explain more directly how he views jihadism. Is it an ideological challenge comparable to communism and fascism, as Mr. Bush contends, or merely an esoteric dogma held by bands of criminals, like the anarchism of the early 20th century? Is terrorism the central threat of the early 21st century, or, as some Democratic strategists argue, merely one of a panoply of challenges that include global warming, pandemics and the rise of China?

It appears Obama views fighting jihad as basically not mentioning it while discussing the plums he intends to offer up in the form of bribes by doubling International aid.

He would double U.S. foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012. Though he didn't offer many details, he did say that "we must couple our aid with an insistent call for reform."

I suspect insisting terrorists lay down their arms will work wonders, don't you? But really even the WaPo fails to raise the most important point. What is it Obama would do to prevent the continued amassing of power by extremist forces within and outside of the Middle East?

We know he'd support creating a vacuum by bailing out of Iraq. We know that military force won't be used until after we are attacked again as no formal state would allow itself to be clearly linked to a terrorist attack before it happened, if at all.

He said that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary -- to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened."

Translation - okay, terrorists, you get at least one free shot. Given the Clinton response to multiple attacks from the USS Cole to our embassies, it's likly they'll be given quite a few.

That neither Obama, some number of Democrat strategists, nor the Washington Post even mention jihad as a movement capable of establishing states, amassing wealth and potentially nuclear arms is the most telling of all. They completely fail to acknowledge, and perhaps even understand the ultimate threat to freedom today as presented by Islamic extremists engaged in global jihad - ultimately through the establishment of states, not simply throwing the occasional dirty bomb.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Very interesting. Sen. Obama supports hope is his current book and supports payoffs and playing to win with defense in the struggle with Islamists (unnamed for PC reasons); von Clausewitz is spinning in the graveyard. Hope and defense, sure attitudes for failure at any effort.

[Buzzy]

The sad fact is that Obama has the best of most comprehensive defense strategy among all of the DEMs and that is it.

Foreign aid to Islamic States is nothing more than Jizya payments. You pay them and they don't attack you... much.

That's the road the EU, and much of the rest of the world, has taken. Payoffs to thugs for protection from terrorist attack. Much like a shopkeeper paying the mafia so his shop doesn't catch fire in the middle of the night. Of course the Mafia doesn't really like the shopkeeper, the Islamofascists won't like us any better and the ante keeps going up, the demands will keep going up.

Most people don't understand that Islam doesn't plan to put our women in burquas or demand we convert or die. They're happy enough to whip us down, attack our religion, defeat our armies from political means (using our own politicians)and extort money from us.

It's a sad state of freedom but I'm afraid this is what our future looks like.

[bloodrage bob]

another question is, does b. *hussein* obama deny islamic terror/jihad out of....

1) reflexive democrat/liberal refusal to acknowledge the existence of enemies of america/freedom/christianity/the west,

OR...

2) the fact that a significant part of his formative years was spent as a student in an *islamic* school, taught by *islamic* dogmameisters?

[Buzzy]

BB, you shock me. Barry Obama is an all American guy who was born in Hawaii to a Muslim father and an atheist mother (who weren't legally married), raised in Indonesia by another Muslim man and his mother, attending both a Madrassa and a Catholic school, and who within the last 15 years (just in time for his political career) converted to Christianity. How dare you question his ALL AMERICAN roots.

Sorry for the sarcasm (no I'm not). It is however sad to say that he's the only Democrat who is actually laying out a plan. I don't think he can get elected though. Too foreign a name, too foreign a history.

[Althor]

Of course there is no Jihad in Obama's "Alice" multi-culturalist, secularist, let's all hold hands (except with hated conservatives) and sing Kumbaya "Wonderland"!

When he looks through that "looking glass" of his - even if he had those rabid Jihadist supporters that protested the Pope's comments in London with signs that read: "DEATH TO THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM" "WE WILL KILL YOU ALL" "THE WEST WILL SUCCUMB" and "DEATH TO ALL INFIDELS" jumping and shouting in front of his face - all he sees are "peace loving" Muslims of the "Religion of Peace" (don't make me barf!) engaging in an esoterical "Spiritual Jihad" of self-discovery and enlightenment!

To Obama, as with Edwards, there is no such thing as Jihad or a "War on Terror" - warmongering Bush and Cheney made it all up after 9/11 to have an excuse to invade Iraq and get us into this mess.

According to them, and the loons on the left that think as they do, terrorism is a law enforcement matter that doesn't warrant our overreacting and involving our military. A couple of FBI agents and a couple of New York cops waltzing-in with warrants into the Al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan and arresting Bin Laden would have sufficed!

Need I say more?

Althor