Tom Friedman endorses the position staked out by Rich Lowry:
Last week the conservative columnist Rich Lowry wrote an essay in Politico Magazine that contained quotes from White House spokesman Josh Earnest that I could not believe. I was sure they were made up. But I checked the transcript: 100 percent correct. I can’t say it better than Lowry did:
“The administration has lapsed into unselfconscious ridiculousness. Asked why the administration won’t say [after the Paris attacks] we are at war with radical Islam, Earnest on Tuesday explained the administration’s first concern ‘is accuracy. We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.’
This makes it sound as if the Charlie Hebdo terrorists set out to commit a random act of violent extremism and only subsequently, when they realized that they needed some justification, did they reach for Islam.
The day before, Earnest had conceded that there are lists of recent ‘examples of individuals who have cited Islam as they’ve carried out acts of violence.’ Cited Islam? According to the Earnest theory … purposeless violent extremists rummage through the scriptures of great faiths, looking for some verses to cite to support their mayhem and often happen to settle on the holy texts of Islam.”
President Obama knows better. I am all for restraint on the issue, and would never hold every Muslim accountable for the acts of a few. But it is not good for us or the Muslim world to pretend that this spreading jihadist violence isn’t coming out of their faith community. It is coming mostly, but not exclusively, from angry young men and preachers on the fringe of the Sunni Arab and Pakistani communities in the Middle East and Europe.
If you’ve got a plan for rooting out violent radical Islamists that doesn’t require the participation of Sunni Muslims more generally or mass extermination I’d certainly like to hear about it. If they bear no responsibility for what’s going on in their own faith community, how is that going to happen?
When they were going around shooting abortion doctors and blowing up clinics (and the Olympics) I didn’t feel responsible for those actions. Should I have felt responsible?
Steve
I’m somewhat in the middle on this. To adress Steve’s question, I think you have to take the scale into consideration, and some other factors. If a similar percentage of Christians were committing terrorist acts, and organizing into militant networks that were also seizing territory in the name of their religion- AND if there was any ambiguity whatsoever on the part of some Christian leaders for whether or not the theology supported these acts, then I think Christians would most certainly have a responsibility to petition our church leaders to side against the terrorists without equivocation.
The correct response is to provide lavish support for reformist muslim organizations, of which there are many. We do not have an “Islam” problem but a Saudi Arabian problem as that country promotes and exports violent Wahhabism to the furthest reaches of the planet.
The Muslim Reformation has been ongoing for over ten years now; though we don’t hear that from news media, the rise of internet communications has resulted in an extremely vigorous debate among muslims on the origins and future of Islam.
No one is ethically responsible for the actions of another.
Why does a normal sane Muslim feel that his religion is being slandered by the term “radical Islamist terrorist”?
At this point, we know that there are people who can organize protests and riots throughout the Muslim countries over internet films they have never seen. These same organizers could also tell these same protesters that the term “radical Islamist terrorist” does not apply to protesters and rioters.
It only applies to people who want to kill people who do not agree with them, who blaspheme, or anybody else they do not like this week. If it coincidentally happens that the protesters and rioters also want to kill people, we have our answer.
This administration shapes the language to fit it’s vision of what it wants to see, as well as address, regarding policy priorities. Consequently, specifically defining the majority of those carrying out attacks in Europe and elsewhere, as Radical Islamic Terrorists, just doesn’t harmonize with their vision nor the POV they want to shoulder and be responsible for.
Richard Engle, the Chief Foreign Affairs News Correspondent for NBC, has had extended on the ground experience in the ME. Last night when asked what he thought of President Obama assessment of foreign affairs, he candidly said:
Basically, the president tends to fictionalize reality so it all sounds good to the people.
I have it on the best of authority that ISIS/ISIL/DAESH is a spent force.
I have it on the best of authority that ISIS/ISIL/DAESH is a spent force.
The Administration will just change the group’s name again, declare victory and hope no one notices the difference. That’s how we defeated al Qaeda in Syria, by changing their name to Khorasan Group, or some such. I remember the news organizations were confused when the Administration started talking about the Khorasan Group a few months back.
As I have been informed, that’s shallow analysis.
I can’t blame the administration for the proliferation of acronyms. ISIS was the first one that came out but ISIL is closer to the actual words. DAESH is the Arabic acronym in Roman letters.
Now if you’re point is that the whole thing is mau-mauing, you’re right.
I’m not sure I feel sufficiently denounced for it to be mau-mauing.
As I have been informed, that’s shallow analysis.
The quality of one’s analysis is determined by the color of one’s comments. You need to get more thumbs up. Maybe you could get a better icon.
Another suggestion would be to give up your right-wing, Republican, conservative, George Bush loving, tea party views, and do not try to pretend to be anything else. We have caught on to you. Stop being a hater.
For what it’s worth the military and intel community mostly used ISIL.
As for the problem at hand there isn’t a solution. There is little the US and “West” can do but of course we’re America and so the elite can’t admit that, or don’t have the courage to admit it. IMO the most prudent course is to interfere as little as possible and let them work out their own problems.
Andy for Secretary of State!
(Hate to do that to you, as it’s a for-shit job, but someone’s got to do it.)
Do something and something bad will happen; do nothing and something worse might happen.
“I have it on the best of authority that ISIS/ISIL/DAESH is a spent force.”
I haven’t seen that claimed by anyone. Who is making that claim?
Steve
“I haven’t seen that claimed by anyone. Who is making that claim?”
It all fine and well to exaggerate, kibitz, engage in hyperbole etc just to bring a little lightness or edge to things, but I’m concerned in that I actually think you meant this.
Separately, I’m still left with only the most cynical explanation for the administrations stance: if you have declared victory for political purposes but the facts are contrary you have only left resorting to absurdity and trying to bluster your way through.
“Do something and something bad will happen; do nothing and something worse might happen.”
The key word being “might.”