Straight off the heels of the McChrystal-debacle, further conflict between the Obama administration and military officials appears to loom on the horizon - involving none other than newly appointed Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, General David H. Petraeus.
Of the countless characteristics which define liberals, Democrats, and refusal to accept reality and to call a spade a spade.
Exhibit 9,999,999,999: the new White House policy to disassociate all mentions of Islam when describing terrorists.
The
Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough foresees just one tiny problem with the administration's official policy however:
John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member. [...]
The Petraeus counterinsurgency manual takes the position that, to understand the enemy, commanders must recognize terrorist links to Islam - its leaders in some cases, its fundraising and its infrastructure. Forces must fight "Islamic extremists," it says, differently from the Viet Cong or followers of Saddam Hussein.
Scarborough then goes on to quote Larry Korb, a military analyst for the Center for American Progress who, predictably, full heartedly supports White House policy, resorting to the left's one (and only) barely-counterargument -
antiabortion extremists.
President Obama undoubtedly deserves much credit for appointing the highly respected General Petraeus as Stanely McChyrstal's successor. How the philosophical divide between the White House and the Petraeus doctrine plays out is yet to be seen, but is not an innocuous case of semantics. Words matter, which is why the left takes so much pride in their mastery and monopolization of Orwellian-speak. To say Muslims who carry out terrorist attacks in the name of their religion are "Islamic extremists," would be no different than calling the KKK the "KKK,," feminists "feminists," a tall person a "tall person," or a tree a "tree." It might seem crazy to some folk, but most folks make it a habit of using words to distinguish one pertinent group from another.
Even James Kirchick, who is a gay, prochoice assistant editor at the New Republic, sees the absolute asininity and terrible disservice the left does bending over backwards with political-correctness and equating Islamic terrorists to the religious right. "[I]t's precisely because of my identity that I consider comparisons between so-called Christianists (who seek to limit my rights via the ballot box) and Islamic fundamentalists (who seek to limit my rights via decapitation) to be fatuous," Kirchick wrote shortly after the murder of abortion doctor George Till in 2009.
"But the Christian right's responsible reaction to the death of George Tiller should put to rest the lie that Judeo-Christian extremists are anywhere near as numerous or dangerous as those of the Muslim variety."
If top US government officials are not willing to call terrorists who are so undeniably motivated by Islamic doctrine "Islamic terrorists," what does it say about America and how far we have digressed as a nation and civilization?
Follow Anthony Kang on Facebook and Twitter.
Print
