Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

You Still Don’t Understand Islamism, Do You?

January 8th, 2014 - 5:57 pm

Around 2007, I gave a lecture at the Defense Department. One of the attendees presented a scenario suggesting that the “problem of Islam” was not political but a problem of verbiage.

There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qaeida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.

The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this; since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qaeda was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well-known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary.

Actually, it only got worse.

A Muslim Foreign Service officer recounted how some U.S. officials were trying to persuade the powers that be that al-Qaeda was split from the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine how horrified he was. Still other officials told me that there was heavy pressure and there were well-financed lobbyists trying to force officials into the idea that al-Qaeda was the only problem. Some high-ranking Defense Department officials — for example, one on the secretary of Defense’s level — were pressured to fire anti-Muslim Brotherhood people. I know of at least five such incidences.

For example, I was asked to participate in a contract and co-direct a project for the federal government, and my paper was to be on the idea that all Islamists posed a threat. To my surprise, I was told that my paper was rejected. Shocked, I asked to speak to the two co-contractors on the telephone. Isn’t it true, I said on the phone, that I was to have co-direction of this project? The response was yes it was, nevertheless, a more junior member of the press could not prevail. By the way, this co-director, who likely became interested in the Middle East in large part because of me, was very rude. I then told him that though the project had originally been my idea, I was going to walk away from it and not demand compensation.

In another incident, a high-ranking CIA official posited a paper that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat, only al-Qaeda was, and U.S. policy should therefore depend on the Brotherhood.

In another case, a U.S. official made a statement at a public function that neither Hizballah nor Hamas posed a threat to U.S. interests.

By 2013, it sprouted in a few people’s arguments that Iran could be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The theoretical situation to government officials was thus clear: If you wanted to make some money in Washington, you would have to toe the line that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat. If sanctions ended against the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamists, including Iran, this could also lead to trillions of dollars in potential trade deals. Note that in 2009 and 2010, an attempt was made to build such a model with Syria, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were being murdered in a civil war.

But Iran was a far more valuable state. In fact, Tehran was a far easier target because it had far more money and could possibly be bought simply by agreeing not to build a nuclear weapon.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
This situation with "moderate" muslims has a parallel in history. In the run-up to WW II, Joseph Grew, the American ambassador to Japan, counseled the Roosevelt administration not to aggressively counter imperialistic Japanese ambitions in Asia, because it would undermine the "moderate" Japanese who really wanted peace.

As it turned out, there were no "moderate" Japanese, at least none who were willing to oppose the Japanese militarists.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
What's the difference between a Radical Muslim and most Moderate Muslims? Radical Muslims want to kill all Kafirs. Moderate Muslims want Radical Muslims to kill all Kafirs. What's a Kafir? You are.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The real problem is that politicians see islam as good & christianity bad now. Some musim guy murderers soldiers in the army. Gov't pretends it's workplace violence. They never, never, ever get it. The pooh bahs in the pentagon are even worse. The fact that we have an active muslim as head of our cia speaks volumnes. The fact is that muslims in the gov't or military are a great security risk as history has proved over & over again. No muslim should be allowed in any US military branch, to serve in gov't or be in any police forces. They simply are not loyal & will always lie, as is permitted in islam, to further islamic interests at the cost of their loyalty. The intentional naivete of our gov't in dealing w/ muslim nations such as iran, saudi arabia, pakistan, et al is simply astounding. And, they will reap the result of the stupidity they have sewed...it is just a matter of time.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (36)
All Comments   (36)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
BhObama tactic is to buy out Iran hostility , by letting Teheran build all the necessary tools for nukes.Obama has only one idea ; to do business again with Iran no matter what will be the outcome of his appeasement shameful geneva agreement.BhO and his team are either inept, or irrespsonsible or even worse accomplices of Iran expansive and aggressive policy.We shall see to whom is left the gauntlet to stop iran; Saudi Arabia is the no.1 target of Teheran expansion.Israel is no.2 target.Guess who will move first ?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Everything we needed to know about Islam we learned on 9/11.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Also check out Frank Gaffney (Secure Freedom Radio)'s interview with John Guandolo, a former Marine Reconnaissance Office who holds seminars for police and intelligence officers about the Jihad/MB threat. A real eye opener. The massive trove of MB information found in a raid over a decade ago - information which laid out their whole strategy for the US - has been suppressed by the upper echelons.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
And let us not forget that Islam was allied with the Nazis in WWII as well, united by their hatred of Jews and their totalitarian mindset.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thanks for such an excellent post. It is such a pleasure to look forward to your blog. sohbet [http://www.gevezechat.net]
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
This situation with "moderate" muslims has a parallel in history. In the run-up to WW II, Joseph Grew, the American ambassador to Japan, counseled the Roosevelt administration not to aggressively counter imperialistic Japanese ambitions in Asia, because it would undermine the "moderate" Japanese who really wanted peace.

As it turned out, there were no "moderate" Japanese, at least none who were willing to oppose the Japanese militarists.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
There are some things that require genius or near genius intellect such as rocket science, brain surgery or highest level mathematics but not so for determining the intent of Islam - any Islam. It's all right there in their book.

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"

There is another book that offers a bit of common sense. Matthew 7:16. "But by their fruit you will know them. Do they gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles?"

1400 years of thorns and thistles should be enough for anyone with the slightest bit of common sense to see the intent of Islam.

If Western Civilization survives, and that is by no means a certainty, future historians will look upon this generation extremely unfavorably when it is obvious that we had the wherewithal to, if not eliminate the cancer of Islam, at least marginalize it to where is no longer a threat.


36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The main problem, even under President Bush, is that we only declared war on al-Qaeda and similar Islamic Jihad terror groups. The United States never declared political war against Political Islam. Our Founding Fathers were not so blind or so stupid - they understood that we are only obliged to tolerate religions which are not a threat to our God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and our Constitution which secures our natural human rights. We are not obliged to tolerate totalitarian Political Islam - we must become officially and legally intoleratnt of totalitarian Political Islam.

“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live [Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution].” Samuel Adams

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The West's problem is our concept of separation of Church and State.

At some point in their long histories, all Jews and Christians have found the full power of the State arrayed against them. During those periods they developed what we now regard as a healthy respect for the idea that the State should not involve itself in the religious affairs of its citizens. Your religion is between you and God and the State should butt out. This concept is now an integral part of our thinking. And we behave as if this concept is universally accepted. It is not.

Islam's history is very different. From its founding, Islam moved from success to success. Despite military setbacks, There was hardly any period in its history where Islam was NOT both the religion AND the State in the areas it controlled. It never was 'persecuted'. So it never developed a concept of separation of Church and State. Religion is NOT a private matter between you and God. In fact, such a thing is anathema.

Until the West realizes this difference it will consistently mis-read Islam.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The irony, though, is that the Christianity that Islam dealt with for 700 years was as theocratic as Islam, at least at the time of Islam's initial conquest of the MENA. There is good evidence that the greatest contributor to Islam's easy conquests in the Levant, Egypt, and Roman Africa was the tribulations imposed by the Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox Church over various heresies. Jews, Arians, Copts, adherents to Monophysite belief were all brutally persecuted and many found conversion to Islam or dhimmitude preferable to Byzantine religious persecution.

Unfortunately, internal religious conflicts so hampered governance of the Byzantine Empire that it was rarely united enough to effectively oppose the Muslims. It finally fell to the Roman Catholics of the West to stop Muslim incursions into Europe.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cite your evidence, please.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
If the Obama Administration were acting as agents of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, what would they do differently?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All