An America In Dangerous Denial

Under the leadership of President Obama, George W. Bush’s War on Terror has been replaced by the Age of Denial. The terrorists are still out there – in some respects, stronger and deadlier than ever – but we are no longer engaged in a war against them. Certainly, we are not engaged in a war against Islamic terrorism, which ceased to exist when Obama took office. We gave it a new name – radical extremism – and we took away the religious implications. Those aren’t Muslims, silly Republican. They just play Muslims on TV.

The country is starting to wake up. Not just the conservative blogosphere, either. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made an appearance on Fox News Tuesday to give his thoughts on the modern climate. He called on Obama to recognize the enemy for what it was – radical Islam – and do what needs to be done. “If you try to defend everywhere you defend nowhere,” said Rumsfeld. “The only way you can deal with it is to go after those people.”

Even the Left Understands

It may not be much of a shock to see one of the chief figureheads of the Bush administration taking aim at Obama, but even the left’s most treasured opinion-makers have had enough of the president’s moral equivalency. The Atlantic ran a story in their March issue called “What ISIS Really Wants.” In it, author Graeme Wood slams the myth that these fanatics are driven by something other than religious ideology.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Wood, in his careful research of writings, speeches, and supporters of the Islamic State, uncovers an army that wants nothing less than to usher in the end times.

At a National Press Club event this week, Obama’s lapdog Eric Holder was asked why the president was so bent on taking the “Islamic” out of the Islamic State. “We spend more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what to do about it,” said Holder. “If Fox didn’t talk about this they’d have nothing else to talk about. You know, radical Islam, Islamic extremism, you know, I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying it.”

This isn’t about bickering over language and it certainly isn’t about Fox News. Getting the language right means putting aside the ridiculous notion that we can kill ISIS by providing jobs to its members. It means we can put an end to this idea that we can negotiate out way past our differences. Acknowledging the Islamic faith of these terrorists does not mean marginalizing the world’s peaceful Muslims. It means understanding that this is a specific breed of evil that can only be defeated with overwhelming force.

Comments are closed.