America Will Gain Nothing By Linking Terror with Islam

A recent Washington Post article "Obama at Odds with Petraeus Doctrine on Islam" completely misses the opportunity to shed light on an important question. Should America tie Islam to the war on terror? The essay starts auspiciously enough with an overview of Obama's policy on this matter, referencing secretary Brennan's publicized “new” approach to the war on terror. This revamped policy included removing all references to Islam, because America doesn’t want to legitimize the perception that America is fighting a war with Islam. It also replaced the war on terror with the war on Al-Qaeda. This contradicts elements of a manual co-authored by Patraeus in 2006 which states emphatically that Islam is related to the war.

Instead of the author focusing on presenting a perspective on the underlying question, he unabashedly relished the opportunity to reveal yet another rift between the administration and the military. This “exposé” follows General McCrystal's recent resignation after his criticism of the administration was published in Rollingstone magazine. But what about the question: Should America link the war on terror with Islam?

The Bush era defense department, under Donald Rumsfeld and then Robert Gates, argued that ignoring the obvious roots of Al-Qaeda extremist ideology negatively affected the war effort. Bush did make it clear on a number of occasions that the war was not on the totality of Islam but rather on an aberrant extremist strand that attacked America. However they never really defended this position, nor did they, openly, challenge the right-wing conservatives in their own party who propagated the claim that the war on terror was actually a war between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. The electorate did not miss this and Obama’s campaign accentuated the negative by ignoring Bush’s nuanced position while painting the entire Republican party with the brush of the conservative view. Obama claimed that we needed to engage with the Muslim world, not alienate them by tying Islam to terror or the war as Bush did (though he didn’t).

The current administration’s approach is not without merit. For one thing if America's electorate missed the nuance in the Republicans position it’s a sure thing that Muslim-majority countries did as well. Obama removed all ambiguity, that could otherwise be construed by extremist elements in the Muslim world as evidence that America was waging a war on Islam. Unlike Bush’s more nuanced position, Obama emphatically declared America’s war is no way related to Islam. Obama supports this position by asserting that there is no advantage to referencing the connection, even if there is one.

Indeed this is the crux of the issue, both Obama and Bush agree. Most Muslims do not adhere to extremist Islam doctrine to the extent of committing/condoning terror. However for Obama America gains nothing by referencing Islam. Conversely, Bush argued that so long as terror is perpetrated by Muslims the war can be construed as relating to Islam and must be acknowledged as such.
To what ends? To force the moderates to take a side? To punish the various Muslim communities for not preventing the terror that emanates from it? To galvanize the American public against a common foe? For the sake of truth?

Or to point out that the moderate Muslim world has failed in suppressing the extremists, and to some extent they are directly responsible (please see blog post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/roots-of-modern-terrorism.html), for allowing their religion to be hijacked. In other words just as Bush’s position was ambiguous the moderate Muslims position is opaque. Thus even if the moderate Muslim (as Bush tried at the other end) attempts to be nuanced, and publicly declares terror is contrary to Islam, people, ignorant or otherwise, will make a connection because Muslims are still perpetrating terror. But the Bush policy of motivating moderate-Muslims to speak, by supporting a nuanced position, has not worked. Instead it has been used as ammunition in this country and in Muslim-majority countries against American policy.

Put otherwise Obama is right. Not because the terror is not linked to Islam, but because America will gain nothing by linking terror to Islam.