Let’s be clear…
The Intramuralist is no political expert. In fact, far too many who consider themselves experts are — shall I say –“grace opportunities” for the rest of us. Far too also many seem to have embraced selective compassion in their accompanying expertise. My sense is such selectivity is too high a price to pay.
As an observer, no less — and a semi-humble one at that — it seems to me that we are facing quite the quandary. Across the globe, Muslim militants are killing innocent people. Manifest in multiple countries, people are being killed in the name of an Islamic god.
Long before 9/11, the huge list began accumulating (see an objective site). Since 1983, tens of thousands have been killed in the name of Islam… not in the name of another religion.
Let’s be bold…
It’s true that the majority of Muslims do not kill in the name of their faith. But the persons who are killing — be it on 9/11 some 14 years ago or in Paris, France last week — are each Muslim. That’s what they have in common.
I understand the impassioned plea of NBA great, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who asked us in a Time Magazine editorial last week to “stop bringing Islam into these discussions.” I get that he wishes for us to not associate the terror with his peaceful interpretation. The challenge is that the terror is associated with his religion.
Let’s be honest…
First, let’s acknowledge that the majority of Muslims do not kill the “infidel.” Second, let’s acknowledge that it is Muslims who are killing the “infidel.” Honesty means we begin by acknowledging truth. Many seem to struggle with such transparency.
On the eve of last September’s 9/11 anniversary, in a prime-time public address, Pres. Obama vowed to destroy ISIS; at the same time he proclaimed that the terrorists “are not Islamic.”
In the wake of last weekend’s PR misstep in France, Atty. Gen. Holder announced a coming “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” Is it violence? Certainly. Is it extremism? Without a doubt. But it also is terror conducted by Islamic radicals… not by Buddhists or Christians or Scientologists or anyone else.
State Dept. spokeman Marie Harf appeared on national news earlier this week. She was asked about the summit and was pressed to specifically state, in addition to the Islamic radicals, “What other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?” Harf named none… no one. She could not answer the question with any specifics.
It is thus obvious that at some point, our leaders huddled to determine how they would characterize the conflict. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist — nor that political expert — to discern that the administration has decided to avoid the word “Islamic,” including the phrases, “Islamic terrorism” and/or “Islamic radicals.” Press Sec. Josh Earnest wants us to believe that the administration is trying to be “as specific and accurate as possible” by using the term “violent extremism.” The non-political expert in me sees more avoidance than specificity.
Someone in the administration has directed leadership to avoid the clear and bold terminology, which would concede that a radical Islamic ideology is the common thread within the terror. We cannot assemble and solve, however, if we refuse to acknowledge and examine the common thread.
So the better question now is: why the avoidance? …what’s the motive?
Fear? Sympathy? Impression management? Something else?
I wish we knew. The intentional avoidance is extinguishing the administration’s influence and credibility; it’s also diminishing the probability of solution. Hence, I’ll say it again… let’s be honest.
Respectfully…
AR