A courageous speech by George W. Bush last week
began a new era in what he calls the “war on terror.” To comprehend
its full significance requires some background. Islamists (supporters
of radical Islam) began their war on the United States in 1979, when
Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran and later that year his
supporters seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran. For the next twenty-two
years, however, Americans thought they faced merely a criminal problem
and failed to see that war had been declared on them. For example, in
1998, when Islamists attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa,
Washington responded by unleashing detectives, arresting the
perpetrators, taking them to New York, assigning them defense lawyers,
then convicting and jailing them.
The second era began on September 11, 2001. That evening,
President Bush
declared a “war against terrorism” and the U.S. government
promptly went into war mode, for example, by passing the USA Patriot
Act. Though welcoming this shift, I during
four years criticized the notion of making war on a military
tactic, finding this euphemistic, inaccurate, and
obstructive. Instead, I repeatedly called on the president to
start a third era by acknowledging that the
war is against radical Islam. Bush
did occasionally mention radical Islam – in fact, as early as nine
days after 9/11 – but not with enough frequency or detail to change
perceptions. British prime minister
Tony Blair also advanced the discussion in July, when, after the
London transport bombings, he focused on “a religious ideology, a
strain within the world-wide religion of Islam.” But the third era
truly began on Oct. 6 with
Bush’s speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. He not only
gave several names to the force behind terrorism (“Some call this evil
Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism”),
but he provided ample details. In particular, he: · Presented this
“murderous ideology” of Islamic radicals “the great challenge of our
new century.” · Distinguished it from the religion of Islam. · Drew
parallels between radical Islam and communism (both are elitist,
cold-blooded, totalitarian, disdainful of free peoples, and fatefully
contradictory), then noted in how many ways the U.S. war on radical
Islam, “resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.”
· Pointed out the three-step Islamist drive to power: ending Western
influence in the Muslim world, gaining control of Muslim governments,
and establishing “a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to
Indonesia.” · Explained the “violent, political vision” of radical
Islam as comprising an agenda “to develop weapons of mass destruction,
to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American
people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.” · Defined its
ultimate goal: “to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.” ·
Observed that Muslims themselves have the burden of doing the “most
vital work” to fight Islamism. · Called on “all responsible Islamic
leaders to join in denouncing” this ideology and taking steps against
it.
The
detailed texture of Bush’s speech transforms the official American
understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and
inadequate notion of “terrorism” to the far deeper concept of “Islamic
radicalism.” This change has potentially enduring importance if
finally, 26 years later, it convinces polite society to name the
enemy. Doing so means, for example, that
immigration authorities and
law enforcement can take Islam into account when deciding whom to
let enter the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offences.
Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them
finally to do their job adequately. Despite these many advances,
Bush’s speech is far from perfect. His quoting the Koran harks back to
2001, when he instructed Muslims about
the true nature of their faith; his comment about extremists
distorting “the idea of jihad” unfortunately implies that
jihad is a good thing. Most serious, though, is his limiting the
“radical Islamic empire” (or
caliphate) to just the Spain-to-Indonesia region, for Islamists
have a global vision that requires control over non-Muslim countries
too – and specifically
the United States. Their universal ambitions certainly can be
stopped, but first they must be
understood and
resisted. Only when Americans realize that the Islamists intend to
replace the U.S. Constitution with Shari’a will they enter the fourth
and final era of this war.
