Analyzing President Obama’s Afghanistan speech and policy is at once easy and difficult. His decision to start to withdraw his own surge policy (10,000 troops home this summer and 33,000 by the end of next summer) is blatantly political, not strategic. Joint Chief of Staff Mullen and Secretary of Defense Gates have both called a withdrawal at this proscribed timetable to be ‘risky’, aka this policy decreases the chances for a successful outcome in Afghanistan. Next summer, as the weather and therefore the fighting heats up, the Taliban will be facing a retreating army. The fact that the surge of troops is dissipated just two months short of the 2012 presidential election is no coincidence. Obama wants the war off his plate and he made that clear in his speech.

Candidate Obama once called the Afghan conflict “the war we need to win”, but things have changed. Obama concluded his speech with ‘Let us responsibly end these wars’. He also mentioned ‘our effort to wind down this war’. Of course ending wars is a good thing, but it would also be nice to win them too. Barack Obama is a domestic minded president through and through. In a key foreign policy speech, one that will affect the life and death of American soldiers, he stated that he was more interested in nation building in the United States. This critical Afghan war speech featured this sentence: ‘We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy.’ This is not exactly ‘Blood, Sweat, and Tears‘. Michael Gerson of the Washington Post has it right: A president provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare, instead of positing a dangerous choice between the two. In other words, having a successful outcome in Afghanistan should not mean that we have to suffer here at home.

Now for the difficult part: This decision to drawdown our troop presence in Afghanistan is indeed a tough call. We have spent billions of dollars (as Obama said in his speech, though I don’t hear him discuss our unfunded entitlements very much if at all) and have soldiers being injured and killed in a conflict that may not have a positive outcome with a majority of the strategies we put forth. We are in Afghanistan to protect ourselves from foreign terrorists who wish us harm. It is this key point where the death Osama Bin Laden comes in. If you take away the parts of the speech where Obama credits our killing of the Al Qaeda leader than our case for a well earned victorious departure gets quite flimsy. It gets especially cloudy when we look back at Obama’s reasoning for starting the surge in the first place, only a year and some months ago. Did the surge help capture Osama Bin Laden? I don’t think so, but now it is being used as a reason to start leaving Afghanistan. Fellow political blogger UNRR posits two key questions regarding Obama’s decision to pull out troops, both have to be answered in the negative:

Is there anyone who seriously believes the situation in Afghanistan is so improved that we can reasonably start pulling out troops? Does anyone really think the incredibly corrupt and incompetent Karzai government and Afghan military are ready to start taking over their own war effort any time in the foreseeable future?

Obama’s surge was only fully in place last August and 10,000 of the 30,000 troops are already packing their bags for home. I know progress has been made in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, two Taliban strongholds, but can these tactical gains be cemented with less troops and the Taliban’s knowledge that we are leaving. I guess it’s possible, though unlikely. I also want to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt that negotiations between the US, Karzai government, and Taliban are already ongoing and showing signs of progress. I also have great faith that even with minimal numbers, there is no greater fighting force than the American military and they still may be able to accomplish our goal of making Afghanistan a somewhat stable, secure country where terrorists cannot effectively plan and implement their objectives against the United States.

Part of the job of a leader, and especially one in charge of the United States, is to make tough decisions that overall best serve your constituents. President Obama has every right to make this withdrawal decision as he is our commander in chief. We as a country cannot fight every battle or right every wrong in the world and our current fiscal crisis and long term debt have made tough decisions even harder. Choices need to be made. These choices will have outcomes and we must judge our leaders by them. President Obama has made a major decision that will shape the future of the war on terror and like his predecessor, he will have to answer to the people and history.

Wow. That was my reaction reading Walter Russell Mead’s Memorial Day blog post. Mead chooses to honor our American troops past and present by talking about what he calls their ‘momentous victory’ in Iraq. That’s right, Iraq. Not World War II or I, not the American Revolution or the Spanish-American war, but the George W. Bush-led war in Iraq. Mead, a top notch American historian, is one of the most sober, deep thinking social and political commentators our country has right now and this was one of his most memorable.

In the piece, Mead argues that the turning point in the wars, Iraq and War on Terror, occurred when Iraq’s Sunni population decided to choose the American side over Al Qaeda’s in 2006. Not only was a strategic victory for a future, democratic Iraq, but for Mead, it was the end of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s dreams of bringing their version of Islam to the masses. Basically, the Sunni’s of Iraq saw what both sides had to offer, neither perfect of course, and made a fateful decision to choose America’s path. Here is Mead’s description:

But on this Memorial Day it is not enough to remember, and give thanks, that Osama’s dream died before he did and that the terror movement has been gravely wounded at its heart.

Because the dream didn’t just die.

It was killed.

And it was killed by coalition forces.  They killed it by fighting harder and smarter than the enemy and they killed it by winning trust and building bridges better than the enemy.  They did it because they were better, more honorable warriors and better, more honorable partners for peace.  Mostly American and mostly Christian, the coalition forces were more compassionate, more just, more protective of the poor and more respectful of Arab women than the crazed thugs who thought setting off bombs in the market was fulfilling God’s will.

Though I am sympathetic to Mead’s core argument that the war in Iraq should be seen as a victory for the United States, I believe there is much more work to be done before the history books will really have a definitive answer. Concerning the War on Terror, Osama may be dead, but Al Qaeda isn’t. There are still far too many people still left, who follow a disturbed and dangerous form of Islam, that wish the United States and our allies harm. Sadly, I would not be surprised in the least if the United States homeland was targeted for a serious terrorist attack in the near future. Back to Iraq, there are still so many questions yet to answer: How will the country handle life without a large US military presence? How will the Iraqi government handle a full transfer of power from one political party or leader to another, a key sign of a functioning democracy? How will the country deal with a more forceful Sadr movement? Will Iran be able to fill a vacuum that may be created when the US forces finally depart? What must be noted, however, is how amazing it is that these questions can be stated in reference to what used to be a totalitarian nightmare. Iraq is one of the more stable, democratic, and liberal places in the Middle East. That means something and Mead is right to call it a ‘victory’.

Another key part of Mead’s post is his calling out, though not by name, of all those who abandoned the Iraq war when the fighting got tough. From war hawks to Moveon.org (Never forget General Be-Tray-Us), it is amazing how many, including most of the ‘elite’, gave up on the war effort. Times got tough and a lot of people threw in the towel, at times, myself included. Thankfully, the men and women of the US military and their Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush did not. I’ll let Mead finish off:

We must continue to honor and thank the Arab allies and tribal leaders who made the choice for America in a dark and a difficult time.  But especially on this Memorial Day we must honor and remember the American heroes who by their lives and by their deaths brought victory out of defeat, understanding out of hatred and gave both Muslims and non-Muslims a chance to get this whole thing right.

The story of America’s victory over terror in Mesopotamia needs to be told.  In justice to those who sacrificed so much, and for the sake of those who may have to face similar dangers in the future, somebody needs to tell the real story of how, against all odds and in the face of unremitting skepticism and defeatism at home, our armed forces built a foundation for peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.

Go ahead and read the whole thing.

1. In your opinion, what were the main factors that led to the discovery and killing of Osama Bin Laden? In other words, who deserves credit for this remarkable accomplishment?

FMFP: Clearly there were several factors that lead to the capture and death of OBL. It appears undeniable, however, that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA – and criticized so vociferously by President Obama, AG Holder and virtually the entire liberal establishment – played a key role in getting the ball rolling. Some former Clinton staffers and others on the Left have come out and acknowledged this to their credit. We can only hope that the President decides to do the same, if not in words then through his actions by eliminating all talk of trying CIA interrogators who have proven so valuable in this War on Terror. As to credit, well many people deserve it, one of which is of course President Obama. He made the decision that we elected him to make and many Americans would have been disappointed if he did not make. Previous President Bush also deserves credit for putting into place policies that facilitated this event. Above all, though, the politicians should be much lower on the list of credit due than the military and intelligence officers who have actually prosecuted this war.

Pat: I have already stated that President Obama, former President Bush, Special Forces, CIA, and all the intelligence and military apparatuses that worked day in day out since 9/11 deserve our thanks for this accomplishment. I would also like to second, FMFP’s assertion that the much maligned CIA interrogators, who still this day are under investigation for wrong doing (a second investigation as they were already exonerated by one), need to be thanked for their service and sacrifices during one of the most stressful and tumultuous periods in our country’s history. They deserve our thanks, not our vindictiveness. It is likely true that without their efforts, Osama Bin Laden would still today be planning terrorist attacks on our homeland.

2. What does the killing of Osama Bin Laden mean for US national security? US foreign policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East?

Pat: Big question. The killing of Osama definitely hurts Al Qaeda’s short and long term capabilities, but by how much is uncertain. We will likely learn more in the next few weeks from the data uncovered during the attack, just how central Osama still was to their daily operations. Losing their most famous and unquestioned leader has to hurt the overall Islamist terrorist global movement, but I have no doubts that it is still alive and ticking throughout the globe. We can only hope that it’s ability to plan and implement a massive attack, such as 9/11, has been forever nullified. What his death means for the future of US policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole is much harder to answer. I have already heard numerous folks on the Right talk about declaring victory and getting out of Afghanistan and the Left has voiced this opinion for a couple years now. I can imagine there are a great many regular Americans out there who would feel much more comfortable getting our troops out of Central Asia now than they were a couple weeks ago. The President has so far not made any mention so far regarding changes to our Afghan policy, but the country will demand to hear rather soon if we are keeping our current strategy or making a change. President Obama has kept Afghanistan in the rearviewmirror publicly, almost never talking about it, but that will have to change real soon. Are we bring troops home since we killed the head of Al Qaeda? Or are we staying to fight the Taliban and the Al Qaeda elements inside of Afghanistan and Pakistan? The President needs to clarify his position, whether it has changed or not, very soon.

FMFP: Killing Osama probably doesn’t shift much in terms of our broader national security or the goals of our armed forces. It appears that he had a minimal role in the operation of al Qaeda so the various cells will certainly still continue planning and preparing attacks. This isn’t to minimize the impact of the death – it’s a huge deal and is a moral blow to terrorist networks around the world. Unfortunately, I do think this will open the door for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and declare the mission over. This might have the effect of ceding Afghanistan back to the Taliban and a more general hands-off approach to the Middle East.

3. What does this successful mission mean for the Obama presidency?

FMFP: One smart political commentator that I have spoken to thinks it will be a permanent 3 point bump when all is said and done. This seems logical and likely. In a sense, Obama moved back to par when it comes to national security. He clearly still has Libya and the Middle East uprisings that he has so completely mismanaged but people are going to be happy to place these on the same level as the OBL killing when assessing his foreign policy acumen. In the end, though, this will not be a decider of elections one way or the other.

Pat: I think this is huge for President Obama. Obama’s commander and chief stature just exploded with this event and he is taking advantage of it. He unequivocally claimed responsibility for the successful attack during his speech, using ‘I’ many times, and released those great photos of him and his team watching. His team will wisely stretch this out for weeks.Obama can now also start to get out of Afghanistan without facing any significant claims of withdrawing in shame or not having resolve. This may turn out to be one of the more underestimated bonuses for the Obama team. All of a sudden, their position of wanting to get out of there is likely to be in line with a majority of the voters. This will of course also help please Obama’s base. How the President leads from here on out will determine how much of a lift this event has given his presidency. Just a week ago, his presidency seemed to be unraveling. Voter confidence was low in him, the economy, and America’s future. Even though Obama asked S&P to wait to hear his budget speech before their market judgment on American fiscal health, they still downgraded the US to ‘negative’. The slaying of Osama Bin Laden has given the President another chance to lead this country in the way he was elected to do so in the first place; in a bi-partisan, pragmatic, efficient manner. Unfortunately, for the country and Obama’s reelection hopes, he has so far done the exact opposite. It will be provocative to see if this changes his presidency in a truly meaningful way.

4. What do you think of the outward signs of happiness shown by the large crowds in New York, DC, around the country when the news was announced? Do you think this was appropriate?

Pat: While I wish we could all cheer over a signing ceremony of Al Qaeda’s formal surrender, I am fine with Americans celebrating Osama Bin Laden’s demise. This war will likely never have it’s V-Day like World War II and in a period where the enemy is so blurred and asymmetrical, this one case where we have clarity. Osama Bin Laden was a mass murder of Americans and hundreds of others. He dedicated his life (including what would have been his future) to the misery and death of the US and his personal destruction hurts his cause dearly. I have heard many from both sides of the aisle criticize the youthfulness of the revelers outside the White House, in New York City, etc. I disagree. Surely some of them are just using this as an excuse to ‘party’, but I’m sure most are celebrating the end of sad, scary era. An era were they never knew America before it became ‘Fortress America’ and they had to leave their shampoo at home when they flew or lose a relative or friend in one of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I grew up in the booming 90′s and I remember thinking a year or so after 9/11, ‘dang, those were good times’. Those college kids didn’t get to enjoy those more peaceful, prosperous, less hyper political times. Osama Bin Laden changed their childhood for the worse and he has finally met his appropriate end. And for me personally, good riddance to human garbage and three cheers to all those that helped bring Osama to justice.

FMFP: I am generally fine with their sentiment. As Pat explained, this was a joyous day for America and Americans and these crowds embodied that feeling. My initial reaction was to look at the crowd and think it oddly similar in makeup to those same crowds that marched in the streets and chanted ridiculous slogans like, “Bush Lied, People Died” or “America Deserved It” Perhaps this is an irrational thought to have at a time like this but I just couldn’t help thinking feeling slightly skeptical of the sincerity of the crowd, specifically the young college students that dominated the scene (with pot smoke and drinking very visible). Anyway, I think the folks in NYC particularly were well within their right to celebrate this cathartic occasion.

‘World is Safer and Better Place Because of the Death of Osama bin Laden’

President Obama

You got that right, Mr. President. The death of Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of numerous crimes against the United States and humanity, including mass murder, at the hands of an American soldier is justice served. Bin Laden’s orchestrated attack against the United States on 9/11 was an act that will live in infamy in this country and to all those who watched those two towers fall. His death does not bring the nearly 3,000 fallen back to our lives, but it can’t help but bring some form of closure. This successful action also makes something very clear: If you mess with the United States and threaten our safety and way of life, you will get the horns!

A few thoughts:

• The braveness shown by the group of Navy Seals/CIA (details of course our sketchy), who were dropped from the sky to probably the most hostile of environments to carry out one of the most crucial, historical, and dangerous missions in American history, is hard to comprehend. They are heros through and through and have earned our eternal gratitude.

• This successful mission could not have been accomplished without years of hard work by our nation’s intelligence agencies, military forces, and diplomats and all of them deserve all the accolades coming to them.

• President Obama showed great leadership and of course this mission could not have happened without it. His presidency will forever be known as the one that got Osama, and like his quote above, the US and world are all the better for it.

• Though the details and facts of this amazing mission are still coming in, it seems that it could never have been accomplished without information gathered by the much-maligned CIA during the crucial and headspinning days/years after the 9/11 attack. It seems that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up the name of the courier that led the US to Osama’s compound 5 years ago. This strategic information might never have been acquired without the Bush administration’s stress on capturing Al Qaeda figures alive so they could be interrogated. The success of this mission indeed has many fathers, and former President Bush and his staff definitely belong among them.

• This fight is far from over. Al Qaeda’s No. 2 al-Zawahriwi is still alive and free and this must change. He is a powerful figure and in many ways was the leader of Al Qaeda’s strategy and logistics. Violent attacks against the US by Islamic radicals did not all funnel from Osama Bin Laden, either. The failed bombing attempts in Time Square (car), Detroit (underwear bomber, plane), and Portland (Christmas tree), just to name a few, had no known direct links to Osama’s camp, but nevertheless they were real and dangerous and their threat is still alive.

• The big elephant in the room now is American and NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Already I have heard in the media and among some colleagues about declaring ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘getting out’. Though I disagree with this, I do believe Osama’s death is going to be a game changer. More on this later.

So good riddance to human garbage and big cheers to all those who helped make our country and the world a bit safer and much more just.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

There has been some push back coming against Congressman Peter King’s scheduled hearing on the threat of homegrown terrorism to American national security. A prime example comes from the New York Times editorial page, where Bob Herbert proclaims:

Representative Peter King, a Republican from Long Island, appears to harbor a fierce unhappiness with the Muslim community in the United States. As the chairman of the powerful Homeland Security Committee, Congressman King has all the clout he needs to act on his displeasure.

Despite this rather odious implication that King is a bigot and unfairly targeting Muslims, Herbert gives not one real piece of evidence of his claim. Do you know what there is actual evidence to support though? The fact that the United States does indeed face a troubling growth in homegrown terrorist activity, which sadly, but truthfully, mostly comes from those of Muslim backgrounds. According to Gregory Treverton of the RAND Corporation’s Center for Global Risk and Security, there were 46 publicly reported cases of radicalization and recruitment of jihadist terrorism, involving 125 individuals in the US between 9/11 and the beginning of 2010. Those numbers do not include Richard Reid, who plotted his attack outside the US, or Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. In 2009, there were two fatal attacks from homegrown products targeting Americans: the Fort Hood massacre (13 killed, 31 wounded) and the murder of another American soldier at an Arkansas recruiting office. Lest we also forget Mohamed Mohamud, who last November pressed a button believing it would blow up hundreds of families watching the lighting of the downtown Portland Christmas tree. I could go on…

So to argue or even insinuate that homegrown terrorism, particularly of the Islamist variation, is not a serious national security is to ignore the reality of the past ten years. Rep. King’s hearing is not happening to put American Muslims in a poor light. If done correctly, it will just highlight a disturbing trend in the radicalization of a small segment of our population that poses a threat to all of our safety and well being. No one gives American Islam a worse name than those who seek to kill and maim in the religion’s name. To defeat an enemy, you have to know it. It does no one any good to hide behind political correctness and baseless claims of racism.

Walter Russell Mead, an esteemed scholar of American history, and provocative observer of current geopolitical trends is attempting to see the world through Pakistan’s eyes. Here’s his Pak-Vision of the situation in Afghanistan through Islamabad’s view:

The second major issue shaping negative Pakistani feelings about the United States is almost as important.  Pakistanis are on the front lines in the war on terror and Afghanistan is, literally, right on their doorstep.  Pakistanis have no confidence in America’s regional strategy and they are convinced that American blunders have created a multifaceted disaster that has already cost Pakistan dear.  Many Pakistanis believe that the US invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake in the first place; Mullah Omar offered to send Osama Bin Laden to stand trial in a third country, they say, and the US should have accepted that.  More, they argue that American policy from the beginning was a disaster.  We invaded in the wrong place at the wrong time; we refused to work with the people who could have helped us; we lost our focus on Afghanistan to turn toward Iraq (a war deeply hated by many Pakistanis).  Now, inevitably, the disaster in Afghanistan has spread across the border into Pakistan, with religious radicals and tribes in revolt turning their fury against Pakistani targets even as drone strikes in Pakistan infuriate many people.

The US, Pakistanis say, has given only derisory military aid — $1.5 billion versus the estimated $40 billion the war has cost Pakistan.  More, we are blaming the victim.  The spread of radical violence in Pakistan is the direct result, they say, of the American war and American blunders in Afghanistan, but all we do is blame Pakistan for the problem and, endlessly, repeat the cruel and unfeeling refrain: “Pakistan must do more.”  We even want them to dismantle their defenses against India (an enemy strengthened by America’s nuclear bias) to move forces to the Afghan frontier.

US attacks on Pakistan for ties to the Taliban and radical groups are, Pakistanis say, cynically hypocritical.  After all, the US and Pakistan worked together with many of these groups to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Is it perfectly OK to work with radical religious groups for American goals but a moral crime to use the same groups to protect Pakistan’s interests?

More, US threats against Iran threaten Pakistan’s economic interests and political stability — just as our failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute outrage Pakistani sensibilities and make our overall position in the region less stable.  Pakistanis darkly suspect that Indian money and Indian agents are responsible for violence in troubled parts of Pakistan and many believe that the US supports what Pakistanis believe are India’s efforts to build up its influence in northern Afghanistan.

Many Pakistanis believe that on top of everything else, the US is now getting ready either to cut and run in Afghanistan, leaving Pakistan with the thankless task of sweeping up, or, worse, handing northern Afghanistan to India, forcing Pakistan into a two front confrontation with its larger and richer rival.  Pakistan has no greater strategic nightmare than to see India entrenched in Afghanistan; many Pakistanis are completely convinced that this is what the end result of America’s Afghan policies will be.

Harsh! Mead has spent the last couple weeks traveling around Pakistan doing his academic thing, which means he does his ‘best to try to understand what it is that people object to in American foreign policy and, at times, American culture and life.  Before I arrive,..I’ll read up on the history and on contemporary issues and try to get a sense of the economic situation….I’ll come up with some working hypotheses about what is going on, or going wrong, in the relationship.  Once on the ground, I spend as much time as possible absorbing the local news media, interacting with journalists, officials, students, intellectuals and diplomats to test and refine my hypotheses. I keep at this until I find that more and more of the local people I meet with think that I ‘get it’, and it’s at that point that the conversations get really interesting.’

As one can see from Mead’s assessment of Pakistani interests in regards to the Afghan state, there are many areas of concern. First and foremost is their fear of Indian encirclement. An Afghan state too closely allied with India is considered a non-starter for Islamabad. Another threat that Mead mostly underplays in this section is the present violent turmoil being wrought by the Pakistani Taliban inside of the Pakistani state. The military has benefited from these insurgent forces inside of Afghanistan, but there have started to wreck havoc internally, with Karachi becoming a spot for near daily scenes of planned violent actions. That being said, Mead’s analysis puts the insecurities of Islamabad regarding its relationship with the United States, Afghanistan, and India under a bright, transparent light.

What do you think of Mead’s Pak-Vision?

Charles Krauthammer chimes in on ‘Flight of the Intellectuals’ main theme:

The Pentagon review of the Fort Hood shooting runs 86 pages with not a single mention of Hasan’s Islamism. It contains such politically correct inanities as “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor.”

Of course it is. Indeed, Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century — from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers varied in nationality, education, age, social class, native tongue and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.

I just finished Paul Berman’s ‘Flight of the Intellectuals‘ and while not a tour de force like its prequel, ‘Terror and Liberalism’, was a phenomenal read. I will give a full length review after my vacation (warning GPP is going on a two week travel break), but right now I will highlight to key part of the book’s conclusion. This section features Berman building his theme of Western intellectuals failing to stand up to the Islamist’s ideology, which he clearly lays out was partly fathered by European fascism, while at the same time spitting venom at actual liberal people with Muslim backgrounds, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The following sections immediately follow a listing of Western intellectuals (some with Muslim backgrounds) who require bodyguards to protect them from Islamist violent radicals. The list is sadly long. Enough of me, here’s Berman:

‘And so, Salman Rushdie has metastasized into into an entire social class. It is a subset of the European intelligentsia-its Muslims free-thinking and liberal wing especially, but including other people, too, who survive only because of bodyguards and police investigations and because of their own precautions. This is unprecedented in Western Europe since the fall of the Axis. Fear-mortal fear, the fear of getting murdered by fanatics in the grip a bizarre ideology-has become, for a significant number of intellectuals and artists, a simple fact of modern life. And yet, if someone like Pascal Bruckner intones a few words about the need for courage under these circumstances, the sneers begin-”Now where have we heard that kind of thing before?”- and onward to the litany about fascism. In the New York Times Magazine Ian Buruma held back from hinting even obliquely at the genuinely fascist influences on [Tariq] Ramadan’s grandfather, the founder of the modern cult of artistic death-Hassan al-Banna, who spoke highly of Adolf Hitler and helped the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem escape from getting tried at Nuremburg. Yet Pascal Bruckner, the liberal-here is somebody, Buruma would have us think, on the brink of fascism!’….[Pg. 296]

‘The Rushdies of today find themselves under criticism, contrasted unfavorably in the very best of magazines with Tariq Ramadan, who is celebrated as a bridge between cultures-Ramadan, an alumnus of the anti-Rushdie Islamic Foundation in Britain. Ramadan, who, even in 2009, managed to commend in a single sentence of his book Radical Reform both Sheikh Qaradawi, the theologian of the human bomb, and the Egyptian sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, who publicly defended the assassination of Foda. And yet, if there is a menace to society, nowadays it is said to come from Hirsi Ali or some other vocal and articulate opponent of the violent sheikhs-the European intellectuals from Muslim backgrounds who, in their unforgivable departure from the child-like image of how Muslims are supposed to behave, have arrogated to themselves the right to update a few ideas from John  Locke or John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russell. During the Rushdie affair, liberals who called for courage were applauded. Liberals from Muslim backgrounds were positively celebrated. But not today.’ [pg. 298]

Hopefully, you were able to follow Berman’s thinking in these paragraphs. If so, please give GPP your thoughts. If not, please give GPP your confused thoughts.

First, suffer through this two minutes:

In essence, the person in charge of American law enforcement and legal systems cannot say that ‘radical Islam’ played even a part in the three latest terrorist attacks by………….radical Islamists! The Times Square failed bombing, Christmas Day Panty-bomber, and Ft. Hood shooting spree have all more than enough evidence already uncovered for this to be obvious, but Attorney General Eric Holder appears to not get it. A flight of the intellectuals indeed. If no American ever again said aloud the words ‘radical’, ‘extremist’, ‘violent’ before the word Islam, attacks would still be coming our way. I am sympathetic to staying away from inflammatory or all encompassing language regarding this war and believe the Obama administration has the best intentions in their fight to keep America safe, but how can you defeat an enemy when you can’t say his name aloud? 

(H/T Tom Bevan, Real Clear Politics)