Has Bush got the name right?

Submitted by Anthony Chase (United States), Aug 17, 2004 at 05:03

I agree with the sentiment behind your comments on George Bush's most recent effort to name the opponent in the war on terrorism. But I am surprised you do not see his most recent effort - the long and awkward and ambiguous reference being played on comedy shows like John Stewart's - as a step backwards, rather than a step forward.

Don't you think that Bush has seized upon the the reference in the 9/11 Report to "ideology" as a way of AVOIDING mentioning RELIGION? The truth is that much of the Arab world to the contrary notwithstanding, the United States is NOT engaged in a war on Islam. The US is only at war with that portion of Islam which, well, frankly, rejects the separation of church and state. That is a sticky proposition for Bush since his core political constituency in this country includes Americans who, similarly, reject the separation of church and state.

Thus Bush has spent several years trying to ESCAPE any reference to Islamic terrorists as ISLAMIC terrorists. This point is made in THE AGE OF SACRED TERROR, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, Tommy Franks' book, the 9/11 Report, and so forth. Under Bush's current definition of the enemy, most of the world outside of Europe and the U.S. falls within our sights. Americans know better and you should too.

Consider one last observation: the gap between Israel's definition of the enemy and ours is enormous. Why should that be so? I think the Israelis are on the right track...

Tony Chase

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".