Defining the enemy

Submitted by Allen Weingarten (United States), Aug 17, 2004 at 12:09

I appreciated this article on many levels. Mr. Pipes properly replaced the term "war on terrorism" with "war on ideological extremists", and emphasized our enemy's hatreds and violent methods. As he points out "they hope to bring about a collapse of America." Moreover, Mr. Pipes provided the needed perspective wherein the civilized world is threatened by barbarism. Finally, It was helpful for him to point to the need for "the battle of ideas" to begin.

Yet if we are to take ideas seriously, we ought to consider that an enemy (for example fascist Germany or communist USSR) has two components, namely the ideology that motivates, and the State that provides the power. Here it is to be noted that it is the ideology of Islam, which divides the world into Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, that requires that the former undermine the latter. (For a Muslim to deny the path of force would be blasphemy, since the word of Allah can only be guaranteed by the sword.) Thus, even if not all Muslims are on board with terrorism, there is no strong aversion to it. Moreover, it is the Arab States (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.) that support and protect the activists. This not only aids their training, but provides political defense and propaganda.

It should also be recognized that the greatest attack upon America is not terrorism, but the ideological insurgency of militant Islam. The Islamists have learned to take advantage of our liberalism, to protect their depredations by stifling discussion, and attacking those who would restrict their subversive activities. It is our political correctness that insists on treating fundamentalist Islam as a fellow religion rather than as a committed enemy, that undermines any serious defense against it.

---

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".