"Protecting the American People from Terrorism and Violent Extremism"
A Comment on Mr. John Brennan's Speech to CSIS
On Tue, 6/1/10, Dr. Tawfik Hamid
A Comment on Mr. John Brennan's Speech to CSIS, "Protecting the American People from Terrorism and Violent Extremism"
by Tawfik Hamid
When the US President's principal advisor on counterterrorism speaks about National Security issues, we should expect nothing but objective, unbiased, and scientific analysis.
On May/26/2010 the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a discussion with John Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism (1). His speech, "Protecting the American People from Terrorism and Violent Extremism," laid out the president's comprehensive approach to protecting the American people from terrorism and defeating the short-term threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The speech in several ways conveyed a similar message to the speech that he also delivered to the CSIS on Aug /6/ 2009 (2).
Some of the positive points in Mr. Brennan's message:
1- Pointing out that the President has called his single most important responsibility as president - keeping the American people safe
2- Addressing both the immediate, near-term challenge of destroying al-Qaida and its allies, and the long-term challenge of confronting violent extremism.
3- Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of the terrorism threat and the need for innovative and non-military approaches to dealing with it.
There are also several negative areas in Mr. Brennan's message that must be addressed. The following are few examples:
1- Honest scientific approach necessitates non-selective presentation of the data. Mr. Brennan praised both banning the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Irrespective of the motives behind these decisions, there is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that terrorism plots inside the US (Home Grown Radicalism) has risen dramatically since the new administration took power in 2009 (3). Mr. Brennan should have mentioned the latter fact as well as informing the audience about these statistics; in such a case, may support the view that the former approaches (i.e. banning the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay) have actually been counterproductive.
2- Mr. Brennan mentioned that enhanced interrogation techniques "not only fail to advance our counterterrorism efforts; they actually set back our efforts. They are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists; increase the determination of our enemies.... In short, they undermine our national security".
On the contrary, the dramatic rise in terrorist's plots inside the US in 2009 after banning these enhanced interrogation techniques and after taking more active steps to close Guantanamo Bay may actually support the opposite of such unfounded views. In addition, the President's principal advisor on counterterrorism did not give any evidence to support his view that such techniques in fact increased "the determination of our enemies". My former experience with several jihadists in the Jammaa Islameia and other radical groups as well tells me that soft attitudes toward them aggravate their barbaric and violent trend. They simply become more encouraged to attack an enemy, knowing that there will be unresponsiveness to aggression. The repeated attacks on peaceful, non-Muslim minorities in several parts of the world support this view. These peaceful non-Muslims did not use any enhanced interrogation techniques against Muslims, yet this did not protect them from getting attacked repeatedly and killed viciously by radical Muslims. The repeated attacks on the peaceful Baha'i (4), Ahmadeia members (5), Buddhists (6), and Christian minorities (7), in the Muslim world further support the latter view.
3- Mr. Brennan mentioned the peaceful practice of Islam in Indonesia and ignored commenting on the practice of Islam when he spoke about Saudi Arabia. The latter form of practice of Islam supports killing apostates (Redda Law), permits the beating of women, justifies stoning of humans until death for committing adultery, and encourages violent Jihad to spread Islam. Speaking only about the positive aspects of Islam in Indonesia without mentioning any comment on the negative aspects of the practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia is a biased and misleading approach that should not be used by those who lead our nation's security.
4- Mr. Brennan supported the view that the US should avoid using expressions like "terror", "terrorist" and "terrorism" in the President's speech to the Muslim world as, in his view, this (using these words) will threaten the US relationship with more than a billion Muslims around the world. The avoidance of using the former words to avoid hurting Muslim's feelings actually indirectly implies that most Muslims are terrorists. After all, why should Muslims be offended by a war against terrorism if they are not terrorists themselves? In fact, Muslims are the primary victims of terror attacks (8), something also mentioned in Mr. Brennan's speech!
5- Mr. Brennan mentioned that the intention of Al-Qaeda is to create a clash of civilizations. In his own words: "After all, this is precisely what Osama bin Laden intended with his September 11th attacks - to use al-Qaida to foment a clash of civilizations between the United States and Islam". It is hard to comprehend how Mr. Brennan speaks with such confidence about Bin Laden's intentions without any evidence to support his views. A person who holds the position of the President's principal advisor on counterterrorism should not have portrayed his assumptions about Bin Laden's intentions as if they are facts without having a strong prove for such assumptions. Bin Laden's intentions in Sep 11 could be creating fear in the hearts of the disbelievers (9). Other intentions may include fighting the Jews and Christians based on traditional interpretations of certain verses from the Quran (10). It is difficult to understand how Mr. Brnnan can define the exact intention of Bin Laden with such a precision.
6- Mr. Brennan refrained from describing the efforts of the US as "a global war," as according to his views "this only plays into the warped narrative that al- Qaida propagates". This contradicts an earlier statement of Mr. Brennan that confirmed the global nature of the Islamist threat. The statement says: "al-Qaida's own capabilities are further leveraged by the web of relationships the group maintains with other, locally run terrorist organizations around the world, from Iraq to the Arabian Peninsula, from East Africa to the Sahel and Maghreb regions of North Africa". Our decisions should be taken based on the reality of the nature of the threat rather that merely to contradict the enemy's propaganda. For example, if the propaganda of the Nazi regime was that it wanted to kill the Jews, we should not refrain from stating this fact because it "plays into the warped narrative" of the enemy. Facts are facts as the president said in his Cairo speech and as Mr. Brennan actually quoted in his previous speech to the CSIS "these are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."
7- Mr. Brennan supported the President's view "declaring that America is not and never will be at war with Islam". What truly matters in this regard is that if Islam is at war with America or not? It is not very valuable if you are not at war with someone unless he also reciprocated the same peaceful attitude toward you. Ritualistic Islam that is limited to the practice of the five pillars of Islam in a mosque is probably not at war with America, but theological Islam that teaches Muslims to wage war against non-muslims and offer them one of the following three options: to convert to Islam, to pay a humiliating tax (Jizia), or to be killed or promotes the use of violence to establish Sharia Laws instead of secular constitutions is certainly at war with America.
8- Finally, it would have been much better if Mr. Brennan avoided going into Islamic theology by stating that Jihad means "to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal". While this meaning for Jihad is correct in some circumstances, it ignores the broader and well established definition of the word in the approved Islamic theological books as a war to spread the religion. Mr. Brennan also did not mention that Jihad is predominantly used in the Arab media to describe the spread of Islam via wars. We also have not seen Islamic peaceful groups or organizations named "Jihad". We only see the word predominantly used by the violent groups. Since, unlike Mr. Brenan, Arabic is the native language of the leaders of many - if not most - of these groups, their understanding and usage of the word has more credibility than his definition for the word. Mr. Brennan may also need to explain to us the following verse in the Quran that uses the word "Jahid" (An Arabic word that means to perform Jihad) {At-Tauba [9:73]
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِير
9:73 O Prophet!("Jahid") against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be cruel to them. Their abode is Hell- an evil refuge indeed}.
Mr. Brenan must inform us if this meaning for Jihad is also "to purify oneself or to wage or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal".
It were better that Mr. Brennan avoid talking about Jihad before reading enough about it as giving the audience selected information about the topic is unscientific and can be misleading . I was shocked with these comments about Jihad as I assume that the President's principal advisor on counterterrorism should have studied Jihad meticulously as it represents the ideology that is used by the terrorists to justify their acts. Pretending that Jihad is ONLY a peaceful concept jeopardizes our national security efforts simply because it is not predominantly taught in such a 'peaceful' way. For example, Jihad is defined in Minhaj Al-Muslim which is written by one of the leading Islamic scholars in Saudi Arabia and published globally, including the US (11), and defines Jihad in the following order (12):
1-Fighting the disbelievers,
2- Using violence against the sinners,
3- Resisting the devil, and
4-Resisting a person's own desires.
The "wisdom behind Jihad" as the book described (Vol 2 Page 167) is that Allah alone is worshiped. Interestingly the book quoted many violent verses and hadith to support the violent meaning of Jihad and on the contrary provided strong theological evidence that the hadith that supports a peaceful meaning of the word as a "weak" hadith or in other words 'unbinding' (Vol 2 Page: 167).
The assumption that Jihad represents ONLY a peaceful concept can be accepted ONLY after the Muslim world changes the definition of the word in its mainstream Islamic books and clearly rejects the traditional violent interpretations of the word.
Ignoring the violent definitions of the word Jihad to sugarcoat the meaning of the word is dangerous, as it limits our ability to know the facts and the true nature of the threat.
Finally, I respect Mr. Brennan and appreciate his sincere desire to make America safe. My former comments about his speech are to clarify certain points that I felt morally obligated to clarify them.
References:
3- http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/12/14/homegrown-terror-rise/
4-http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/05/egypt-dozens-of-muslims-attack-homes-of-minority-bahai-sect/
5-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/pakistan-mosque-attacks-a_n_593085.html
6-http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBKK434239
8-http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/al-qaeda-hurts-muslims-most/
9- Al-Anfal [8:60]
10-At-Tauba [9:29]
11- Minhaj al-Muslim : The Way of the Muslim - A Book on Creed, Manners, Character, Acts of Worship and other Deeds : 2 volume set (Abu Bakr al-Jazairy)
12- Minhaj al-Muslim : The Way of the Muslim - A Book on Creed, Manners, Character, Acts of Worship and other Deeds : Vol 2 Pages: 165-167 (Abu Bakr al-Jazairy)
ABC's Test for Radical Islam
The time has come to define Radical Islam. Please ask your local mosque, Islamic Shool, and Islamic organization to clearly, unambiguously and publically denounce the following concepts:
Apostates killing
Beating women and stoning them to death for adultery.
Calling Jews pigs and monkeys.
Declaring war on Non Muslims to spread Islam after offering Non Muslims three options - subjugate to Islam, pay Jizia (a humiliating tax), or be killed.
Enslavement of Other Human Beings.
Fighting and killing Jews before the "End of Days".
Gay Discrimination and Hostility.
A true moderate person or organization must be able to immediately denounce the above concepts and stand publicly and unambiguously against them.
The Muslim world can not expect the world to consider Islam peaceful as long as they teach and promote such tenets.
A clear stand is needed from leading Islamic Scholars all over the world against such teachings.