How Obama Can Win The DCITWoT: Blame America

Here we go again. Another liberal in the media has found a way to blame America: How Obama Can End the War On Terror by Mark Juergensmeyer

The first step in ending the War on Terror is to stop calling it “the war on terror.”

Hencefore, it shall be known as DCITWoT: Don’t Call It The War On Terror. Jihadis are LAO.

Ever since 9/11, the Bush administration—supported by the news media—has endorsed the radical jihadi idea that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle between two competing foes. But this has never been the case. The United States was attacked on 9/11, as it had been many times before and since, by a small band of extremists who cloaked their disdain for America’s global power in the language of religion and the images of cosmic war. They needed to be isolated and brought to justice for their misdeeds, not glorified as America’s global enemy.

Funny, because the radical Islamists DO actually think they are in a “great idiological struggle.”

It seems to me that there is a strategy for victory that does not require armed conquest. My suggestion is that the new administration can “win” the War on Terror in part by rethinking the nature of the conflict. Let me suggest five steps that the U.S. could take in a post-Bush era to bring the War on Terror to an end:

And, here comes the typical Blame America First leftist ideas!

1. Recognize that we are not confronting war but a war mindset. The radical Muslim war against the secular West has been a powerful idea, erupting from time to time in destructive acts of terrorism, but it is largely an idea. (it is? Explain 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, Kobar Towers, Nick Berg, July 7th bombings in England, Mumbai, Lockerbie, the riots in France with the burning cars, and so, so, so many terrorist attacks, not to mention those which failed or were stopped.)

2. Accept that America is the enemy because of what it does, not what it is. (no comment necessary)

3. Stop acting like an enemy. (no comment necessary)

4. Become a problem solver not a problem maker. (no comment necessary)

5. Take the moral high road and adhere to international standards of justice. (In other words, start being nice to the little jihadis.)

And people like Mark make up the strongest support layer for Obama. Hopefully, Obama won’t listen.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “How Obama Can Win The DCITWoT: Blame America”

  1. Reasic says:

    How about the fact that “terrorism” is a tactic, and that you can’t declare war on a tactic?

  2. Ogre says:

    Well, damn, that was easy. The war’s over by simply claiming it doesn’t exist. I don’t know why we didn’t think of that earlier!

    Heck, now we can end things like poverty, too, simply by ignoring it! Hooray! Bad things gone because we won’t talk about them! Yay! All praise and worship the one who has saved us from all terrorism.

    So what do we do with all the victims of 9/11? I guess they don’t exist now, either, do they?

  3. war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror war on terror

    you get the point

  4. Poverty is a tactic, isn’t it, Reasic? It’s not really an enemy, but, Liberals have been “fighting” the “war on poverty since the LBJ days. Not working well, either.

    Liberals always do find the easy way, don’t they, Ogre? Just ignore it, and poof! gone.

    Bad Stanford! You are supposed to call it…, well, hell, I don’t know what they want to call it. Maybe shiny happy feel good.

    I wonder how they would feel about “Fighting Islamic Extremists Who Pretty Much Represent the Word of Mohammed.”

  5. Rhod says:

    Actually, Terror is a strategy, where blowing yourself up or beheading a captive is a tactic.

    The GWOT did suffer from the fact that Terror isn’t an entity, any more than poverty is an entity. The War on Poverty was intentionally vague, designed to pinpoint the outcome of circumstances and behaviors rather than many of the avoidable reasons for Poverty. No one is therefore condemned or offender

    Same with The War on Terror. It’s PC…it avoids identifying the enemy, which is radical Islam, Islamic fanaticism or Islamism – take your pick. For that reason among many, the war(s) could not be seriously discussed, therefore giving the ever-vague Left an advantage in argument.

    Came here from DaisyCutter. Nice blog.

  6. Thanks, Rhod.

    I didn’t realized DC was back writing now and then. I’ll have to start visiting again.

  7. John Ryan says:

    radical jihadism was OK during the 80s when itb was used against the Russians in Afghanistan. But now ? not so cool.

Pirate's Cove