War Against Terrorism Not
It is time for Americans to stop talking about a war against terrorism and start talking about what in the broad scheme of things we are really engaged upon, a war against Islamo-fascism. Note that a distinction is made between mainstream Islam and Islamo-fascism, which probably only accounts for around 1% of Muslims.
Terrorism is a process, a mechanism, often employed by a lesser strength opponent against a stronger opponent. It is called asymmetrical warfare. It is the only practical choice for a lesser strength opponent when there are no non-violent mechanisms available and/or desirable. There are a number of definitions for terrorism, but the general consensus is that it is an act of violence with a purpose of forcing change to a political, social, or religious system. Think about the Boston Tea Party as a rather benign but highly significant act against property. It is the symbolism and message that are important. Death and destruction are the attention grabbers for the true message.
I hate to admit that Europe has actually gotten something right, but they have in this instance. Britain and France criminalized Islamo-fascism. Australia is joining the fold. Why is it that America does not see the light?
That’s an easy question; it is our history of near fanatical guarantees of religious pluralism. Europe does not have such a history, nor does much of the rest of the world. So it turns out that one of the most treasured of American traditions may well be our Achilles’ heel. But, it does not have to be so.
We already recognize that our Constitutional rights are not absolute. For instance, freedom of speech is limited such that we cannot yell “fire” in a theater. It is, therefore, possible to make a distinction between mainstream Islam, which lives in harmony with us, and Islamo-fascism, which is intent upon our destruction.
Until America grasps the significance of this dilemma, we are destined to flounder and inadequately prepare and execute a competent defense.
Terrorism is a process, a mechanism, often employed by a lesser strength opponent against a stronger opponent. It is called asymmetrical warfare. It is the only practical choice for a lesser strength opponent when there are no non-violent mechanisms available and/or desirable. There are a number of definitions for terrorism, but the general consensus is that it is an act of violence with a purpose of forcing change to a political, social, or religious system. Think about the Boston Tea Party as a rather benign but highly significant act against property. It is the symbolism and message that are important. Death and destruction are the attention grabbers for the true message.
I hate to admit that Europe has actually gotten something right, but they have in this instance. Britain and France criminalized Islamo-fascism. Australia is joining the fold. Why is it that America does not see the light?
That’s an easy question; it is our history of near fanatical guarantees of religious pluralism. Europe does not have such a history, nor does much of the rest of the world. So it turns out that one of the most treasured of American traditions may well be our Achilles’ heel. But, it does not have to be so.
We already recognize that our Constitutional rights are not absolute. For instance, freedom of speech is limited such that we cannot yell “fire” in a theater. It is, therefore, possible to make a distinction between mainstream Islam, which lives in harmony with us, and Islamo-fascism, which is intent upon our destruction.
Until America grasps the significance of this dilemma, we are destined to flounder and inadequately prepare and execute a competent defense.
posted by Paul Coambs | 10:51 PM
<< Home