U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen has said that he believed the top leadership of Al Qaeda, including Osama Bin Laden, was still in Pakistan.
When asked why the United States was not in FATA, or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in northwestern Pakistan, despite having the knowledge that Al Qaeda was present there, he said, “Because FATA is in Pakistan and Pakistan is a sovereign country and we don’t go into sovereign countries.”
He said Al Qaeda could strike the U.S. from FATA therefore the top objective of the current U.S. strategy was to defeat it, adding that Washington did not have any troops on ground in Pakistan chasing the Taliban. CHINA VIEW
But the White House says, the ‘War on Terrorism’ is over, and terms like ‘Jihadist’ and ‘Global War’ are also unacceptable.
President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,'” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism.
The Obama administration’s stance on terrorism is more than inadequate, in that the message of weakness and confusion that it sends has already emboldened [if we are to judge developments in Iraq and Afghanistan] those who have declared war against the West.
For whatever reason, perhaps Mr. Obama having been steeped in Islam as a young man, he can’t bring himself, nor will he permit his administration, to link Islam with terrorism despite the fact that the terrorism we are experiencing is a strictly Muslim phenomenon, justified by its advocates within the confines of Islamic theology.
Rather than new thinking on the subject, the Obama administration has purposefully blinded itself in service to a greater ideology, multiculturalism, a doctrine which serves, in this case, to criminalize any reasonable response to Islamic terrorism on the basis that a culture must be judged within its own terms, and not those of the “white European imperialists,” which the multiculturalists detest.
A policy developed to challenge or defeat [a word curiously missing from this administration] what can only be described as a sanitized terrorism, shorn of any reasonable descriptors or clarifying adjectives, can’t possibly succeed because there is no relationship between the prescription being offered and the disease.
As a result, Obama’s “terror policy” is modeled as a response to the big lie put forth by the Islamists – a remedy for a nonexistent problem. The administration’s policies in this regard are predicated upon the belief that instead of the Muslim world needing to re-order itself to constrain the violent actions taken by its co-religionists, that it is the victim of these predations – by the “Jews and Crusaders” so often front and center in Islamic declarations of war – who are guilty of undeserved and prejudicial actions against Islam.
There is nothing in Obama’s response to Islamic fundamentalist based violence, that requires anything from the religion’s adherents and there is no recognition that the actions taken by the United States are merely a response to an externally generated assault.
For that reason, Mr. Brennan’s remarks today are profoundly dispiriting because they defend a fraudulent policy; formulated more to assuage the supposed feelings of the enemy rather than deal with the challenge he poses, which are substantial.
The Obama terror policy then is not in any sense a new partnership with the allegedly misunderstood proponents of a foreign religion, it’s an intentional effort to establish a false solidarity – apparently for public relations purposes – with those who wish us great harm inside and outside the realm of Islam. PIPELINE NEWS
RELATED VIDEOS: Jihad this!