Since my last, brief comments on the Paris attacks, social media has been abuzz with folks trying desperately to shoe-horn them into their pet political issue: immigration, guns, cultural issues, and the usual (but still ridiculous) bigotry against all of Islam. With all due respect, if one thinks that fixing one’s pet political peeve would prevent future attacks like Paris, one is dangerously naive.
This. Is. A. War. Our enemies have made it abundantly clear who they are: Wahabbists (al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamic State), Ba’athists (IS and Assad), and Khomeinists (Assad and Tehran). This is why I never liked the term “Global War on Terror” as a label, or even “Islamic extremism” to describe the enemy (Ba’athism being an Arab nationalist movement). Neither were as accurate as my preferred term: the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War (or WBK for short).
My choice of labels aside, acknowledging that this is war (or, to be more precise, this is still war) – as opposed to Example-X-of-One’s-Political-Hobby-Horse – means taking a longer and broader view. To wit…
On refugees from the war zone: Contrary to what some may expect, I stand by my earlier comments on Syrian refugees, although I admit I should have addressed the need for vetting – that omission was an error. Still, it has to be about more than merely running vetting processes on escapees from the war zone. We also need to reach out to those refugees willing to help us take their countries back. That means building governments-in-exile, establishing networks with those still in country who are willing and able to take the fight to the enemy, helping us figure out who amongst the escapees are actually enemy agents. Opening our doors in charity and declaring “job done” is woefully insufficient; closing our doors and declaring it someone else’s problem is ignorant and naive.
On social issues that divide us here: We need to remember how much we agree at times like this. Two of the greatest European voices against Wahhabism were Dutch: one is an atheist who is now an American immigrant, the other was a gay politician murdered for his warnings. Our “culture wars” are not wars; the Paris attacks were the genuine article. We can’t forget that we’re all in this together. We may have different views of what America should be, but the enemy doesn’t approve of any of them, and would rather kill us before we finish our arguments.
On Islam, we need to stop trying to determine what Islam “is.” Islam is not even one faith, it is a grouping of faiths. Further, focusing on Islam completely ignores the Ba’athist angle, which is about standard issue racism as a means to power. Ba’athists have been playing us for fools on this for years – even to the point of putting forth Christian spokesman (Tariq Aziz, long the outward face of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, was a Roman Catholic). Wahhabists and Khomeinists might like to insist they speak for all Muslims, but we have no obligation to fuel their fantasies. We need to keep out focus on the enemies themselves.
Finally, we need the vision to see and fight the enemy wherever they are. It is appalling and disappointing to me that the African theater has been rendered almost invisible in America. The French have fought, and won, battles in this theater with practically no help from other NATO allies. It is a painful irony that the first African-American president in history – the son of a post-colonial Kenyan government official, no less – would be so callous toward Wahhabist vicitms in Africa that it would fall to the old colonial power in northern and western Africa to save Africans from Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (whereas Republican presidential aspirants’ silence and lack of attention on this has no irony, but is just as painful).
As Americans, we can – and should – argue robustly about any and every issue, including how best to win this war. But make no mistake: this is a war – one we need to win.
