Compulsory Blindness / The Obama administration is enforcing a false orthodoxy (NATIONAL REVIEW) By Andrew C. McCarthy 05/05/12)
NATIONAL REVIEW Articles-Index-Top
A few years back, I wrote a book called “Willful Blindness: A Memoir
of the Jihad.” It was about being on the “front lines,” so to speak,
of the battle against Muslim terrorism. I put “front lines” in quotes
because, though the terrorists saw themselves as fighting a
doctrinally ordained war of armed combat, we were treating them as
mere criminals — such that our idea of a battlefield was the federal
courthouse, and our idea of a commander was, well . . . me.
Misapprehending the dimension of the challenge — that it was war, not
crime — was only one part of the story. The real willful blindness
was government’s failure to examine the nature of the challenge.
This, of course, involves the question of why things happen. To duck
that question was reckless. A failure to understand the terrorists’
rationale made it impossible to grasp how pervasive the security
problem was, how likely it was that additional mass-murder plots were
in the offing, what kinds of targets were vulnerable, and what should
be done to try to prevent attacks.
Still, things were better 20 years ago. If the book were to be
written about today’s counterterrorism approach, I’d have to call it
Compulsory Blindness: A Surrender to Violent Extremism.
See, however wayward our approach in the Nineties may have been, it
was still possible to tell the truth, to fashion an accurate
depiction of the phenomenon. To be sure, in the Clinton years, there
was plenty of feel-good “Religion of Peace” drivel coming out of the
White House, the State Department, and Main Justice. But back then,
willful blindness was the familiar, tacit kind of conscious
avoidance: Officials who should have known better passively avoided
learning basic, uncomfortable facts. For the most part, though, they
did not affirmatively obstruct those who were more industrious.
No one, for example, stopped me from eliciting sworn testimony from
FBI agents and other experts that the concept of “jihad” stemmed from
classical Islamic doctrine, and that its original meaning involved
armed combat against unbelievers in order to fulfill the divine
injunction to spread Islam. Regardless of what the politicians were
saying in Washington, no one tried to stop us, in our New York
courtroom, from proving that the terrorists had been animated by a
supremacist ideology that was firmly rooted in Islamic scripture. No
one prevented me from pointing out to the jury that the Blind Sheikh
(Omar Abdel Rahman), whose various physical maladies rendered him
unable to carry out terrorist acts, was nevertheless empowered to
command the terrorist organization, solely because of his mastery of
I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved
that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and
terrorism committed by Muslims. The Blind Sheikh, the jury was
allowed to learn, was not a fringe lunatic; he was a globally
renowned scholar of sharia whose influence over a spate of
international jihadist organizations was based on his doctorate from
al-Azhar University, the world’s most influential center of Islamic
thought. And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic
of the evidence — that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s
directives; that those directives informed his terrorist
subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities —
the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award.
Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be
willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately
“Islamic outreach” started out in the post-9/11 Bush years as a well-
intentioned but wrongheaded way to connect with Muslim communities:
convince them to share information about jihadist elements while
persuading them that America’s quarrel was with terrorists, not Islam
per se. It was a wayward idea, but not fatally so. After all,
outreach was just a sideline — something the FBI, the intelligence
community, and the military did in addition to, and in the service
of, their more conventional methods of gathering information and
evidence in order to thwart a threat.
In contrast, Islamic outreach is the ne plus ultra of Obama
counterterrorism. Today, conventional methods of intelligence
collection — along with the basic premise that you need to understand
what you are looking for — are foresworn if they are deemed to
interfere with Islamic outreach in any way. Counterterrorism is not
national security anymore; it is pseudo-psychology. The key to making
us safer is making Muslims feel good about themselves, the theory
holds. This will nullify resentment, and resentment, not ideology, is
the cause of Islamic aggression — except we wouldn’t want to call it
Islamic aggression because Muslims would resent that. So we must
suppress all references to Islam (Islamist, “political
Islam,” “Islamic supremacism,” jihad, etc.). And we must violate the
first rule of good intelligence that nothing is beyond scrutiny: It
is to be taken as a given that Islam is not the problem but a key
part of the solution.
There are many farcical things about Islamic outreach, but the worst
is that it miniaturizes the threat of Islamic supremacism. Contrary
to popular wisdom, violent jihadists do not kill wantonly. It is a
grave error to confuse tactical barbarism with mental dysfunction.
They kill for the same reason that non-violent Muslim supremacists
champion sharia, Islam’s legal system and societal framework. The
rational, coherent goal of both the violent and the non-violent is to
Islamize the society by imposing Allah’s law.
Islamized society is antithetical to the Western notion of free
society — it rejects liberty and equality. Therefore, the threat to
us is not merely violence, or “violent extremism” (the euphemism in
vogue for “jihadist terror”). Violence is just the immediate part of
the threat. The overall threat is that our liberty will be eroded as
sharia mores take root. Sharia is extremism, and it imperils us
whether or not it is implemented violently.
Moreover, the animating supremacist doctrine is the same for everyone
who hears it, even if only some are moved to violence. All who accept
the doctrine have the same ultimate goal; they differ only in their
methods of achieving it.
By and large, the government’s outreach “partners” are leaders of
Islamic organizations, many of which are affiliated with the Muslim
Brotherhood. The Brotherhood and al-Qaeda accept the same doctrine of
Islamic supremacism. They have tactical disagreements about how to
carry out the duty to spread sharia, but they are in harmony on the
point that spreading it is a duty. That is why in 2008, for example,
the Brotherhood’s then–Supreme Guide, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, rejected
the suggestion that Osama bin Laden was a “terrorist.” He countered
that bin Laden was a “mujahed” (an honorific applied to “a warrior in
Allah’s cause”). Akef added that, in his “sincerity in resisting the
occupation,” bin Laden was “close to Allah on high.”
If, under the guise of Islamic outreach, the government gives these
Islamic-organization leaders a veto over what our agents can learn
about Islam, it is giving a veto to people who believe what bin Laden
believed. Even if they disagree with bin Laden’s methods, they are
not going to help us discredit the ideology that causes terrorism.
They are going to tell us to ignore that ideology while they go
merrily on promoting it. And that it won’t incite terrorism in
everyone does not mean it won’t incite terrorism in anyone.
The Obama administration has gone all in with these Islamic leaders.
It is not only willfully blind to the threat, a la Clinton and Bush.
Obama has made blindness compulsory. Under his direction, the FBI,
the Department of Homeland Security, and even the military are taking
muscular steps to bleach training materials of any information that
these Muslim leaders might find offensive, meaning: anything that
explains Islamic supremacism and demonstrates the unmistakable causal
relationship between Islamic scripture and Islamic terror.
Disappearing along with the materials are the instructors who lecture
about them. The idea is not just to airbrush Islam but to intimidate —
with the specter of taint and lost employment — anyone who would
dare challenge Obama orthodoxy.
The president is purging information on which, not so long ago,
juries relied to convict jihadists. Notwithstanding all its willful
blindness, the government used to pass out sparkling awards to the
officials who stitched that information together. Now, in the era of
compulsory blindness, the government stamps “Islamophobe” on your
head and hands you your walking papers.
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY