Jihad and the Growing Surrender of American Counterterrorism

Date: 19 Sep 2008



Visit our News page

In our “Important Happenings” email earlier this week we included Brigitte Gabriel’s scheduled appearance at the Norfolk Naval Base Navy Exchange in Norfolk, Virginia this Saturday, September 20th. 

We were informed yesterday that the top brass at the naval base ordered the event cancelled. While we do not have specific details, it appears that the decision to cancel was made after pressure was exerted amidst concerns about offending Muslims. 

The commentary below discusses how the American counterterrorism community is increasingly surrendering in the war of ideas to Islamic supremacists. In effect, we are following the same path Great Britain has trod over the past three decades, a path that led to last week’s stunning announcement that Great Britain has now officially adopted sharia law and sharia courts. 

Every time a decision in America is made that suppresses critique of Islam out of fear of giving offense to Muslims, such as the decision to cancel Brigitte’s appearance at the Norfolk Naval Base, Islamic militants are empowered and emboldened and our nation takes one more step down the failed path Great Britain has already traveled. 

At the end of the commentary below we read: 
“The silence of many of the 300 million American people has convinced a number of career counterterror analysts that you already have surrendered. Prove them wrong.”
That is what we MUST do. We must prove career counterterror analysts, weak-kneed politicians, and radical Islamists, that we WILL rise in defense of our security and our values. Two ways you can do that today: 

(1) If you haven’t already done so, get a copy of Brigitte’s new book by clicking here; 

(2) Register for a “Citizens in Action” conference near you by clicking here. 


Jihad and the Growing Surrender of American Counterterrorism 

September 18, 2008 

Jeffrey Imm 
Anti-Jihad League of America 


In the "stealth Jihad" war of ideas over the past year, one American institution after another has signaled its willingness to surrender to the advocates of Islamic supremacism -- our homeland security, our military, and our law enforcement. Islamic supremacist groups have "guided" such American government organizations to create a "terror lexicon" that excludes "Jihad," to promote "progress" over "liberty," to blackball those who would confront the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacists, to "train" our law enforcement, and to openly promote engagement with Islamic supremacist organizations as part of counterterrorism tactics. 

Six months ago, the growing surrender in the war of ideas by America's counterterrorism community was seen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) memorandum endorsing the DHS "terror lexicon" prohibiting the use of the terms such as "Jihad," "Islamist," "mujahedeen." This milestone was part of a trend that has been growing for nearly two years. Since the November 2006 mid-term elections resulting in a Democratic Congressional majority, a growing number in counterterrorist organizations have been moving towards promoting analysts that support negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Islamic supremacists. The belief among some is that, should the Democratic Party win the presidency, a new Democratic administration would seek such "engagement" policies. As the presidential campaign has heated up, this emphasis has accelerated in some counterterrorist organizations, which fear ending up on the outside looking in. 

However, over the past seven years, a vacuum of strategic war planning on Islamic supremacism by the U.S. military, intelligence, and executive branch (seen in today's "war on extremism") has made America increasingly dependent on what little strategic thinking that has been available from the counterterrorism community. The growing surrender of counterterrorism groups to the policies of appeasement and "engagement," legitimizing Islamic supremacists, undermines one of the last remaining "strategic voices" on Jihad. Increasingly, the numbers are shrinking in counterterrorism communities who seek confrontation against Jihadists and Islamic supremacists; some voices are being marginalized and silenced. This growing surrender will require average American citizens to increase their activism in demanding that their government representatives confront Jihad and Islamic supremacism. 

September 23 will mark yet another milestone in the growing surrender of America's counterterrorism organizations, as Capitol Hill will be used to promote the ideas of those who think America should "engage" with Islamic supremacist groups. 

Using Capitol Hill to Promote Appeasement of Jihad and Islamic Supremacism 

One day after the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Counterterrorism Blog announced a panel discussion to be held on 10 AM at September 23, 2008 at a U.S. Capitol building facility in Washington, D.C. (2255 Rayburn House Office Building). This discussion will provide a platform for Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank to promote their views that by engaging with Islamic supremacists and Jihadists, the West can dissuade them from pursuing Al-Qaeda-style terrorism. 

Peter Bergen is associated with the New America Foundation and Paul Cruickshank is a contributing expert for the Counterterrorism Blog; both are also research fellows with the New York University's Center on Law and Security. 

The September 23 meeting entitled "The Jihadists' Revolt Against Al Qaeda" is being co-sponsored by the Counterterrorism Blog and by the New America Foundation (described by Washington Post writer David Ignatius in February as "a liberal think tank.") The meeting is to discuss Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank's New Republic (TNR) June 2008 article "The Unraveling," where they ostensibly argue that there is a "jihadist revolt against Bin Laden." This is the basis for their argument that engagement with Islamic supremacists and anti-Al-Qaeda Jihadists will make "America safer," and that in a war of ideas with Islamic supremacists, "it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter." 

Per my July 16 response to their New Republic article, Bergen and Cruickshank use the example of Sayyid Imam Al Sharif's (aka "Dr. Fadl") rejection of Al-Qaeda as justification for such a policy. What they don't report is the rest of the story on Al-Sharif. In fact, Al-Sharif continues to support Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq, where American soldiers are in harm's way, and Al-Sharif continues to support Jihad against Israel. Bergen and Cruickshank also don't report Al-Sharif's continued support for Islamic supremacism and the Taliban, where he states: "Jihad in Afghanistan will lead to the creation of an Islamic state with the triumph of the Taliban, God willing." Al-Sharif's support of Jihad is for the same Taliban that supported Bin Laden's 9/11 Jihad training camps, the same Taliban killing American soldiers today, and the same Taliban that seeks a global Islamic caliphate. Al-Sharif is the type of Jihadist that Bergen and Cruickshank think will make "America safer." 

Such dangerously misleading information about the Jihad-supporting Al-Sharif has found its way into American government initiatives as well. On July 31, the Washington Times published an article (ironically titled "War of Ideas") where it interviewed James K. Glassman, the new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Mr. Glassman was proud of his efforts within the government to promote Jihad-supporting Al-Sharif as an example of programs to "push back against violent extremist ideology." In the July 2008 issue of the West Point Combating Terrorism Center Sentinel, counterterrorist Michael Jacobson also cited Al-Sharif to our fighting men and women as an individual who had written a book "rejecting al-Qa'ida's message and tactics." But while describing Al-Sharif's concerns about not wanting to harm "innocent people," Mr. Jacobson fails to mention in his West Point article that Al-Sharif calls for Jihad against our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.