An encouraging article from Paul Sperry in FrontPage: “The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo”:
Washington’s policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.
A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as “Islamic radicals” and not just “terrorists,” although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.
Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam’s holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what’s motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.
Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it’s religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?
Answers are hard to come by.
Maybe they are in the Pentagon, but all they have to do is pick up one of my books or tune in to this site…
Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.
Appalling. I am considering, as my next project, writing a biography of Muhammad myself. (What do you think of that idea?) Perhaps I will do so and send a few copies over to the Pentagon brass.
But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United
Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.
“Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations,” states a new Pentagon briefing paper I’ve obtained. “Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West’s response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level — Islam — unaddressed.”
Unaddressed there. Addressed amply here.
So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They’ve found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.
Stop the presses!
“Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad),” concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And “no one is looking for its off switch.”
Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide “indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized.”
So, which is it? “Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature,” according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored “terror and slaughter” against unbelievers.
Amazing that they are just starting to notice this.
“Muhammad’s behaviors today would be defined as radical,” the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their “militant” holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the “cult characteristics of Islam.”
It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as “an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism.” Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.
According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable — women and the elderly — are not exempt; they must give “asylum and aid” (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.
In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks — as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 — in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.
The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a “three-phase attack strategy” for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the “Meccan,” or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs — such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.
In the second “preparation” phase, a “reasonably influential” Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.
And in the final jihad period, or “Medina Stage,” a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.
It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as “standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war.”
Right now political leaders don’t understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless “criminals” motivated by “hatred of our freedoms,” rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.
Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.
“I don’t like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War,” says a Northern Command intelligence official. “However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information.”
Why? “All suffer heavily from political correctness,” he explains.
PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation’s military headquarters.
“A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat,” a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. “We’re getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404.”
Call me, fellows. I’d be glad to help.
The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures — such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting “critical vulnerabilities” or rifts within the Muslim faith and community — can begin.
“Most Americans don’t realize we are in a war of survival — a war that is going to continue for decades,” the Northcom official warns.
It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.
I will not be waiting by the phone.