I will not endorse a candidate, but I think it is useful to begin discussing what the candidates say they will do about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.
Now that Hillary Clinton is, unless something unforeseeable occurs, the Democratic nominee and, in all likelihood, the next president of the United States, I think she is a good one to start with. It’s interesting to note that in the issues section of her website, she has no section devoted to fighting terrorism as such — unlike Barack Obama, whose site has a section on Homeland Security and a speech on counterterrorism strategy; John McCain, whose site has a section on national security; Mitt Romney, whose site contains a plan for “confronting radical jihad” (kudos to Romney for use of the forbidden word, even with the silly qualifier); Mike Huckabee, whose site explains his views on “National Security/Foreign Policy: War On Terror”; and even John “The War On Terror Is A Bumper Sticker” Edwards, whose site reveals “John Edwards’ Strategy To Root Out And Shut Down Terrorist Cells.”
I’ll discuss all those in the coming days. Today, Hillary. There is a paragraph, at the end of the section explaining that she will immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq:
She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.
That’s all I can find. If I missed anything, please let me know. In writing this I am not looking for statements she may have made about terrorism, because I expect that if they were important enough to her as policy statements, she would have made them part of the section at her website that explains her priorities and policy agenda. However, if that is a false assumption, and she has detailed some plan to fight “terrorism” somewhere else, please let me know.
But from the looks of this, terrorism — never mind jihad — is hardly a priority for her at all. It might be prudent in terms of a better defense against the global jihad to give up trying to democratize Iraq, as we have pointed out here many, many times. But Hillary Clinton doesn’t give any indication of recognizing what it was that got us into Iraq in the first place. Whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do, it was essentially a response to 9/11 — but the impression from Hillary’s website is that 9/11 didn’t happen, or had no significance whatsoever. She says nothing about fighting against the spread of the jihad ideology in the U.S. — but of course none of them do that, with the possible or arguable exception of Romney. She says nothing even about what Edwards has acknowledged: the existence of terror cells in the U.S. Nowhere even close to the radar screen is any concern for the loss of European allies of the United States to Islamization, with the possible catastrophic consquences that could follow — but there again, no one is talking about that. Global jihad? What’s that?
It’s a 9/10 policy statement for a 9/12 world, suggesting that — as clueless and out of touch as the government and media establishment are on this issue right now — beginning on January 20, 2009, we are in for some tough, tough times.
UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Kamala has found more here.
We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism.
I’m glad terrorism made the list, but after climate change, poverty, and AIDS are no more, I wonder what resources will be left to tackle it.
Senator Clinton takes very seriously the threats we face from terrorism. She believes President Bush’s singular focus on Iraq has distracted him from waging the war on terror effectively and emboldened our enemies. As president, she will be tough and smart in combating terrorism.
Whatever Bush has had, and whatever one may think of the Iraq venture, Bush has not had a “singular focus on Iraq.” Afghanistan, after all, does exist, and credit must be given for the foiled jihad plots in the U.S., at Fort Dix, the JFK Airport, and elsewhere. It would be good to see her spell out what being “tough and smart in combating terrorism” would look like. Perhaps some evidence is in the following paragraphs:
Hillary has steadfastly fought for Israel’s right to exist peacefully and to defend its people against terrorism. She has condemned Hamas’s rise to power. She has spoken out against the problem of anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks and condemned Iran’s conference on the Holocaust. She also successfully helped Magen David Adom join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.
All good, as far as they go. Aside from the first, however, they are specific actions, not statements of policy or principle, much less intent. Would she demand, as Bush seems determined to do, that Israel retreat to indefensible borders in exchange for promises of peace? Would she condemn the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism as such, since they have been such engines for oppression throughout history and today? But with that last question, of course, I have entered the realm of fantasy: no candidate is talking about that. And indeed, it immediately gets worse:
She has continued to advance peace in Northern Ireland by maintaining close ties with Irish leaders and promoting business partnerships between Northern Ireland and the United States.
Northern Ireland? Is this 1976? Northern Ireland is so burning an issue in 2008 that it warrants mention in a candidate’s basic policy statements? I suspect that Northern Ireland is mentioned here only to offset the impression that “terrorism” is solely a Muslim problem, a la Karen Armstrong’s point here.
And finally:
Hillary has been a forceful and consistent advocate for a more robust response to the violence in Darfur since May 2004. She has raised the issue with the Bush administration and pushed for more resources for peacekeeping efforts.
Peacekeeping efforts: this could conceivably end up turning into more Clinton aid for jihadists, a la the Balkans in the 1990s. And no, I do not believe the Serbs were sinless. No one is. But I still don’t like to see the United States rush to the aid of people who would subjugate women and religious minorities under Sharia.