The enemy freely says they’re fighting us because of Islam, based on Islamic principles. But political correctness forbids the Obama Administration from noticing that, despite how helpful such notice might be for understanding the motives and goals of the enemy and devising an effective way to defeat him. And so watch the redundantly-titled Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense, Paul Stockton, dance and shuffle and obfuscate and dodge in order to avoid even admitting that “violent Islamist extremism,” whatever that is, is at war with us. (As opposed to the nonviolent Islamic mainstream, doncha know, which is perfectly chummy with us, cf. Pakistan.) That would empower the enemy, you see, because we all know that Muslims routinely look to non-Muslims to validate their understanding of Islam.
Stockton, grabbing every available chair to keep the lion at bay, even once insists that he is not being politically correct. Why, only a blackguard would ever have thought otherwise, old boy!
“Anti-Islamic Hyperventilation”¦.,” by Mark Thompson in Time Magazine, December 8:
[…] Check out this surrealistic exchange from Wednesday”s hearing, between Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., and Paul Stockton, Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense:
REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LUNGREN (R-CA): Secretary Stockton, are we at war with violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are at war with al-Qaida, its affiliates —
REP. LUNGREN: OK, I understand that. My question is, is violent Islamist extremism at war with us?
MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are being attacked by al-Qaida and its allies.
REP. LUNGREN: Is al-Qaida “” can it be described as being an exponent of violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: They “” al-Qaida are murderers with an ideological agenda —
REP. LUNGREN: No, I “” that’s not my question. That wasn’t my question. My question was, is al-Qaida acting out violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we intend to advance —
REP. LUNGREN: So is it yes or no?
MR. STOCKTON: Can I hear the question again? I’ll make it as clear as I can. We are not at war with Islam. And it is not —
REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t ask that “” I did not ask that, sir. I asked whether we”re at war with violent Islamist extremism. That’s my question.
MR. STOCKTON: No, we”re at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.
REP. LUNGREN: Well, al-Qaida “” how does al-Qaida define itself? Are they dedicated to violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam.
REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t say that.
MR. STOCKTON: That’s a prime propaganda tool.
REP. LUNGREN: Sir —
MR. STOCKTON: And I”m not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goal.
REP. LUNGREN: No, no, my question is, is there a difference between Islam and violent Islamist extremism?
MR. STOCKTON: Sir, with great respect, I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.
If you close your eyes and pretend hard enough, the bad guys will go away, and the unicorns will appear!
REP. LUNGREN: I understand that. I never said we were at war with Islam. One of the questions we”re trying to deal with is the radicalization of Islam, is the radicalization of Islamic youth. And if we can’t distinguish between violent Islamist extremism and Islam, then all this stuff about behavioral indicators doesn’t mean anything.
Let me “” let me ask you this question. Is it a behavioral indicator to put on your card that you”re a soldier of Allah?
MR. STOCKTON: A behavioral indicator that you have a copy of Inspire magazine on your desk —
REP. LUNGREN: That’s not my question. That’s not my question. My question is, is it a behavioral indicator to put on your card that you are a soldier of Allah, as Major Hasan did?
MR. STOCKTON: We have behavioral indicators now that enable our personnel, our supervisors, to focus on detecting indicators of violent extremism that reflect the lessons learned from Fort Hood.
REP. LUNGREN: OK, is that a lesson learned, that if you put a soldier of Allah on your card, that you”ve got to follow up and investigate that?
MR. STOCKTON: We are training our supervisors to follow up on appropriate indicators and exercise the leadership they need in order to provide for effective reporting and intervention.
He doesn’t, and cannot, answer about whether “Soldier of Allah” is a behavioral indicator, because to affirm that it was one would be to contradict himself. Everything about Islam is great and we are not at war with Islam and terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and so “soldier of Allah” cannot, must not, be a behavioral indicator — and yet it obviously was one in Hasan’s case. So Stockton can either affirm indirectly that Islam does have something to do with terrorism, contrary to all his positive statements, or he can deny that “soldier of Allah” is an indicator and look like a fool who is endangering our troops. Instead, he dodges the question altogether.
Does this mean that the Obama Administration is not as stupid as it looks, and that law enforcement officials really are looking at Islamic piety as a behavioral indicator for terrorism, but won’t say so publicly? That is a distinct possibility, given weight by Stockton’s ultimate admission below. But time will tell. If things start blowing up all over, we will know that they believed deeply in their politically correct nonsense about Islam, and so Americans started getting murdered by jihadis in record numbers, unhampered by agents rendered clueless by the prohibition on understanding anything about the enemy ideology. If, on the other hand, jihadis keep getting caught, we’ll know that officials are saying one thing in public and doing another in private, hoping to keep the likes of Hamas-linked CAIR and useful idiots like Spencer Ackerman, Adam Serwer and Matt Duss at bay.
REP. LUNGREN: You agree with the statement, as someone representing the Department of Defense, on the weekend after the shooting, that it would be a greater tragedy to lose our program of diversity than what had occurred?
MR. STOCKTON: Well, let me go back to something Secretary “” Chairman King said. I was trained up by Senator Moynihan. There was nobody less politically correct than Senator Moynihan. I follow the truth wherever it takes me, and I strongly support the programs of the Department of Defense that focus on al-Qaida and behavioral indicators.
REP. LUNGREN: I appreciate it. I appreciate it.
MR. STOCKTON: This is not about political correctness. This is about defeating our adversary.
REP. LUNGREN: Well, sir, I would disagree with you that it may not be about political correctness. We are here talking about the fact that we now have to have behavioral indicators. I agree with that. But my question is, if someone gives inflammatory remarks, as did Major Hasan, in an open setting, if he has on his card that he was a soldier of Allah, it seems to me to be beyond common sense to think those are not behavioral indicators.
So my question is, if I”m a member of the military today and I see those two events or those two circumstances, would it be appropriate for me to report those as behavioral indicators? Now, that’s not a question of whether or not you”re being political (sic) correct, sir. I”m asking you to answer that specific question. If I”m a soldier and asked you that question, what do you tell me?
MR. STOCKTON: Inflammatory rhetoric of the sort associated with Major Hasan “” that needs to be reported, and our officers are trained up now to report on that behavior.
REP. LUNGREN: I thank you, and I appreciate that.
Uh oh. Looks as if Stockton is a greasy Islamophobe. He admitted, finally, that a hyperpious Muslim like Hasan would raise alarm bells. Honest Ibe Hooper, call your office! (Hooper, of Hamas-linked CAIR, has Jihad Watch bookmarked.) Demand Stockton’s resignation! Demand his replacement by a more compliant useful idiot! Such types are plentiful enough in Washington — it will be no problem.