[Peace-discuss] Review of life of Dr. Al-Arian

[C. G. Estabrook]

Robert, Robert, try to keep up!  The remnants of the Neocons in the
administration have recently decreed that we're not to use terms like
"Islamofascism" because they "create 'animus' in Islamic countries," as one
long-term spook put it: “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam
and we don’t need this.”

In spite of what Bush et al. used to say (in their lying way, according now to 
ex-pres secretary Scott McClellan), we're not fighting Islam!  (Of course 
there's mot much candor about what we are doing that requires us to kill people 
at this great rate.)

Here's how the Financial Times reports this change in the War Party line this
morning:

========

	Security chief decries ‘war on terror’
	By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
	Published: May 28 2008 22:20 | Last updated: May 29 2008 06:59


The west needs a more comprehensive strategy to counter al-Qaeda propaganda and
the US should stop using the term “war on terror”, according to a top
intelligence official.

Charles Allen, the senior intelligence official at the Department of Homeland
Security, says the phrase is counter-productive because it creates “animus” in
Islamic countries.

“[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” Mr Allen said in an
interview. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t
need this.”

President George W. Bush made “war on terror” one of his stock phrases in the
wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. But there is disagreement in
Washington, including among his own administration, over whether officials
should use the term...

Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, in an
interview said the phrase ”war on terror” was the “dumbest term…you could use”.
The Michigan lawmaker, who criticises the Bush administration for using an
overly aggressive tone, says he has urged Stephen Hadley, the national security
adviser, not to use the expression.

Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Mr Hadley, said the White House recognises that
“the use of the word ‘Islamic’ before the word terrorist can be heard by
Muslims…as lacking nuance, which may incorrectly suggest that all Muslims are
terrorists or that we are at war with Islam”...

While the military in general tends to echo the langauge of the president,
Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs who recently met with
moderate Muslim leaders to hear their concerns, tries to ensure his language
does not create the perception of a war against Islam, Captain John Kirby, his
spokesman, said.

“The chairman is aware of the concerns voiced by many in the Muslim community
about the phrase ‘war on terror’,” Captain Kirby said.

“He is committed – when speaking of it – to focusing his language and efforts on
the violent extremists we are fighting. This is not a war on Islam. It’s a war
against lethal enemies who are using a warped view of that faith to justify
killing innocent civilians.”

That is part of the message that Mr Allen would like the US to emphasise in
countering al-Qaeda propaganda around the globe. He says the west needs to
orchestrate a “very structured”, almost cold war-style communications strategy
to accomplish this.

A five-decade CIA veteran who has spent much of his career dealing with
terrorism, Mr Allen says this has become particularly importance since
al-Qaeda’s messaging has undergone “amazing” changes over the past 18 months. He
points, for example, to efforts by As-Sahab, the group’s media production
company, to target US audiences in “American vernacular”.

“There is every reason to believe that the tide should turn and could turn but
will take a very, very long time,” says Mr Allen. “We must be proactive and not
just be reactive... We have to get our messages out and not just wait for
another audio tape.”

At the same time that al-Qaeda is delivering a “more coherent” message, however,
Mr Allen says it is “very, very encouraging” that some influential people in the
Muslim world are repudiating the group. He says the US should counter al-Qaeda
by stressing criticism from the Muslim world at the actions of the group.

Terrorism experts point to Sayeed Imam al-Sharif, a founder of the extremist
Egyptian Islamic Jihad group and mentor to Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second
in command, who recently wrote a book from his Egyptian jail cell calling on
al-Qaeda to give up its struggle.

While US officials have warned about an increasing potential for home-grown
terrorism, Mr Allen welcomed the results of a 2007 study by the Pew Research
Center, which found that the vast majority of US Muslims were concerned about
the rise of Islamic extremism and had an unfavourable view of al-Qaeda.

Mr Allen says any comprehensive communications strategy demands a comprehensive
outreach programme to Muslim communities both in the US and abroad, which he
says is starting to happen.

He also recommends that the next president tell the American people that the
country faces a “long, difficult struggle” and has “to engender the kind of
strong counter-radicalisation and messaging abroad that will roll back this
extremism”.

A recent memo from the homeland security department’s office for civil rights
and civil liberties echoed some of these concerns. The memo said terminology
employed by the US government should “avoid helping the terrorists by inflating
the religious bases and glamorous appeal of their ideology” and “must be
properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue
that the west is at war with Islam”.

Mr Knocke, the Homeland Security spokesman, stressed that the memo was not
formal policy, but a series of recommendation that have originated from “active
and ongoing dialogue with the community to promote civic engagement and prevent
radicalization”.

Frank Cilluffo, a terrorism expert at George Washington University and former
special assistant to Mr Bush for homeland security, says the US government can
take a series of steps to help counter al-Qaeda. He agrees that the US should
abandon the concept of a “war on terror” – which “fuels the adversaries
narrative” – and “decouple religion from ideology”.

In the long term, however, Mr Cilluffo says the solution will have to come from
within the Muslim community, partly by imams and Islamic scholars stressing that
al-Qaeda has deliberately misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence, which he
adds will help “take the jihadi cool out of the narrative”.

Marc Sageman, a former CIA operative and author of Leaderless Jihad: Terror
Networks in the Twenty-First Century goes a strep further, saying the US has
helped glorify extremists by elevating “the status of losers to Mujahedeen heroes”.

While Mr Cilluffo argues that the US should be vigilant in countering al-Qaeda,
particularly in Internet chat rooms, Mr Sageman sees the movement more as a
fashion that will eventually die out, if left alone.

Mr Sageman argues that the US government could even prolong the demise of the
extremist movement by engaging in counter-propaganda fora. Asked, for example,
whether US government employees could be effective in countering extremism in
online salons, he responds that they would be “thrown out of the chatrooms.”

While Mr Sageman argues that the fad should be left to die a natural death, he
says he recognises that for policymakers, this is “totally unpalatable”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Robert Dunn wrote:
> 
> He should have gotten the death penalty! He is back on the loose, joining
> David Green in supporting financially and spiritually Islamofascism!
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 07:24:20 -0700 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com To:
> peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] Review of life of Dr.
> Al-Arian
> 
> Tampa Bay Coalition for Justice and Peace May 25, 2008
> 
> Another Milestone for Dr. Al-Arian Spent in Prison ...