Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close

Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam'

**FILE** President Barack Obama, accompanied by Gen. David Petraeus (center) and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announces in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 23, 2010, that Gen. Petraeus would replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal. (Associated Press)**FILE** President Barack Obama, accompanied by Gen. David Petraeus (center) and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announces in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 23, 2010, that Gen. Petraeus would replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal. (Associated Press)
Social Networks
facebookFacebook
twitterTwitter
Question of the Day

Does Sarah Palin have enough starpower and appeal to influence midterm elections?

View results

The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

The Petraeus doctrine refers to "Islamic insurgents," "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic subversives." It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member.

Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."

In a speech that also severed the Obama administration from President George W. Bush's "war on terror," Mr. Brennan also said: "The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community."

Asked about the discrepancy between the White House policy and the military's counterinsurgency doctrine, Michael Hammer, Mr. Brennan's spokesman, said "We don't have anything to add to John's speech."

Larry Korb, a military analyst at the Center for American Progress, said Mr. Brennan is correct to avoid linking Islam to terrorism.

"Once you attach a religious thing, you're basically saying somehow or other this is caused by the religion," Mr. Korb said. "Most Muslims are not that way."

He added, "If you put that term [Islamic terrorist] on there, it causes you more problems in the long run. You don't want to see this as a war on quote unquote the Muslim world. If I took a look at all the people, for example, who killed abortion doctors and I said they're Christian terrorists, or something like that, and they are all who have done that. That is their interpretation of the Bible. But most people are not. Some of these people will quote the Bible and say I had to go after this doctor because he's killing innocents."

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments

LK20850 says:

1 month, 2 weeks ago

Mark as offensive

Geez, with all the things not to call the ONES who are terrorizing the whole world (not just the U.S.), the article is not clear what we are to call them. I have some ideas, but I don't think I can say them.

HankBondJr says:

1 month, 2 weeks ago

Mark as offensive

Sorry, the answer is NO. The people cannot directly do anything. It is through our representatives. That is what we are suppose to be, a republic which is the same thing as a representative democracy. But our system of having civilians in charge over the military is one of the very best principles the framers of the Constitution came up with. Look at the picture at the beginning of this article. Look closely at General Petraeus. Me thinks he has a lean and hungry look! Me thinks I am not certain he has the President's back. I doubt if the President would want Gen McChrystal back there.

I know how much Americans have been conditioned to want to win, to be NUMBER ONE. But the only thing that made any sense after 911 was to get Osama quick and get out of that place. It is not patriotic nor morally correct for this government and the civilian population to send our troops into nation-building missions in nations that must take care of their own destiny. Bush-Cheney actually called the dogs off the trail of Osama long ago as they concentrated on Iraq for reasons that only they truly know what were. We were given assorted reasons and none were any good at justifying the sacrifices we have had to make, especially by our troops.

President Obama is not automatically wrong on everything as some of you seem to think. Vietnam was stupid and it was a total failure of government to have stayed there so long that that monument is that big. Recon jets took pictures of Soviet ships unloading the weapons used against our troops. They were not allowed to be armed and take out such targets. Those piles of weapons sometimes ended up being carried to the front on bicycles which we tried to take out at times with raids by B-52's. We always look like fools when we fight wars in such stupid fashion. Again, those wars should never be fought. We are constantly teaching every potential enemy that even though we are a super power, we will not use that power to win. I think President Obama is absolutely correct to wind this thing down as best we can. Our young troops are so brave that they might protest such a move, but we cannot send them into a meat grinder just because they are willing to go. And the fools that think this is wrong logic on my part will be the first to get mad if, heaven forbid, we were confronted by a true threat that truly could destroy our nation. 911 was carried out by a fairly small group of terrorists, and we need to realize that that attack could have been one of many had we been in an all out confrontation. We have a horrible record when it comes to choosing the correct wars to fight. Politics should not enter into such decisions. As divided as we are today, we have no business fighting stupid wars. If a war was worth fighting, wouldn't we join together immediately to face such a challenge? You are not suppose to have to think long on that question. Ol Hank

Ronald1934 says:

1 month, 2 weeks ago

Mark as offensive

Is POTUS calling the kettle black?
The military chain of command is crystal clear: Command and control of US military engagement with enemy forces starts at the top with POTUS and works downward. POTUS was trained to be a Community Organizer, simply that. General McCrystal is a military man trained at West Point and dedicated to the Military Academy's principles of Duty, Honor, and Country.
General McCrystal was asked by POTUS what was needed to win the Afghan War. "40,000 troops now, Sir" was the reply. Some six months later General McCrystal was promised 30,000 troops over the next several months; meanwhile, POTUS announced to the world that he wanted all troops to be gone in the next year and a half.
I don't believe this sat well with the General as it is a commander's duty to safeguard his troops while waging a winnable war.
The ROE dictated by POTUS disallowed this from happening. It is my belief the General purposefully risked his career to bring this matter to the public's attention. And so POTUS fired General McCrystal and appointed General Petraeus in his stead. And now POTUS is at odds with General Petraeus relative to his doctrine on 'Islam.' At the rate POTUS is going, we may soon run out of Generals.
The USA chain of command is also very clear: We the people elect POTUS to lead us in accordance with our Constitution. Question: Do We the People of the United States have a case to fire POTUS?

View all comment(s) on this article.

Post a comment

Title

Not Registered Yet?

Comment on articles. Receive e-mail newsletters and alerts. Sign up today.

Happening Now

Click for more stories

Most Read

    Independent voices from the TWT Communities

    Bill Kelly's Truth Squad

    A conservative satirist takes on the worlds of politics and entertainment in humorous pursuit of truth, justice and all things America.

    Tea Party Report

    Real news, opinion and true-life tales from everyday Americans on the front lines of the Tea Party movement. This is your story.

    Teaming Up For Success

    People celebrating good things that happen through successful teamwork.