Saturday, April 15, 2006

During the Cold War, there were communists, anti-communists and anti-anti-communists. It would be unfair to call the anti-antis pro-communist. But it was the anti-communists — the Cold Warriors — that the anti-antis most energetically opposed.

Today, there are terrorists, anti-terrorists and anti-anti-terrorists. It would be unfair to call the anti-antis pro-terrorist. But it is those fighting terrorists — those waging war against militant Islamist ideologies — that anti-antis criticize most harshly.

Anti-antis are clearly dominant on U.S. campuses. University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has taught his students that Americans incinerated and buried in New York City on September 11, 2001, were “Little Eichmanns.” The language is extreme, but the point Mr. Churchill intends — that America is so oppressive it both invites and deserves terrorism in retaliation — is shared by many in his academic cohort.

Last week, I received a call from a reporter at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The University of North Texas, he said, was planning to award an honorary degree to Adbel Al-Jubeir, a leading spokesman for Saudi Arabia. The university awards such degrees to individuals who “have made meritorious contributions to society that have enlarged human understanding and enriched human life.” The reporter wanted to know if I had any comment. I think I sputtered.

How could any intelligent and sane American find it a “meritorious contribution to society” to propagandize for a regime that deprives women and minorities of basic human rights, is so intolerant as to prohibit non-Muslims from worshipping on its soil, provides the death sentence for Muslims who convert and promotes an ideology from which militant Islamist terrorism springs?

The media, too, has more than its share of anti-antis, and I’m not talking only about the left-wing blogs that compare President Bush unfavorably to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Recently, the top story on Page One of The Washington Post’s was headlined: “Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi: Jordanian Painted as Foreign Threat to Iraq’s Stability.” Is there anyone — even Ward Churchill — who would argue Abu Musab Zarqawi, the commander of al Qaeda in Iraq, is not a “foreign threat to Iraq’s stability”?

A seemingly more cogent reason for The Post to object to what it blasts as a U.S. military propaganda campaign: An American colonel is quoted as saying that Zarqawi and other “foreign insurgents” are only “a very small part of the actual numbers” of those fighting Iraqi government forces and the American-led coalition.

This ignores the fact al Qaeda is responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Indeed, the day after The Post’s story appeared, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch issued a statement that more than 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq are “carried out by fighters recruited, trained and equipped by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.”

He might have added that suicide bombings — along with roadside bombings and occasional hostage decapitations — are the primary tactic utilized by the forces fighting to prevent emergence of a free Iraq. It’s not as though the “foreign insurgents” are waging air-and-ground assaults and staging naval battles.

And, ironically, what helps make suicide bombings effective is the press coverage they attract. The mainstream media do not depict even the most vicious attacks on civilians as atrocities that should inspire outrage and fortify resistance. Instead, the media suggest the attacks be seen as evidence the “insurgents” are succeeding and the U.S. failing in its obligation to “stabilize the security situation.”

The terrorists “play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently. “Every act [of] carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it.”

Linda Chavez, who heads a think tank and writes commentary, observed not long ago that anti-anti-terrorists “assume nefarious intentions of the U.S. government, while clamoring to protect the rights” of America’s enemies. But the anti-antis have upped the ante beyond even that: Now anti-antis at a U.S. university heap honors on a Saudi propagandist while anti-antis at a great newspaper complain American “propaganda” seeks to defame an al Qaeda terrorist master.

George Orwell couldn’t make this stuff up.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide