Obama Administration’s Decision to No Longer Wage War with Jihadists is a Dangerous Mistake
Commenting on the Administration's report on dropping the use of words such as War on Terror and Jihad, the director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West, and The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy, told HS Today: “As we read [Brennan’s speech], we realize that the administration is going backward in understanding the threat and explaining it to the public.”
“They say the doctrine is ‘to safeguard the American people from the transnational challenge that poses one of the greatest threats to our national security – the scourge of violent extremists who would use terrorism to slaughter Americans abroad and at home.’ What does that mean? Nothing. It is as if they speak in abstract. Which ‘transnational challenge is posing the greatest threat to U.S. national security?’ It is the global Jihadist threat, with its two networks, the Salafists and the Khomeinists, not the Nazis, the Soviet Communists or militaristic regimes. Why is the Obama administration regressing into a level way below what most educated Americans understand?”
Wishful Thinking Can't Change Ideologies
Phares said “the administration criticizes the narrative of its predecessor and we do as well, but instead they propose something weaker and in some aspects dangerous to U.S. national security. After eight years of confrontation with a world web of Jihadists, both Salafists and Khomeinists, on two major battlefields in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in various regions of the world such as Pakistan, Somalia, Indonesia, the Levant, the Maghreb, and as the threat penetrates the West with homegrown cells, the administration's doctrine on the threat understanding is entirely disconnected from reality.
“In short, " Phares said, "the new doctrine asserts that the U.S. is no longer engaged in a ‘war on terrorism.’ They disengage from the conflict as if is in a wishful, thinking that they can redesign world realities in different colors and names. As if one party in a conflict can decide on the ideology and the strategies of the foe.”