White House Releases “New” Counter-terrorism Strategy

by Sheila Musaji

This week, the White House released a report outlining a new strategy to combat home-grown extremism by reaching out to local communities.  The document released is titled Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States

Reuters reports that The strategy includes enhancing engagement with relevant local communities, building law enforcement expertise in preventing violent extremism and countering messages that promote militancy.  ...  The strategy, which promises to protect civil liberties and avoid stigmatizing any community, said the threat of militancy in the United States was not new and that the government was working to prevent all types of extremism, regardless of its source.  But the plan focused primarily on al Qaeda, labeling the global Islamic militant network as the “preeminent terrorist threat” to the country.

Scott Shane in The New York Times reports that The administration also promised to identify accurate educational materials about Islam for law enforcement officers, providing an alternative to biased and ill-informed literature in use in recent years, including by the F.B.I.  Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters that Al Qaeda and those it inspired remained the biggest terrorist threat inside the United States. But he said the bombing and shootings in Norway last month, carried out by a right-wing, anti-Muslim extremist, were a reminder that the government could not focus exclusively on any single brand of radicalism.

Whether or not Al Qaeda is the preeminent terrorist threat to our country is certainly debatable.  See Claim that all terrorists are Muslims ignores history for information on the majority of terrorist acts that have been carried out or plotted, and that claim seems to be clearly false.  See also Answers to Peter King’s Claims About the American Muslim Community for information about specific charges against the American Muslim community (e.g. Do Muslims cooperate with law enforcement?  Do Muslims speak out against terrorism and extremism?  Are most Muslims terrorists?  Are 80 to 85% of mosques run by radicals?  Have American Muslim organizations responded to the issue of radicalization?  Are mosques the source of radicalization?  etc.)

In the section of the government report titled Building Government and Law Enforcement Expertise for Preventing Violent Extremism it says

Government and law enforcement at the local level have well-established relationships with communities, developed through years of consistent engagement, and therefore can effectively build partnerships and take action on the ground. To help facilitate local partnerships to prevent violent extremism, the Federal Government is building a robust training program with rigorous curriculum standards to ensure that the training that communities; local, state, and tribal governments; prison officials; and law enforcement receive is based on intelligence, research, and accurate information about how people are radicalized to accept violence, and what has worked to prevent violent extremism. Misinformation about the threat and dynamics of radicalization to violence can harm our security by sending local stakeholders in the wrong direction and unnecessarily creating tensions with potential community partners. We also are working to support and expand community-oriented policing efforts by our state, local, and tribal partners, and to assist them in enhancing cultural proficiency and other foundations for effective community engagement.

This sounds good, but if it is accurate, then I have to wonder exactly who they are building these strong relationships with.  Certainly not what I believe to be the majority of American Muslims who would tell them that the public pronouncements of truly Islamophobic anti-Muslim venom by elected representatives, government officials, and candidates for public office which are not challenged as they certainly would be if made against any other religious, racial, or ethnic group - does not promote a positive relationship.  See Islamophobia no longer questioned - even by our elected representatives for a lengthy list of such statements.  See The GOP Anti-Muslim Limbo:  How Low Can They Go? for a summary of such statements and a description of how they have escalated in extremity.  See also Elected Representatives & Government Officials Who HAVE Questioned Islamophobia

Certainly, the majority of American Muslims would have told any government agency with which they have a strong relationship that using known Islamophobes to train law enforcement, or the military, or to testify before government agencies as “experts” on Islam and Muslims - does not promote a positive relationship. 

Relying on such bigoted sources also does not provide any real information about what might legitimately be signs of radicalization within this particular community.  What you will get from the Islamophobes is useless information like that contained in the Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques “study” by David Yerushalmi.  Someone could write an entire article on the ridiculousness of the “watch on the right hand” issue alone.  And, the straight prayer lines as an indicator of anything other than keeping people from bumping into each other requires an article or a humorous YouTube video to show just how nonsensical this is.  There are so many problems with this report that it is difficult to believe that it is meant to be taken seriously.  It seems more like a satirical article that would be published on “The Onion”.  This report belongs in the category of lunatic ravings rather than of serious research, and deserves to be ridiculed along with Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy Shariah in American Courts and Sharia:// a Threat to America reports.

The American Muslim has a collection of articles outlining the activities of these Islamophobes and listing direct hateful quotes by them at A Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry.  Actually, many non-Muslims have also provided documented information about these Islamophobes.

Earlier this year, a Political Research Report was released.  The report was titled MANUFACTURING THE MUSLIM MENACE, and subtitled: Private Firms, Public Servants, and the Threat to Rights and Security.  A petition to Congress and relevant federal and local agencies to ensure that counterterrorism skills training delivered to public servants is accurate, consistent with national security policy, and respectful of constitutional rights.  The report discusses the following individual “trainers” who are a serious concern:  Mark A. Gabriel, Dave Gaubatz,  Walid Phares, Clare M. Lopez, Tawfiq Hamid, Stephen Coughlin, Nonie Darwish, Detective Ebrahim Ashabi, and Walid Shoebat.

The ADL has stated that Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America, Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer’s Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), David Yerushalmi’s Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)  are “groups that promote an extreme anti-Muslim agenda”.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated SIOA as a hate group.

It seems obvious that these are individuals who are blinded by hatred and who have a personal agenda.  Nevertheless, these and other individuals who are clearly Islamophobes have been regularly invited by elected representatives and government agencies to provide information about Islam and Muslims. 

Unless the hateful statements made about Islam and Muslims by government officials and elected representatives are publically challenged by other officials and representatives, and unless Islamophobes stop being considered as the go to experts on Islam and Muslims, then this report will have little or no effect on improving relationships with the American Muslim community.

Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins, (R-Maine), chair and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee are highly critical of the counter-terrorism training provided to local law enforcement personnel throughout the U.S. who serve as first responders in the war against terrorism. In a strongly worded letter written to Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder on March 29, 2011, Lieberman and Collins decried the waste of federal funds “being spent on ineffective or poor counter-terrorism training” which they contend is both inaccurate and often inflammatory.” …”We are concerned that at best, the quality of training law enforcement personnel receive is inconsistent, and at worst, is actually detrimental to our efforts to combat homegrown terrorism.”  Source

My initial reaction is that this most recent report is simply an attempt to reassure American Muslims that Al Qaeda is the enemy, not the American Muslim community.  That’s something, but truly building positive relationships will require much more.  As long as one particular form of terrorism is seen as more of a concern than any form of terrorism, and one form of extremism is seen as more of a concern than all forms of extremism, and as long as the finger of guilt is pointed only at the Muslim community as a possible source of such extremism and terrorism there is a problem.  Certainly, radicalization of some elements of the Muslim community is a problem, as is radicalization of some elements of the Christian and Jewish communities, and of elements of various political ideologies.  To focus only on Muslims as a possible source of terrorism really does seem biased and counter-productive.

Most terrorists are lone wolves, or small groups of radicals.  No matter what their political or religious ideology, they are not likely to share information about their plots with anyone they don’t see as possibly sympathetic to their insane causes.  This means that we are all at risk of at some point being the target of their hateful violence.  And, when such individuals carry out an act of terrorism, it makes absolutely no difference to the victims what ideology led to their being targeted. 

The only thing that will make us all safer is to try to understand and counter all sorts of extremism and radicalization, whether political or religious.  This report is really not a new strategy, and while its suggestion that the government would like to build a stronger relationship with the Muslim community is commendable.  The fact that the government doesn’t realize that American Muslims are already on the same team and equally opposed to Al Qaeda and all other terrorist ideologies is a concern.  What we need is practical strategies that we can all work on together to make us all safer.  We will probably never be able to create a utopian society in which there are no criminals who may carry out terrorist acts, but we might be able to at least make them less likely. 

The American Muslim community are Americans.  We love this country.  We are already allies in the fight against Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.  However, it is very painful to continue to be seen as somehow “other” and not a part of “we the people”.  Even if you despise us, we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our fellow citizens in order to defend this country of OURS.  Whether governmental agencies or representatives have a good relationship with us are not we will defend our country.  The only difference a good relationship would make is that it would make it easier for us to counter the message that Al Qaeda uses as a recruiting tool for the disaffected.  The Al Qaeda message is that the U.S. is at war with Islam. 

It is difficult to say this is absolutely untrue when Rep. Allen West says:  “We are in a war against a political, theocratic, authoritarian ideology and it is called Islam!”  And when West holds an Islamophobic hate fest Rayburn House Office Building.  An anti-Muslim Congressperson plans an event in which a relatively unknown organization is invited to present its findings collected by volunteers to prove that American Muslims are dangerous.  This group announces that it is collecting the names of individuals they believe are dangerous - 6,000 so far, but more being added each day, and they will make these names available to the public.  This is frightening.  What would it require to be placed on that list? 

See Gallup report on American Muslims Raises Important Questions for the most recent study on American Muslims and their attitudes towards America.

Here are just a few Islamophobic statements made by elected representatives, government officials, and political candidates

:

—  Suggesting the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine (Richard Armey, Mike Huckabee)

—  Calling ordinary Muslims and/or Arabs “terrorist sympathizers” and “Islamo-Fascist bastards” and “ragheads”  -  Saying “We’ve ‘got one raghead in the White House, we don’t need a raghead in the governor’s mansion”  -  Referring to Arabs as “camel-dung shovelers”,  (Michelle Bachmann, Conrad Burns, Jake Knotts, Sonny Landman)

— Calling Muslim interns on Capitol Hill “infiltrators” or “spies”.  Warning of a Muslim “plot to breed terrorist babies who will one day attack America”  -  Saying that “no (American) Muslims cooperate in the war on terror”  - Saying “Never Trust a Man Named Mohamed”  - “We already have a 5th column that is already infiltrating into our colleges, into our universities, into our high schools, into our religious aspect, our cultural aspect, our financial, our political systems in this country. And that enemy represents something called Islam and Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion.” — “we are not obligated to open our society to any of them,” -  “except for Timothy McVeigh every terrorist was a Muslim” — extremists live in our midst, “even in positions in our government.”  -  Saying that “there are too many mosques in the U.S”  -  “global domination is preached and encouraged by Imams in mosques” (Ginny Brown-Waite, Sue Myrick, Paul Broun, Louis Gohmert, Peter King, Bob Lane,  Frank Lassee, John Shadegg,  Trent Franks, Allen West, Lou Ann Zelenik)

— “Apologizing” for calling Pres. Obama a Muslim because it was “insulting” or responding “No, ma’am. He is a decent family man”  (Bob Kerry, John McCain)

—  Suggesting unconstitutional and probably illegal actions against American Muslims and/or Arabs—“arrest every Muslim who comes across the state line” — adopt stricter immigration policies to keep more Muslims out of the U.S.— adopt a blanket ban on all Arab immigration — ”It’s not unheard that the religion of a nation at war with the United States be curtailed or disestablished”  — not allowing Muslims to hold public office — “Based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.” — make advocacy of Sharia law a deportable offense - Suggesting that Islam should perhaps not be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution - suggesting a loyalty oath for Muslims holding public office -  Saying “We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion…the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.”  (Gen. Wm. Boykin, Herman Cain, Saxby Chambliss, Virgil Goode, Jr., Adam Hasner, Sonny Landman, Meyers Mermel, Roy Moore, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Lynn Torgerson)

—  Saying that Islam is “not a religion”  -  “is the antithesis of the gospel of Christ”  - “is NOT a religion of peace”  -  “a religion intent on conquering the world”  -  “It’s an issue of patriotism.  The Islamic religion is so . . . part and parcel with the attack on America” — “religion that sanctioned 9/11” — ”“You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it” — “we’re fighting a radical religion in Islam” and “the war on terror is a theological war” — “We are in a war against a political, theocratic, authoritarian ideology and it is called Islam!” —  “Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology. It is not a religion.” — Islam is a “very vile and very vicious enemy that we have allowed to come in this country because we ride around with bumper stickers that say ‘coexist.  (Gen. Wm. Boykin, Mike Huckabee, Frank Lassee, Lois McMahan, Meyers Mermel, Ron Ramsey, Bob Vander Plaats, Allen West)

—  Calling the Qur’an - “a book of war and terrorism” that “must be rewritten” and the “passages seen as endorsing violence must be expunged” — a book containing “all kinds of crazy stuff. And unfortunately that’s motivating a lot of these extremists” — “like Mein Kampf”  (Robert Dornan, Jeff Greene, Roy Moore)

Here are a few cases that I know about of elected representatives and government agencies calling on known Islamophobes for information on Islam and Muslims

:

How is it possible that when the State of Alaska held a hearing about Sharia law, Alaska, Rep. Carl Gatto thought that Pamela Geller would be a reputable witness?

How is it possible that Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Ralph Hall (R-TX) and State Rep. Jerry Madden (R-TX) could think it made sense to be on the Honorary Host Committee for a Collin County Conservative Republicans 2009 evening with Pamela Geller of SIOA?

How could Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa) defend Pamela Geller of SIOA’s participation in a tea party event.  The Republican believes that Geller “is a credible spokeswoman on these sort of issues,” his communications director John Kennedy tells Mother Jones. “She is a nationally recognized authority on the threat of radical Islam. To extent that her comments [in CAIR’s release] reflect her state of mind, we should err on the side of her as being credible alternative to anything that CAIR has to say”?

How could The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) think it was reasonable to include a presentation “Jihad: The Political Third Rail;” an event created by Atlas Shrugs’ Pam Geller and Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer?

How could John Bolton endorse and write the foreword for Spencer and Geller’s 2010 book “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America”  and endorse Geller’s newest book “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance” about which Bolton said “The First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee is central to America’s character and our fundamental liberties.  Equally important, and stemming from the same philosophical roots, is the Amendment’s twinned protection of religious freedom and its prohibition of establishing religion.  These pillars of liberty are under attack around the world, and even here in America.  If you want to preserve the Constitution, read this book.”

How is it possible that Rep. Michelle Bachmann could believe that Geller was an appropriate person with whom to sit down for an interview?  Geller said about that interview “I had a great interview early this morning with Congressman Michele Bachmann, a Republican Congresswoman from east-central Minnesota, a warrior against Obama’s war on America.    Bachmann really gets it. This is a woman I would gladly follow into battle. She’s a comer. If America is to emerge from this war from within, it will be under the stewardship of great Americans like Bachmann. I am a huge fan.”

How is it possible that Rep. Bachmann could believe that Frank Gaffney is a reliable person from whom to seek advice on policy issues?

How is it possible that Ilario Pantano a North Carolina Congressional candidate could welcome Geller’s backing of his campaign?  Pantano said “I don’t have any anxieties about Pam Geller,” Pantano said. “She is a patriot. I’m thrilled to have her endorsement.”

How is it possible that Mike Huckabee thinks it appropriate to invite Geller on his television program and give her a platform to spread her hatred “...to build a mosque which embodies the very ideology that attacked us”?

How could former State House Majority leader Adam Hasner express his support for Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders   at a Tea Party event.  “We face right now an existential threat from Sharia compliant Islam” 

How is it possible that Senator Greg Ball (R-NY), chairman of the Veterans, Homeland Security & Military Affairs Committee could hold a hearing titled “Reviewing our Preparedness: An Examination of New York’s Public Protection Ten Years After September 11”  on April 8th, 2011, and think it made any sense at all to call as “experts” Rep. Peter King, Frank Gaffney, and Nonie Darwish.  Eleven democratic senators have sent a letter to Senator Ball objecting to the inclusion of such individuals.  You can see the full text of the letters back and forth here.  For some reason Darwish spoke at the event under the pseudonym “Nahid Hyde.” 

How is it possible that Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) could endorse the hate group ACT for America and Brigitte Gabriel?

How could Rep. Allen West, (R-FL) think it appropriate to meet with Brigitte Gabriel head of anti-Muslim group ACT! for America

How is it possible that the FBI could recommend Robert Spencer’s books for agents in training as part of a seriously biased training program?

How is it possible that the FBI could invite Robert Spencer to speak to the Tidewater Joint Terrorism Task Force, a combination of state, federal, and local law enforcement centered in Norfolk, Virginia.

How is it possible that the U.S. military thinks it makes sense to invite Robert Spencer to train U.S. Military Personnel in Kentucky

How is it possible that the US military’s Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) could think it made sense to invite Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America to speak as part of the JFSC’s Islam elective for American military and national security personnel.  At that training session she “taught” them that a good Muslim “cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.”  And, they “learned” that a Muslims oath of office is meanlingless because Islam justifies lying. 

How is it possible that the U.S. Air Force Academy could think it made sense to invite Walid Shoebat to speak at a week long conference on terrorism at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs?