There’s no ‘extreme vetting,’ no outreach to moderates, and too much coziness with Riyadh, writes Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Wall Street Journal:
Candidate Donald Trump vowed to take a fresh approach to Islamic extremism. He ditched the politically correct language of the Obama administration by declaring that we were mired in an ideological conflict with radical Islam, which he likened to the totalitarian ideologies America had defeated in the 20th century.
Mr. Trump also promised, as part of his immigration policy, to put in place an “extreme vetting” system that screens for Islamic radicalism. He vowed to work with genuine Muslim reformers and concluded with the promise that one of his first acts as president would be “to establish a commission on radical Islam.”
Mr. Trump has had more than six months to make good on these pledges. He hasn’t gotten very far. The administration’s first move—a hastily drafted executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries—backfired when it was repeatedly blocked in court.
Worse, subsequent moves have tended to run counter to Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges. Aside from a new questionnaire for visa applicants, there has been no clarity regarding the promised “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants and visitors. The promise to work with and empower authentic Muslim reformers has gone nowhere. The status of the promised commission on radical Islam remains unclear.
Perhaps most discouragingly, the administration’s Middle Eastern strategy seems to involve cozying up to Saudi Arabia—for decades the principal source of funding for Islamic extremism around the world.
Some administration critics have blamed the loss of focus on Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who became White House national security adviser in February. The most charitable formulation of this criticism is that military men who slogged their way through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have an aversion to the argument that we face an ideological opponent, as opposed to a series of military problems.
But I put the responsibility on Mr. Trump. With regard to radical Islam, he simply seems to have lost interest.
Is all hope of a revamped policy on radical Islam lost? Not necessarily. Prominent members of Congress—among them Sens. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Reps. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.) and Trent Franks (R., Ariz.)—understand that Islamism must be confronted with ideas as well as arms.
And this need not be a partisan issue. In the early years after 9/11, Sens. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) worked together to analyze the threat of Islamist ideology. Even President Obama’s former representative to Muslim communities, Farah Pandith, who visited 80 countries between 2009 and 2014, wrote in 2015: “In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence . . . Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams.” In 2016, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) sounded the alarm over Islamist indoctrination in Pakistan, noting that thousands of schools funded with Saudi money “teach a version of Islam that leads . . . into an . . . anti-Western militancy.”
We have already seen one unexpected outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington this summer, over tightening sanctions on Russia in retaliation for President Vladimir Putin’s many aggressions.
I propose that the next item of cross-party business should be for Congress to convene hearings on the ideological threat of radical Islam. “Who wants America on offense, with a coherent and intelligible strategy?” Newt Gingrich asked in 2015, when he called for such hearings. Then as now, if the executive branch isn’t willing—if the president has forgotten his campaign commitments—lawmakers can and should step up to the plate.
John Galt III
"Islamist" I always stop reading when I see the above word.
Rebecca, I am drawn back to your speech in 2009 which began, "In describing Islam, many political commentators use words like radical, political, extremist or militant as qualifying adjectives or they use the words Islamism or Islamo-fascism in order to specify their criticism of the political side of Islam and to carefully exhibit no hostility toward Islam as a religion. This approach caters to the prevailing political orthodoxy by implying that there is an overwhelming majority of Muslims devoted to the good religious Islam with only a small subset of extremists fighting for the bad political Islam, which Muslims themselves don’t necessarily endorse. We call this the “two Islams formula.”" It seems that not much has changed in 8 years.
I think a lot of people know the truth, but think it is advantageous to lie for a variety of reasons.
Indeed, Trump seems to have lost his way when dealing with the supremacism embedded in Islam. It would be helpful if Republican senators Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, Don DeSantis, Trent Franks, along with Democratic senators Jon Kyl, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer would actually form an congressional investigation that focuses on the motivation supremacists get from Allah's revelations, Muhammad's actions (Hadith and Sira), and Islamic imperialism throughout the ages.
I'd much rather see conservative think tankers than military brass and executives as advisors, but then intellectuals and Trump don't mix.
It is clear that Islam is misclassified as a religion. It is also clear that Donald Trump has met too much resistance in dealing with it and has more or less given up. My own view is that western civilisation has become old, decadent and exhausted and is now bent on self-destruction - not so much suicide by cop, more suicide by Islam.