Naturally, Fox News is not happy that President Obama is not willing to pull a Trump and hurl nasty names at our terrorist enemies. Ralph Peters actually says Obama is spending too much time defending Islam and not enough time protecting Americans. Because, you know, every dirty insult helps the cause of freedom. Maybe, if we hurl enough verbal abuse at terrorists, it won’t matter that Republicans want to sell assault rifles to terrorists.
Appearing on Wednesday’s edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who once called President Obama “a total pussy,” took the president to task over his comments Tuesday regarding use of the phrase “radical Islam.†Obama called all the wasted verbiage on the subject a “political distraction,” and pointed out that using such divisive language will only make America less safe.
Not so, insists Ralph Peters.
Watch courtesy of Media Matters for America:
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
BILL HEMMER (HOST): [President Obama] addressed guns and labels in the fight. Did he address the strategy for eradicating the killers?
RALPH PETERS: No, because he doesn’t have one. Bill, I wish President Obama would spend more energy protecting Americans and a little bit less defending Islam. His claim was absolutely dishonest and disingenuous. The idea that the words wouldn’t make a positive difference. Indeed, using the correct terminology: “jihad,” “Islamist fanaticism,” “radical Islam.” And words like “takfir” and others that apply. That has legal implications. It has strategic implications, in fact. It has military implications. It has no end of important meanings. But let me turn it around, I’m glad to talk about specifically what difference it would make to call it what it is. But let’s —
HEMMER: But if Josh Earnest were sitting here, and he made this case two days ago at the White House. He said that they want to carry the mantle of this religion, and we are not going to allow them, afford them the opportunity to use that phrase. Now does that matter?
PETERS: Well it’s absolute nonsense to say something like that. Let’s turn it around. We have censored our law enforcement agencies. We have censored the Pentagon and our military. They can’t teach certain things. They can’t teach the history of jihad honestly. They can’t use these terms. The FBI is restricted from using certain terms. I would ask Mr. President, how does that help us? But beyond that, we have made nice for not only since Obama came to office but all the way back to 2001. The Bush administration was reluctant to use terms like “Islamist terrorism,” “jihad.” So for 15 years we have avoided calling this phenomenon what it is, and I would ask the president how has that helped? Are there fewer jihadis now? Are there fewer terror attacks? On the contrary. We’ve projected weakness, and there are, where there were a few thousand jihadis, there are now hundreds of thousands and tens of millions of sympathizers —
HEMMER: No question.
PETERS: And we’ve got to stop saying that this isn’t Islam. If we have no — Jews and Christians have no authority to say what is and isn’t Islam. Muslims have that authority, and hundreds of millions of Muslims believe that this is at least one part of Islam.
You will notice here that Ralph Peters believes words have power – but only certain words. We can’t, for example, talk about “right wing domestic terrorism,” even though the definition is spot on. But we can absolutely talk about “Islamist terrorism.” Peters said the president was being “dishonest and disingenuous” but Peters is himself guilty of both those things.
Peters’ insistence that name-calling has military implications is interesting, in that he draws the bizarre conclusion that because we haven’t been name-calling, terrorists haven’t gone away. You can re-read his words as often as you want, but that is what he is saying. By refusing to engage in name-calling, we appear weak, which invites more attacks and grows terrorist networks.
Therefore, if we go ahead and start calling them names, we’ll scare them away. I suspect, if Peters does not, that terrorists aren’t frightened by name-calling. Worse, apparently, Peters thinks ghettoizing Muslims and turning them into second-class citizens is going to make them love America, and support us rather than attack us.
As Obama said, we all know who the enemy is. Peters says the problem is worse but there have been no further 9/11s. We can properly identify the enemy and even defeat them without blaming an entire religion. The Islamic world did not go into mourning when Obama killed Osama bin Laden, and Islam should no more be blamed for the actions of a few than should Christianity.
After all, Peters doesn’t want Christianity blamed when it is a Christian shooter in the news, and let’s be honest here: most of the mass shootings in this country are at the hands of at least nominal Christians, not Muslims. Peters’ dishonesty and disingenuousness will no more solve our problems than name-calling.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson, a social liberal with leanings toward centrist politics has degrees in history and philosophy. His interests include, besides history and philosophy, human rights issues, freedom of choice, religion, and the precarious dichotomy of freedom of speech and intolerance. He brings a slightly different perspective to his writing, being that he is neither a follower of an Abrahamic faith nor an atheist but a polytheist, a modern-day Heathen who follows the customs and traditions of his Norse ancestors. He maintains his own blog, A Heathen’s Day, which deals with Heathen and Pagan matters, and Mos Maiorum Foundation www.mosmaiorum.org, dedicated to ethnic religion. He has also contributed to NewsJunkiePost, GodsOwnParty and Pagan+Politics.
