Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a prize-winning
columnist. Domestically, he appears in the New York Sun and the
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. Abroad, he appears in Israel’s Jerusalem
Post, Italy’s L’Opinione, Spain’s La Razón, the Australian, and Canada’s
Globe and Mail.
His website, DanielPipes.org, is the single most accessed internet source of
specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. It offers an archive of
his work and an opportunity to sign-up to receive e-mails of his writings as
they appear.
The Wall Street Journal calls Mr. Pipes “an authoritative commentator on the
Middle East.” CBS Sunday Morning says he was “years ahead of the curve in
identifying the threat of radical Islam.” “Unnoticed by most Westerners,” he
wrote for example in 1995, “war has been unilaterally declared on Europe
and the United States.” The Boston Globe states that “If Pipes's admonitions
had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11.”
columnist. Domestically, he appears in the New York Sun and the
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. Abroad, he appears in Israel’s Jerusalem
Post, Italy’s L’Opinione, Spain’s La Razón, the Australian, and Canada’s
Globe and Mail.
His website, DanielPipes.org, is the single most accessed internet source of
specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. It offers an archive of
his work and an opportunity to sign-up to receive e-mails of his writings as
they appear.
The Wall Street Journal calls Mr. Pipes “an authoritative commentator on the
Middle East.” CBS Sunday Morning says he was “years ahead of the curve in
identifying the threat of radical Islam.” “Unnoticed by most Westerners,” he
wrote for example in 1995, “war has been unilaterally declared on Europe
and the United States.” The Boston Globe states that “If Pipes's admonitions
had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11.”
| Daniel Pipes |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2009 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Books by Daniel Pipes...
Counterterrorism in Obama's Washington
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
August 18, 2009
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
August 18, 2009
| Reprinted with permission |
Barack Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, conveniently
outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, "A New Approach for
Safeguarding Americans."
To start with, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual
tenor. "Sycophantic" is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes
either "President Obama," "he," "his," or "the president." Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought
or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean
functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader.
Specifics are no better. Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: "Even as we condemn and
oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs
and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent." Which legitimate needs and grievances,
one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents?
Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being "Al-Qaida and its allies" and the other "violent
extremism." But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter. This elementary mistake undermines his
entire analysis.
He also rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which
means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious
legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United
States is somehow at war with Islam itself."
This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S.
Air Command and Staff College, "is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign"
developed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes
between good jihad and bad jihad and denies any connection between Islam and terrorism.
It's a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists. The George
W. Bush administration, for all its mistakes, did not succumb to this ruse. But Brennan informs us that his boss
now bases U.S. policy on it.
The speech contains disquieting signs of ineptitude. We learn that Obama considers nuclear weapons in the
hands of terrorists to be "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." Fine. But how does he
respond? With three feeble and nearly irrelevant steps: "leading the effort for a stronger global nonproliferation
regime, launching an international effort to secure the world's vulnerable nuclear material …, and hosting a
global nuclear summit."
Nor can Brennan think straight. One example, requiring a lengthy quote.
"Poverty does not cause violence and terrorism. Lack of education does not cause terrorism. But just as there
is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents, there is no denying that when children have no hope for an
education, when young people have no hope for a job and feel disconnected from the modern world, when
governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to
ideologies of violence and death."
Summary: Poverty and a lack of education do not cause terrorism, but a lack of education and a job make
people more susceptible to the ideas leading to terrorism. What is the distinction? Woe on us when the White
House accepts illogic as analysis.
Further, let's focus on the statement, "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people,
then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death," for it contains two stunning errors.
First, it assumes the socialist fiction that governments provide basic needs. No. Other than in a few commodity-
rich states, governments protect and offer legal structures, while the market provides.
Second, every study on the subject finds no connection between personal stress (poverty, lack of education,
unemployment) and attraction to radical Islam. If anything, massive transfers of wealth to the Middle East since
1970 contributed to the rise of radical Islam. The administration is basing its policy on a falsehood.
Where, as they say, is the adult supervision? Implementation of the inept policies outlined by Brennan spells
danger for Americans, American interests, and American allies. The bitter consequences of these mistakes
soon enough will become apparent.
outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, "A New Approach for
Safeguarding Americans."
To start with, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual
tenor. "Sycophantic" is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes
either "President Obama," "he," "his," or "the president." Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought
or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean
functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader.
Specifics are no better. Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: "Even as we condemn and
oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs
and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent." Which legitimate needs and grievances,
one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents?
Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being "Al-Qaida and its allies" and the other "violent
extremism." But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter. This elementary mistake undermines his
entire analysis.
He also rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which
means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious
legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United
States is somehow at war with Islam itself."
This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S.
Air Command and Staff College, "is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign"
developed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes
between good jihad and bad jihad and denies any connection between Islam and terrorism.
It's a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists. The George
W. Bush administration, for all its mistakes, did not succumb to this ruse. But Brennan informs us that his boss
now bases U.S. policy on it.
The speech contains disquieting signs of ineptitude. We learn that Obama considers nuclear weapons in the
hands of terrorists to be "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." Fine. But how does he
respond? With three feeble and nearly irrelevant steps: "leading the effort for a stronger global nonproliferation
regime, launching an international effort to secure the world's vulnerable nuclear material …, and hosting a
global nuclear summit."
Nor can Brennan think straight. One example, requiring a lengthy quote.
"Poverty does not cause violence and terrorism. Lack of education does not cause terrorism. But just as there
is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents, there is no denying that when children have no hope for an
education, when young people have no hope for a job and feel disconnected from the modern world, when
governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to
ideologies of violence and death."
Summary: Poverty and a lack of education do not cause terrorism, but a lack of education and a job make
people more susceptible to the ideas leading to terrorism. What is the distinction? Woe on us when the White
House accepts illogic as analysis.
Further, let's focus on the statement, "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people,
then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death," for it contains two stunning errors.
First, it assumes the socialist fiction that governments provide basic needs. No. Other than in a few commodity-
rich states, governments protect and offer legal structures, while the market provides.
Second, every study on the subject finds no connection between personal stress (poverty, lack of education,
unemployment) and attraction to radical Islam. If anything, massive transfers of wealth to the Middle East since
1970 contributed to the rise of radical Islam. The administration is basing its policy on a falsehood.
Where, as they say, is the adult supervision? Implementation of the inept policies outlined by Brennan spells
danger for Americans, American interests, and American allies. The bitter consequences of these mistakes
soon enough will become apparent.