Why We Can’t Defeat ISIS. By John Daniel Davidson.

Why We Can’t Defeat ISIS. By John Daniel Davidson. The Federalist, December 10, 2015.

Davidson:

If ISIS is going to be defeated, Muslims themselves must do it.

The mass shooting in San Bernardino last week should have confirmed what many Americans still refuse to accept: we can’t defeat ISIS.

That doesn’t mean we couldn’t destroy ISIS as an organization. A modest deployment of troops and materiel in Syria and Iraq would be sufficient. President Obama, in his determination to secure a legacy as the president who got us out of Iraq, refuses to do this. But it could be done.

That still wouldn’t solve the real problem, which isn’t ISIS’s territory but its ideology. ISIS would give way to another group, perhaps a resurgent al-Qaeda or maybe something worse. From the many-headed hydra of Islamic extremism would come a new threat, aimed at the West and at moderate Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, and we would once again be debating whether to deploy troops abroad.

The violent interpretation of Islam that animates groups like ISIS—and individual Muslims like Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters—is not going away simply because we defeat ISIS on the battlefield, or proclaim, as Obama did Sunday night, that it “does not speak for Islam.” Our president is no more qualified to decide which Muslim groups espouse a correct interpretation of Islam than is our Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Sunday called members of ISIS “apostates.”

No. American political leaders, like pundits, are not in a position to weigh the doctrinal merits of ISIS. If ISIS is going to be defeated, Muslims themselves must do it—not just with bullets and bombs, but with a version of their faith that rejects political Islam and jihadist violence once and for all.

Many Muslims Aren’t Moderate

That won’t be easy, because the virtue of radical Islam, and ISIS, is disputed among Muslims across the world. True, the vast majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims might reject Islamic supremacist ideology of the kind ISIS preaches, but there are tens of millions (perhaps far more) who embrace some version of it.

One recent poll from Pew illustrated the enormity of the challenge facing moderates. The poll asked Muslims in eleven countries with significant Muslim populations their opinion of ISIS. While majorities in every country except Pakistan had an unfavorable view of the group, a significant portion of respondents expressed favor (Turkey, 8 percent; Malaysia, 11 percent; Nigeria, 14 percent). Turkey, a country of nearly 75 million, is 98.6 percent Muslim, which means about 6 million Muslims in Turkey have a favorable view of ISIS.

In Pakistan, which is 96.4 percent Muslim, the results were even more shocking. Nine percent expressed a favorable view of ISIS, while 62 percent responded, “don’t know.” That means more than 70 percent of those polled, in a country with more than 175 million Muslims, were unwilling to express an unfavorable view of ISIS.

These poll numbers fit with a 2013 Pew poll of Muslim attitudes on a range of issues. In Egypt, 29 percent agreed that suicide bombing in defense of Islam is “often/sometimes justified.” That share represents more than 23 million people.

Islam Is Not a Monolithic Religion

Obama claims ISIS does not speak for Islam, but no one body or institution speaks for Islam. Muslims do not have the equivalent of a Catholic Pope or a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to settle doctrinal disputes.

But it’s hard to believe the president when you hear about men like Maulana Abdul Aziz, chief cleric of Islamabad’s Red Mosque. Last December, Aziz, who has no direct connection to the leadership of ISIS, made it clear that he and his followers respect ISIS and that “we support the organization which wants to implement the Islamic system.”

As it happens, authorities now believe Tashfeen Malik had some connection to Aziz’s mosque in her native Pakistan, where last November students at Jamia Hafsa, the mosque’s female seminary, released a video declaring their support for ISIS and asking Pakistani militants to join up with the group. On December 2, around the time of the attack, Malik posted a similar message on Facebook declaring her allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

All of which to say: Malik and Farook were not “self-radicalized,” they were radicalized by a specific Islamic doctrines that are compelling to millions of Muslims worldwide. The struggle against ISIS is therefore much more than a question of military tactics. It’s a question of ideas, of what the best version of Islam is, or is going to be in the future.

Certain ideas about Islam, after all, led Farook and Malik to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition, amass the tools and wherewithal to build pipe bombs, legally purchase semiautomatic rifles, leave behind their infant daughter, and launch an attack on unarmed Americans at a holiday office party. Those ideas can’t be dismissed lightly by political leaders with an agenda; they’re stronger than politics because they strike at the heart of how a person understands the world, God, and the purpose of his life.

Right Now, Muslim Leaders Aren’t Standing Up

Alas, moderate Muslim leaders in America don’t appear to be up for engaging in a war of ideas about their faith. Almost immediately after the attack in San Bernardino, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in the greater Los Angeles area, expressed bafflement about the shooters’ possible motives, surmising it could be anything from a workplace grievance to mental illness to some kind of “twisted ideology.”

He didn’t mention that perhaps Farook and his wife—along with the Pakistani cleric Aziz, Michigan-based cleric Ahmad Musa Jibril, and dozens of Saudi Arabian clerics—support ISIS and believe its version of political Islam is correct. But if moderate Muslims hope to discredit the “twisted ideology” of ISIS among their fellow Muslims, they’ll need to start talking openly about the doctrines and worldview that accompanies it.

They will have to explain, to other Muslims and to a candid world, why political Islam and its various strains of apocalyptic teachings are a thing of the past. They will have to articulate what Islam’s future should be. This will be a generational, global struggle among Muslims—and it won’t be accomplished during the tenure of any one American president.

One might compare what faces Islam today to what Christianity faced in the fourth century in the form of Arianism, a teaching that denied the full divinity of Christ and held that Jesus was not God by nature but a creature susceptible to change. By denying the Trinity and positing a rational relationship between the Father and the Son, Arianism had a certain political appeal for a string of Roman emperors who were more concerned with preserving the unity of the church—and therefore the empire—than with theological distinctions about the nature of Christ.

It would take centuries to purge Christianity of the Arian heresy. At one point, it officially dominated the Roman Empire. But in the end, Trinitarian theology prevailed, in part because Christian leaders knew the Arian teaching that Christ was merely an exalted creature would ultimately destroy the gospel. The opponents of Arianism, in other words, knew they were fighting for the very soul of their religion.

So too with Muslims today. ISIS isn’t just fighting for territory, it’s fighting for Islam’s future. If moderate Muslims have a different and better vision for their religion, they’d better start fighting back.

Moderate Islam’s Real Litmus Test? Israel. By Liel Leibovitz.

Moderate Islam’s Real Litmus Test? Israel. By Liel Leibovitz. Tablet, December 7, 2015.

Leibovitz:

The San Bernardino shooter’s father teaches us a painful lesson about unchecked bigotry.

Has the American Dream a better ambassador than Syed Farook? The father of suspected San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook arrived from Pakistan in 1973, determined to make a better life for himself and his family. He earned a degree in engineering, worked hard, and raised his children; one of them, Syed Raheel Farook, joined the Navy and, for his dedicated service, was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. All the evidence we have right now, then, suggests that Farook, Sr. is the embodiment of the genus decent people everywhere so desperately seek, the moderate Muslim. In a recent interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Farook played the part well, declaring himself in complete despair and disbelief over his son’s alleged massacre.

How, then, did Farook soothe his son when junior ranted about Israel?

“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient,” Farook, Sr. told his interviewer, “because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.”

It’s hardly appealing to judge a bereaved father—even the father of an alleged homicidal maniac—in his time of grief, but Farook’s comments are telling. They reveal a fundamental flaw in the convenient dichotomy we’ve set up for ourselves, insisting that Muslims came in two shades—good and moderate, bad and murderous—and that it was our duty as enlightened and gentle folk to sort the two out lest some drooling bigot jump to the wrong conclusion.

To better understand this predicament, contemplate the following scenario: imagine hearing someone described as a moderate Christian conservative, except that he looks forward to all the homosexuals being rounded up in the near future and shipped off to Monaco. Or imagine a so-called moderate white guy saying that while white Americans have tried and failed to keep blacks down by means of violence, there’s nothing to worry about because sooner or later the blacks will all be stacked into boats and shipped back to Africa. If you heard this, you would likely be appalled, and then declare that while you can think of quite a few adjectives to describe the person in question, “moderate” is certainly not one of them.

And yet, when it comes to moderate Muslims, we view Jew-hating as understandable, even acceptable. In Bedfordshire, England, for example, the local police launched a social media campaign to promote tolerance and diversity, featuring an officer standing side by side in solidarity with Qadeer Baskh, the chairman of the local Luton Islamic Centre. Jews, that institution’s website makes clear, are the “brethren of swine and pigs,” who “strive their utmost to corrupt the beliefs, morals, and manners of Muslims” and must therefore be vanquished. You can hear similar opinions from celebrated moderates in Amman, Cairo, Brooklyn, and elsewhere.

These vile statements, usually, are explained away by mumbling something about the occupation or Gaza or the lasting effect of a strange religious conflict over some faraway land none of us well-heeled westerners have any business trying to understand. That’s a travesty. A tiny religious minority group with its own independent national existence, Jews are the Middle East’s essential others. A failure to think of them in any other way but yearning for their destruction, and you could neither call yourself a moderate nor hope to ever strike roots in a democratic society that still believes in the bounties of peace, pluralism, and liberty.

It’s time, then, for a new litmus test. It’s this: No moderate Muslim should ever reject the state of Israel’s right to exist. Criticism, even of the vociferous kind, is fair and welcome; fantasies about huddled Jewish masses banished to the Ukraine aren’t. If you fail to pass this simple test, it’s only a matter of time before you or someone you love picks up a gun and goes gunning for the Jews, the Jews-for-Jesus, the Christians, and all the others who do not share your hateful worldview.

Ben Sasse Shows How to Talk About Radical Islam. By Nicholas M. Gallagher.

Ben Sasse Shows How to Talk About Radical Islam. By Nicholas M. Gallagher. The American Interest, December 9, 2015.

Gallagher:

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) went to San Bernardino and gave a speech that deserves notice from everyone who is thinking about America’s decade and a half-old (and counting) conflict with radical Islam. It’s now up on YouTube:

The most important part (transcript via the Weekly Standard):

I am not a Muslim but as an American I stand and defend the rights of American Muslims to freely worship even though we differ about important theological matters. In America we are free to believe different things and to argue about those beliefs. It matters what you think about the nature of God and whether he’s revealed himself, what you think about salvation matters, heaven and hell matters, but these things are so important that we don’t try to solve them by violence. And we come together as a community, a community of Americans who believe in the constitutional creed, to unite around those core American values like freedom of religion.

We are most certainly though at war with militant Islam. We are at war with the violent Islam. We are at war with jihadi Islam. We are not at war with all Muslims. We’re not at war with Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan who want the American dream for their kids. But we are at war with those who believe that they will kill in the name of religion.

If this speech were to change the way Americans talk about the war on terror, Sasse will have performed a service to the nation. To see how, look at two moments from seminal speeches since 2001.

After September 11, President Bush declared that terrorists “hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” Bush had touched on something vital: Radical Islamists hated those things because they see them not as freedoms, but as grave wrongs—as invitations to apostasy, atheism, and libertinism. The problem was, he never fully fleshed this out. As a result, this speech became easy to caricature in later years: That simpleton Bush couldn’t possibly imagine why anyone would have a beef with the U.S., so he invented a cartoon enemy.

But just because Bush was inarticulate, doesn’t mean he wasn’t on to something. Radical Islamism identifies as good that which we identify as evil, and vice versa. In doing so, Islamic radicals are like many of America’s past enemies—Nazis, Communists—who also espoused a cohesive worldview diametrically opposed to America’s classical liberalism. And it is this moral and politico-religious frame that many Americans feel has been missing from this conflict. Bush left many legacies, but an enduring frame for the global conflict against radical Islam was not one of them. He spent much of his Presidency trying to fight particular states and terror groups. His Wilsonian belief that the desire for democracy dwelt in every heart, and that, given a chance to flourish, it would cure the Middle East’s ills, also caused him to underestimate just how deep the problems in the Islamic world run.

President Barack Obama, for his part, has veered between downplaying the conflict as a whole (Matt Yglesias, as recently as this week, characterized the President as attempting “to meet the psychological needs of a frightened nation” while not engaging in actions that are “widely counterproductive”) and sweeping pronouncements on Islam (“ISIL is not Islamic.”) The damage that these tactics—which to many smack of deliberate obtuseness—have done to the public’s trust in the government is increasingly acknowledged by both Left and Right.

But less recognized is how President Obama misses opportunities to present America’s viewpoint to the Islamic world. Take, for example, his 2009 Cairo speech. Heavy on rhetorical gestures that he (and, by extension, America) understood the Islamic world, the speech simply took for granted that the Islamic world understood America’s philosophy:

I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

But to radical Islamists, “the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed” is seen, as it was in Medieval Europe, as an invitation to error, misrule, and license. Similarly, freedom of religion, which Obama went on to extoll, is seen as the road to apostasy. Like Bush, but unlike Sasse, Obama did not explain why America believes these things. Instead, by acting like there’s shared ground (“all people yearn for certain things”) where none exists, Obama tried to pretend there isn’t a theological controversy where there is one.

This approach—pretending that everyone in the world (excepting perhaps a fringe minority) on some level agrees with America’s founding principles—has become a hallmark of Obama’s approach to the problem of radical Islam. But until the basic controversy over right and wrong is acknowledged, and America’s viewpoint fully explicated, it will be very hard for American leaders to persuade the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims, who are caught in a civilizational crisis, to understand what we are offering, what we are asking of them, and why. Just as importantly, to many Americans, the Obama approach seems like papering over a serious problem with platitudes.

Sasse, who has a Ph.D. in history from Yale but also ran a small, Lutheran college in Middle America, is offering a way to thread the needle. On the one hand, his speech shows how to reassure a frightened American public while respecting our Constitutional obligation not to be sectarian. On the other, it demonstrates how to explain our worldview cogently and firmly to a Muslim world in turmoil. As Sasse explained, America’s freedoms, such as freedom of speech, are not libertine declarations that we do not care for higher truth, but rather are integral to the search for it. Knowledge of God is vital to human life, but impossible to find or enforce by the sword. Therefore, free examination and freedom of conscience are our best hope. This belief, born out of the wars of the Christian Reformation, was the tradition in which America’s founders, both Revolutionary and colonial, wrote the First Amendment and in which they framed our democracy as providing a chance to adhere more closely to what one thought was a good and true life, very much including a religious life. This wisdom has been confirmed by American history, as groups such as Roman Catholics and Mormons, whose religions had previously been thought to be incompatible with pluralism, have lived and prospered under this approach. And as Sasse rightly points out, millions of American Muslims today thrive in their faith under this same liberal tradition.

Sasse is at once more humble in his ambitions than our current crop of leaders (he doesn’t claim to understand Islam better than many leading Islamic scholars, for instance), and more effective in his outreach. By connecting with America’s history and the importance of religion in ordinary Americans’ lives, the Senator reassures the country that he “gets” it. From there, he builds a way of viewing the conflict that Americans of all faiths can understand and rally around. Finally, he provides fruitful ground for outreach, by establishing common ground—care for the questions that all religions try to answer—before expressing differences and concerns. Insisting that Islam doesn’t really matter (or is just a flag of convenience for crazies) hasn’t been working, at home or abroad. Perhaps it’s time to take a cue from Senator Sasse and try something different.

Senator Ben Sasse: “We Are at War With Militant Islam.”

Sasse: “We Are at War with Militant Islam.” Video and transcript. Sasse.Senate.gov, December 8, 2015. YouTube.

Ben Sasse responds from San Bernardino. Video. Ben Sasse, December 7, 2015. YouTube.

Ben Sasse Shows How to Talk About Radical Islam. By Nicholas M. Gallagher. The American Interest, December 9, 2015.

You Don’t Want to Miss What This Senator Said About the San Bernardino Attack. The Federalist, December 9, 2015.

President Obama Should Have Given Senator Ben Sasse’s Speech. By Peter Feaver. Foreign Policy, December 8, 2015.

Ben Sasse: Americans are turning to demagogues like Trump because their current leadership is terrible on terror. By AllahPundit. Hot Air, December 9, 2015.

Republican Senator Delivers Rebuttal to Obama from San Bernardino. By Daniel Halper. The Weekly Standard, December 7, 2015.

Remarks in the Senate as prepared for delivery:

I rise today to speak about San Bernardino; about the decades-long fight that our free society now faces; and about our dangerous unwillingness to tell the truth about the nature of this battle – about who our enemy is.

We are at war.

The American people already know this. Our enemies obviously know this. It is only this town – where our so-called leaders dawdle and bicker, pander and misprioritize – it is only this town that seems confused. Washington ignores what it cannot escape.

And that is both a tragedy and a crisis. Because no war is winnable when you pretend that you are not even in one.

Let’s start by admitting that this war is different from most wars of the past. This is not about borders or territory. This is not about gold or other material goods.

We typically think about state actors, about traditional governments going to war with traditional governments. In this war, however, the enemy includes many non-state actors – many armed groups who are developing global reach in this flatter, technologically-linked modern world.

Our enemy is merciless and barbaric. They are willing to kill people who are not on traditional battlefields. They will kill non-combatants. They will kill women and children. They will kill at holiday parties and restaurants, at Jewish delis and at sports stadiums.

Just as sadly as the evolution of enemies, though, this war is hard for the American people to get our heads around because right now we have so much confusion – so much drift, so much orphanhood – in understanding exactly who we are – and what precisely we are defending.

This body, the Congress, tries to do far too many things, and we do few of them well. But when there are really important things we should be doing, well then folks seem unable to muster the time or energy or will to focus diligently on the big task.

Today, we have such a big task sitting right in front of us.

And I would humbly suggest that before another person in this body – or in the national media – stands up to scold the American people about how they could possibly entertain voting for candidate x or y, perhaps we should look in the mirror at why so many of our people are running to demagoguing leaders.

Do senators really not understand why this is happening? I think it’s obvious why: Because they get so little actual leadership out of this town – out of either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, or out of either political party.

Make no mistake: There were some genuinely dreadful things said on the national stage yesterday. But they were almost totally predictable. Did anyone here really not see this coming? And why is it that these words are attractive to some? Why do they find so many followers? Because they are comforting to people who are scared. They are food to a people who are starved for real leadership.

Sunday night was a drought. Monday night was a flood. Neither are what the people need – or what they, at their best, want. But don’t be surprised that a people who are being misled by a political class in denial about the nature of this fight comes then quickly to desire very different, much more muscular words and utopian pledges.

This town’s conversations are so often completely disconnected from the people.

You want to know what people calling my office – and stopping me in the grocery store since Paris and now since San Bernardino – want to talk about? They want to talk about what sharia law is – and how many Muslims believe in it. It’s a fair question for moms to ask.

And they want to talk about American Exceptionalism – who are we; what are we for; what are we against? What unites us?

We should talk more about these things. For a few minutes tonight, let’s just step briefly beyond this media cycle and look at where we stand.

This is a clash of civilizations— a fight between free people and a totalitarian movement. And let me say clearly that recognizing a clash of civilizations is not the same as wanting one.

We are free and our enemies hate it. They hate that my wife leaves our home. They hate that my daughters know how to read. They hate that we decided where we would go to church on Sunday.

They hate us not because of any particular thing we have done, by omission or by commission; they hate us because of who we are.

They hate us because we have a Constitution that enshrines our freedoms. And it is this Constitution that we should be fighting to defend. We should fight to defend the framework that has secured freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly for more than two hundred years – not initially judging every man by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin, but eventually guiding us beyond this American original sin and toward a more perfect union.

This weekend, I went to San Bernardino. My wife and I laid flowers at a memorial that has popped up on a sidewalk outside the site where 35 of our neighbors bled this week. Fourteen of them died in this massacre.

We talked to our American neighbors there in a neighborhood that should not be a part of a war zone. But a neighborhood that will now forever be a battlefield memorial.

Some of the people grieving there wondered aloud to us: Why are our politicians so small, so mealy-mouthed? One Marine asked my wife if Washington really even cares about the victims of jihadi attacks like this. One woman asked why no one in Washington seems to be a full-throated lover of America.

They are wrong, of course, about the caring and the loving. But they can be forgiven for wondering why we are so unable to be full-throated about the big stuff.

We owe to those who died this week to tell the truth about the nature of this conflict. We owe it to those fourteen; we owe it to their families. We owe it to the service men and women in uniform who are abroad right now fighting for our freedom, some of whom will come home in caskets. We owe to the families of those who haven’t yet died – but will – in the next jihadi attack on our homeland.

For it is coming.

All adults know that the next attack is coming. You don’t need to see the classified briefings some of us see to know that the future is dangerous. The San Bernardino fourteen will not be the last Americans to bleed and die – in our homeland – because we are a free society.

And so we should tell the truth about the enemy we face. We should tell the truth about them but we should also dig down to be honest about who we are; we should reaffirm our core values.

We are not at war with terrorism, which is just a tactic. We are not at war with some empty sociological label called extremism.

We are not even just at war with ISIS — though we're obviously at war with ISIS — but there will be other enemies that will lift the black flag of death in the future even after ISIS has been routed in Syria and Iraq.

This is not about workplace violence. This is not about global warming or gun shows. This is not about income inequality. This is not about kids from broken homes, as tragic as that is, at home or abroad.

Again, against a whole load of hand-wringing mush, we need to remember that this attack -- and the next attack -- are not about anything that we have done wrong. This is about who we are. This is about the nature of freedom.

So who are we? We are people who unite around the Constitution. We are people who come together around the 1st Amendment, and we together, 320 million of us, believe in the freedom of religion, in the freedom of speech, in freedom of assembly, in the freedom of the press.

I am a Christian. I am not a Muslim. But I am also in this life an American, and I have taken an oath to the Constitution. And so, as an American, I stand and defend the rights of American Muslims to freely worship even though we differ about important theological matters.

In America, we are free to believe different things, and to argue about those beliefs. It matters what you think about the nature of God, and whether he has revealed himself. What you think about salvation matters. Heaven and hell matter. But these things are actually so important, that we don’t try to solve any of them by violence.

America is about the right to argue about our differences with our neighbors. But to make those arguments free from violence. We in this land, under this Constitutional creed, come together as a community of Americans to unite around the core American values, of freedom of religion, and speech, and assembly, and press.

So now, as it is emphatically and indisputably clear that we are not at war with all Muslims, let’s tell the truth that we most certainly are at war with militant Islam. We are at war with violent Islam. We are at war with jihadi Islam. We are at war with those who believe in killing in the name of religion.

This is in fact precisely what America means: It is about being free to raise your kids, free to build a corner store, free to worship and assemble without the fear of violence. And so can argue about religion. Because many of us disagree.

But then we come together as Americans to protect each other, to defend each other against religious killing.

There are many hand-wringers in Washington who refuse to name the enemy we face. They refuse to admit that we are at war with militant Islam, with jihadi Islam, with violent Islam. They dance around platitudes and empty labels, hiding behind a worry (an understandable worry) that Muslims in America could face backlash.

I share this fear. And I believe that telling the truth about who is, and who is not, our enemy is actually the only sure pathway to avoiding that danger.

I think that those who refuse to tell the truth about our enemy – those who will nonsensically claim that the next jihadi attack is somehow just another random case of workplace violence – are making the backlash far more likely, not less likely.

Here's how I think this backlash happens: the people who are supposed to be laser-focused on protecting us (that’s us) mouth more silly platitudes that show that we’re either too weak or too confused to keep our people safe.

Then, a megalomaniac strongman steps forward and starts screaming about travel bans and deportations and he promise to keep us safe, which, to some (and actually to many more than most of you seem to understand) sounds better than not being protected at all.

You want to stop Islamaphobia? Stop lecturing Americans that they’re supposedly stupid to be frightened about jihadis who actually do want to bomb their sporting event. And instead use your pen and phone as Commander-in-Chief to start telling us what your plan is to find and kill those who would do us harm. Start telling us what your actual plan is to have a Middle Eastern map that isn’t generating more failed states that become terrorist training camps.

This country invented religious liberty--we're the most tolerant nation the world has ever seen. Our people want a little less elite sermonizing about tolerance in our communities, and a little more articulation of our shared Constitutional principles – and a lot more articulating of an actual battle plan.

If you’re worried about backlash – if you’re worried about obviously over-the-top rhetoric from unserious political candidates – perhaps it would be useful if those of us who have the actual job of protecting the Constitution told the truth.

We should be clear about who we are and about the freedoms we stand for. And we should be clear about those who would try to kill us because we believe in these freedoms.

We are at war with militant or jihadi Islam, but we are not at war with people who believe in the American creed, which includes the right of everybody of every religion to freely worship and to freely speak, and to freely assemble and argue. We are not at war with all Muslims. We are not at war with Muslim families in Lincoln and Dearborn who want the American Dream amid a pluralistic society for their kids. But we are most certainly at war with those who want to spread a variety of religion that aims to motivate the killing and the freedom-taking of other Americans.

This fight will be decades long. And we will win it. But not by denying that the fight exists. We will not win it by being mushy – about either who we are or who they are. We will win it instead by being clearer – about both who they are, and who we are. We will win it by reaffirming our core Constitutional values. We will win it because of who we are – a people who believe in freedom, and a people who are willing to fight and even to die to preserve a a free society for all Americans.

MacBeth includes that aching line life “is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” The context is an aimless people, drifting from who they are, drifting toward nihilism signifying nothing.

This should not be us. This cannot be us.

For America does signify something. Something special. The belief that everyone— Christian, Jew, Muslim, black, white, man, woman, rich, poor, first-generation, fifth-generation— everyone is endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Government is our shared project in safeguarding those rights. Our Constitution – our shared creed – gives us a framework for ordered liberty. When politicians – whether incumbents who have forgotten their oaths, or candidates trying to run merely on the bluster of their personality – don’t talk about the Constitution, when they don’t defend first principles, when they refuse to prefer substance over soundbites – when we nonsensically say that our enemy has nothing to do with Islam or conversely that every Muslim is prejudged guilty – then our national conversation crumbles into simple sound and fury.

That is not us. For we are Americans.

Welcome to Barack Obama’s America. By Ben Domenech.

Welcome to Barack Obama’s America. By Ben Domenech. The Federalist, December 8, 2015.

Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion. By Andrew C. McCarthy.

Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion. By Andrew C. McCarthy. National Review Online, December 8, 2015.

Why Do These Young Muslims Hate Us? By Hisham Melhem.

Why Do These Young Muslims Hate Us? By Hisham Melhem. Politico, December 7, 2015.

The Key to Crushing ISIS. By Anatol Lieven.

The Key to Crushing ISIS. By Anatol Lieven. New York Times, December 3, 2015.

Divide and Conquer in Syria and Iraq. By Barak Mendelsohn. Foreign Affairs, November 29, 2015.

Will drawing new borders create and sustain peace? By Sholto Byrnes. The National [U.A.E.], December 8, 2015.

Mass Murder and Identity Politics. By Victor Davis Hanson.

Mass Murder and Identity Politics. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review Online, December 7, 2015.

Dispelling the “Few Extremists” Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate. By David French.

Dispelling the “Few Extremists” Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate. By David French. National Review Online, December 7, 2015.

The Deadly Link Between San Bernardino and Pakistan. By Arif Jamal.

The deadly link between San Bernardino and Pakistan. By Arif Jamal. DW, December 5, 2015.

DW and Jamal:

The link between California shooters and Pakistan has once again highlighted the danger the country poses as a terror exporter. US-based Islamism expert Arif Jamal tells DW why Washington can no longer ignore the threat.

DW: What sort of links did San Bernardino shooters Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook have with radical Islamist groups in Pakistan, and how much did they influence the killings?

Arif Jamal: We still do not have authentic information on the links between the San Bernardino mass shooters and radical Islamist groups in Pakistan or elsewhere. Tashfeen Malik was a relatively liberal and modern woman for her family in Pakistan’s Punjab province until a couple of years ago. Several members of her family reportedly belong to the terrorist outfit Ahlay Sunnat Wal Jamaat – formerly known as Sipah-e-Sahaba (the Army of the Prophet’s Companions) – but there is so far no evidence that she was also an ASWJ member.

Also, the Bahauddin Zakariya University in the city of Multan, where Malik had studied, is a hub of Islamist groups. Although indoctrination must have started much earlier, we see a radical change in her a few years ago, particularly after she moved to the United States. It seems the couple was actually indoctrinated by American Islamic organizations. Islamic organizations conveniently blame Western foreign policies for the rise of jihadism.

How do you analyze the claim by the “Islamic State” (IS) that its “supporters” carried out the attack in the US? What does IS mean by “supporters”?

It is highly plausible that the San Bernardino shooters were influenced by the IS call to take up arms against the infidel West without the practical support from the Middle Eastern militant group. In fact, the available evidence is clearly leading to this conclusion. The IS call for jihad against the West is actually directed at people who are already indoctrinated and need a push to carry out violence. The IS seems to be succeeding in its strategy to destabilize the Western countries.

It’s been reported that Tashfeen Malik had met with IS supporter and cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz in Islamabad. Why do Pakistani authorities continue to ignore the threat posed by pro-IS clerics and organizations in the country?

The reports of her links with Aziz of Islamabad’s Red Mosque, which is affiliated with the IS, do not seem to be authentic. They are attributed to nameless sources in London and appear to be mere speculation. US officials do not seem to have any such knowledge. As we know that the shooters were influenced by IS and its ideology, it is quite possible that they had had some links with the Red Mosque clerics. If there were any links between the shooters and the Red Mosque, they were more likely ideological.

What is driving Muslims living in the US toward groups like IS?

The most important reason behind the Muslims’ fascination with jihadism in the US and elsewhere is their victimhood syndrome. Jihadism teaches them that the failures of Muslims as individuals and as an ummah (community) are caused by the infidels, who must be fought against, as Islamic scriptures order them.

To what extent is Saudi Wahhabism, which many experts believe provides ideological impetus to global jihadi groups, influencing American Muslims?

The Wahhabist and Salafist interpretations of the Quran and hadith are at the root of the rise of modern global jihadism. Unlike other Islamic denominations, Wahhabism and Salafism teach the literal interpretation of the Islamic scriptures. Salafism aims at establishing a caliphate similar to the earliest time in the Islamic history, when the Muslims were constantly at war with the rest of the world. The three biggest jihadist organizations – IS, Jamaat ud-Dawa (or Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Boko Haram – are Salafist.

What, in your opinion, would be the repercussions of the San Bernardino killings on Pakistanis and Muslims living in the US?

Muslims in America have come under severe pressure from the society. There have been some attacks on mosques and Islamic centers. Muslim Americans have reported that the atmosphere in their offices has become tense. Some have told me that they never faced such backlash since the 9/11 attacks. Since one of the two shooters was a woman, Muslim women have also become suspect in the eyes of non-Muslim Americans. Muslim women were not subject to such hateful treatment before.

Will the Obama administration pressure Islamabad to crack down on Islamist radical groups or will it continue with its softer approach toward its ally?

The Obama administration is likely to increase pressure on Pakistan to rein in jihadist groups and close the jihadist factories, but it is highly unlikely it will work in the absence of some sort of economic and military sanctions. The verbal pressure has not worked in the last 15 to 25 years. We may see some halfhearted action by Pakistani authorities against the Red Mosque group if there is enough evidence of their involvement in this shooting. Nothing more.

Arif Jamal is an independent US-based journalist and author of several books, including “Call For Transnational Jihad: Lashkar-e-Taiba, 1985-2014.”

The interview was conducted by Shamil Shams.

California Killings: What Kind of Mother Would Do This? By Margaret Wente.

California killings: What kind of mother would do this? By Margaret Wente. The Globe and Mail, December 7, 2015.

Wente:

What kind of mother would say goodbye to her six-month-old daughter, then drive with her husband to his workplace one morning to calmly, deliberately slaughter as many of his co-workers as possible?

Tashfeen Malik was that kind of mother. It was she who evidently radicalized her husband. It was she who was first to open fire. It was she who declared her loyalty to Islamic State in a Facebook post, and fired back at the police before the couple were mowed down in a hail of bullets.

The slaughter in San Bernardino introduced a new face – and phase – of terrorism. It was the first IS-inspired attack on American soil, committed not on military targets but, as in Paris, on ordinary civilians. Yet the immediate knee-jerk responses were entirely predictable. Guns are the problem! No, refugees are the problem! Just get rid of guns (or refugees) and we won’t have to worry.

Tighter gun control and better border screening would both, no doubt, be good things. But neither of them would solve the terrorism problem. And both liberals and conservatives are evading the central issue: What kind of new mother would do this?

Up here in Canada, we like to think that America’s gun culture is the source of all its social ills. So here are just a few quick facts. The San Bernardino couple’s arsenal of guns and ammo was, as a writer for The Nation put it, “as American as apple pie.” They purchased their guns legally and passed all the background checks. Such arsenals are common, and most are owned by Republicans. People are not going to give them up. Serious gun reform is impossible in the U.S. without repealing the Second Amendment, and that’s not going to happen. Nor would gun reform be likely to deter terrorists. France’s strict gun laws didn’t stop the carnage in Paris.

Conservatives don’t want to ban guns. They want to ban refugees, along with immigrants from suspicious countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. That won’t stop terrorist attacks either. Most terrorists in Europe and North America – including Ms. Malik’s husband, Syed Farook – are of the home-grown variety. They’re the offspring of people (often secular, educated, and horrified by their children’s deeds) who came here years ago. Ms. Malik, who was an immigrant from Pakistan, passed all the usual background checks.

There are more than seven million Pakistani emigrants around the world. Most are good guys. Pakistan’s radical Muslim groups were a problem long before Islamic State came along, but the West is powerless to rein them in. The West has pressured Pakistan for years to move against them, but it hasn’t worked.

Barack Obama doesn’t have the answers either. On Sunday night he addressed the country in an effort to look as if he’s on top of things. I’m not sure he convinced people. Iraq and Syria are in ruins, and Libya is an outlaw non-state. Afghanistan has reverted to its former chaos. A monumental U.S. effort to train and arm some good guys to fight in Syria produced exactly nothing. Butcher Bashar al-Assad is still in power, IS is still on the rampage, and the refugees are still fleeing. No wonder he sounded a bit defensive.

Unfortunately, attacks like the one in San Bernardino cannot be prevented by stricter gun control, or better refugee screening, or even stepped-up integration efforts. Islamism expert Arif Jamal, who’s based in Washington, D.C., explains why. The rise of modern global jihadism is rooted in extremist interpretations of Islam. Islamic organizations conveniently blame Western foreign policies for the rise of jihadism. “The most important reason behind the Muslims’ fascination with jihadism in the U.S. and elsewhere is their victimhood syndrome,” he said in an interview with Deutsche Welle. “Jihadism teaches them that the failures of Muslims as individuals and as an ummah (community) are caused by the infidels who must be fought against, as Islamic scriptures order them.”

And that’s the answer, more or less, to what kind of mother would do this. A mother who didn’t care that their baby would be an orphan, or that the people she set out to kill had chipped in for baby presents. A mother who wanted revenge on the West, and whose only regret, I suspect, was that she hadn’t killed even more.

Farook Was Obsessed with Israel — What Else Do We Need to Know? By Dennis Prager.

Farook Was Obsessed with Israel — What Else Do We Need to Know? By Dennis Prager. National Review Online, December 8, 2015. Also at DennisPrager.com.

Prager:

According to the father of the San Bernardino terrorist, Syed Farook, his son was “obsessed with Israel.”

In an interview in the Italian newspaper La Stampa, the senior Syed Farook said, “My son said that he shared [Islamic State leader] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.”

Likewise, the Los Angeles Times reported, “As the investigation unfolded, friends and family of the shooters came forward to offer snapshots that may point to what motivated Wednesday’s attack, including Farook’s apparent fixation on Israel and Malik’s devotion to a fundamentalist strain of Islam.”

There is no greater predictor of violence than Jew-hatred. It predicts violence as accurately as animal torture does.

But while it is universally acknowledged that childhood torture of animals predicts violence, relatively few people understand that the same holds true of Jew-hatred.

Given that there has been no exception to this rule, one would think that non-Jews would learn from it and immediately oppose Jew-haters. But, incredibly, that is not the case. Most non-Jews have regarded Jew-hatred as the Jews’ problem — or as in the case of Israel-hatred — the Jews’ fault.

In the 1930s, when the Western democracies had a chance to crush the Nazis, they did nothing despite the fact that Hitler and Nazism were as obsessed with the Jews as Syed Farook was with the Jewish state. The West regarded Hitler’s anti-Semitism as essentially the Jews’ problem. Eventually, about 50 million people were killed, 44 million of them non-Jews.

So, too, when Israelis were being murdered by Palestinian Muslim suicide bombers in the so-called Intifada, the murders were largely ignored, or worse, “explained” by Western liberals as the understandable Palestinian reaction to Israeli occupation.

Then came 9/11, and America and the world began to appreciate — though the Left still doesn’t — that Palestinian terror was about Islamists killing Jews with the ultimate aim of annihilating Israel, not about “asymmetrical warfare,” or use of the “poor man’s atom bomb,” or “a reaction to occupation.”

Of course, some will object that it is neither fair nor accurate to lump Israel-hatred with Jew-hatred. So, let me briefly explain why Israel-hatred is just another form of Jew-hatred, or anti-Semitism.

First, we are talking about Israel-hatred, not Israel-criticism. No prominent defender of Israel — not one — has ever equated criticism of Israel with Israel-hatred or with anti-Semitism. It is a common charge made by anti-Zionists that defenders of Israel equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but it has no truth.

What is equatable with anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism, the belief that the Jewish state has no right to exist.

Why is that the same as anti-Semitism?

Because when one argues that the only country of the world’s more than 200 countries that has no right to exist is the one Jewish country in the world, there is no other possible explanation. There are 22 Arab countries, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf, and they all have a perfect right to exist, but somehow there is no room for one Jewish country the size of New Jersey.

When the Presbyterian Church USA or the American Anthropology Association votes to boycott one country on earth, and that country is the only Jewish country on earth, it strains credulity to argue that Israel’s being Jewish is irrelevant.

Israel is probably the oldest country in the world with an indigenous language and culture going back 3,000 years. Yet, much of the world denies these roots and favors the claim to the land made by Palestinians, a group that had no distinct identity before the mid-20th century.

The Jewish state plays the same role among the world’s nations as individual Jews played within the world’s nations: a superbly accurate way to assess a group’s moral compass. As George Gilder calls it, it is the Israel Test.

Those obsessed with the Jews in a negative way have a moral compass whose pointer points south. That’s why Syed Farook mass-murdered innocent Americans.

Farook and all the Islamist terrorists are ultimately Yasser Arafat’s and the Palestinians’ legacy to mankind — and especially to fellow Muslims, the greatest victims of the suicide terror introduced by the Palestinians.

Or, to put it in a positive way, show me Muslims who accept the right of the Jewish state to exist and I will guarantee you that they will never support ISIS or engage in terror.

When will the world learn this simple lesson?

Point Deer, Make Horse. By John C. Wright.

Point Deer, Make Horse. By John C. Wright. John C. Wright’s Journal, December 3, 2015.