The Battle

The mainstream media generally disregarded the congressional testimony of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, past head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Daily Beast reports:

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency slammed the Obama administration on Monday as “well intentioned” but paralyzed and playing defense in its the fight against Islamic militancy.

Recently retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn called for the U.S. to lead the charge in a sweeping, decades-long campaign against the Islamic State group, al Qaeda, and its ilk—a fight like the one against the former Soviet Union—against a new enemy he said is “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life.”

“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a Washington industry conference.

He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term “Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn said.

It is no longer a surprise to listen as Barack Obama or any of his Team of 2s eschew descriptive adjectives of any kind when describing the barbaric and murderous deeds of "extremists" or "radicals" or "militants." These extremists/radicals/militants are never identified with the descriptive adjective "Islamic" or "Muslim" because Barack Obama and his people refuse—absolutely refuse—to consider the notion that they are part of Islam.

Recently members of his Team of 2s, but not the president himself, have begun to suggest that we're at war with "manifestations" of al Qaeda—considering the group antiseptically along with ISIS. Al Qaeda is to be considered in a vacuum— "extremists" with no identifiable ideology that can be attached to a major religion. The dozens of other radical Islamic terror groups, oh, never mind. And besides, this president tells us that the country's war footing is over. Uh huh.

Laure Mandeville considers all of this when she writes:

In French, we have an expression: “Call a cat a cat.” Appeler un chat un chat. That is exactly what French Prime Minister Manuel Valls did after the horrific terrorist attacks that hit my country on Jan. 7, when he identified “radical Islam” as our enemy. In France, most rallied to this clear acknowledgment of the threat we are dealing with, because it is simply impossible to deny.

That is why it has sounded almost surreal when the Obama administration and many observers in the U.S., despite their heartening support for the French, go to great lengths to insist that the terrorist attack had nothing to do with Islam.

Mandeville goes on the quote Fleming Rose, "now the foreign editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, was its cultural editor in 2005 when he had an idea for a series of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. "

“If we say that the terrorists are not radical Islamists, we might as well say that truth is lie, that right is wrong, that black is white.”

But in the fantasy world of the Left, a world that this president inhabits, 'truth is lie, right is wrong, and black is white.'

Mandeville continues:

To put a fig leaf over the threat doesn’t make the problem go away, and doesn’t help us understand that the radical Islamist attacks are precisely about the House of Islam and who can speak for it.

Joshua Mitchell, a professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University, says: “This is a battle about who is going to define Islam: the radical Islamists, who try to convince the world that someone can be assassinated if he dares draw a mocking cartoon representing the Prophet, or who ridicules fanatics of all sorts; or the democratically inclined Muslims who accept that religion cannot be an encompassing whole that dictates all the rules of everyday life in the earthly realm.”

By denying that this is about Islam, “President Obama does us a disservice, because doing so deprives the Muslim community of its responsibility to fight this radical monster,” says Muslim democrat Naser Khader, a former member of the Danish Parliament, now at the Hudson Institute in Washington. “By doing that, the West fails to understand that the Muslims will be the most crucial soldiers to fight this Islamic terrorism.” Mr. Khader calls for a revolution in Islam that would reinterpret the sacred texts in a way that is “compatible with modernity.”

The position of this president and his politically correct supporters is akin to the soft racism of low expectations. We dare not ask Islam to police itself—to fight to save its religion from barbarism. As a consequence of remaining mute, afraid of the label "Islamophobic," the West is left to be reactive rather than proactive. We need Islam to be proactive, rather than remaining largely silent and paralyzed. If we do not push Islam to act, the "battle about who is going to define Islam" will be lost. Ironically, the group that will suffer the most as a consequence of losing that battle will be the Muslims themselves.

UPDATE:
-------------------------------
There will come a time, long after Barack Obama and his Team of 2s are consigned to history's waste-heap, when the Battle will become real, when atrocities will grow in number and magnitude because "an enemy you do not admit exists" will grow in power, in reach, and in audacity because we refuse to confront him.

There will come a time when a leader emerges and recalls the words of one of the 20th century's greatest leaders, Winston Churchill, who confronted Nazism—a barbaric ideology that is in many ways analogous to radical Islam. Churchill saw the danger clearly, but far more important, he spoke and acted accordingly. I leave you with his words:

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.