Identification

In yesterday's post, I discussed Donald Trump's latest controversial comment—suggesting that all Muslim immigration be stopped until government officials know how to handle it. I also discussed political Islam and why it is antithetical to our constitution, our culture, and our values.

When those on the Left wonder why so many people seem okay with Trump's rhetoric, they really need look no further than their leaders. Barack Obama, along with his ideological stepchildren, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, flat out refuse to identify the enemy. That makes people who are not as 'intelligent, nuanced, and sophisticated' as those sitting on high moral perch that Leftist's occupy very uneasy. After all, deep down most of us know exactly who the enemy is. Refusing to name it causes people to lose faith in their leaders and follow a demagogue like Trump.

Richard Fernandez (as he almost always does) gets to the heart of the situation when he writes:

Starting from the premise that "we are most certainly at war with militant Islam" it follows that anyone who pledges loyalty, belief or allegiance to a branch of Islam that substantially and materially fits that description should be considered hostile or at least suspicious. One of the San Bernadino shooters attended and subscribed to the "Al Huda" school, notorious even in Pakistan. Various other branches of Islam, variously described as Wahabi or Salafist, etc are similarly ill reputed and are well known to the intelligence agencies.

Government's job is to define or create a process to identify the enemies of the United States. That is the power to make war. That is the first duty and responsibility of democratically elected officials. The next is to make it clear that anyone who adheres to these varieties of Islam shall be treated as having pledged allegiance to the enemies of the United States. Citizens who convert to these beliefs or manifestly espouse such hostile creeds may be deemed to have renounced their citizenship. On the other hand, Muslims who belong belief systems compatible with the Constitution should not be considered hostile and should be encouraged to struggle by peaceful or forceful means against these hostile sects.

The problem with Trump's program is that it cannot be carried out unless the state fulfills its basic duty to identify the enemies of the United States, which the administration seems reluctant to do. Otherwise who should be excluded? We should come out and name names. And we can. The problem isn't that identification is too difficult, but that it is excessively inconvenient. Too many Saudi, Gulf and Pakistani toes will be trod on, not to mention the president's buddies in Iran.

Everything begins with identification. Once the identity of the enemy is known, then the debate can begin over the proper, proportionate and just ways that should be adopted to combat them. The Western elites want a muddle. Just now the New York Times has a story about Mickey Hicks, aged 8, who is on the no-fly-list and can't get off it. What happens when you can't identify the enemy is everyone becomes the enemy, which suits some people just fine. They don't care about the peaceful Muslim -- and they do exist in large, perhaps overwhelming large numbers. They care about not antagonizing the violent sector among them for the tawdriest of considerations.

Barack Obama and his Team of 2s, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and virtually all of the progressive Left flat out refuse to use the words "radical Islamic terror"—no adjectives are allowed, no identifiers are offered, just broad abstractions like "violent extremism."

Because identification is disallowed in the PC world of the left, we get comments like Trump's. If we can't identify which Muslims are to blame for terrorism, then we have to lump all Muslims into one basket. If we can't act against an identified subset, then people will begin to think about acting against the entire set. That's what Obama and company have created.

But for the Left, it's a strategy that works, because it shuts down debate, makes any attempt at "proper, proportionate and just" ways to respond all but impossible. It is, in some ways, an unknowing (I hope) effort to comfort the enemy. It just might get a lot of the wrong people killed.