That's the leftist white house media's bold, cutting-edge strategy to dealing with the (non) threat of future "man-caused disasters."
...the drill: concern over crimes that have never happened, as opposed to the terror that has. When Americans are murdered in cold blood, the first step in our screwed-up world is to chant, “backlash.” Never mind that backlash concerns may have allowed this massacre to occur in the first place. Hasan exhibited more signs than a horoscope – yet fears over appearing politically incorrect kept him around.
The fact is, in mosques all over the world, the desire to destroy the west continues – and our administration still worries about what you might do. The PC thing? Avoid “connecting the dots,” but stick to the “square peg in round hole” equation: a troubled man feeling hopeless in a weird world, suddenly snaps and kills people.
But it’s more than that. The defiant Muslim living in America has contempt for modern life, your lifestyle, your beliefs. Add to this a rejection of female equality, which pretty much eliminates any chance for a hook-up – and you’ve got a madman on a mission.
I suppose saying all this makes me a right-wing hate monger. But that’s the point. When a man kills Americans in the name of Allah – and you become a bad guy for pointing that out – then it’s time to be the bad guy.
It’s far better than moaning “why do they hate us.”
Here's the strategy in the State Department, from Patrick Poole at Pajamas Media:
A number of American Islamic organizations and leaders openly preach the ideology that America is at war with Islam and that attacks against U.S. military personnel in defense of Islam are legitimate. As I have previously reported, military officials actively embrace these same organizations and leaders, and rely on them as their advisors on Islamic affairs notwithstanding their documented advocacy of jihadist ideology. In certain cases, these groups and leaders are funded and represent the interests of foreign (and sometimes hostile) governments or worse. This was the case with Abdurahman Alamoudi, the Islamic leader tapped by the Defense Department in the 1990s to establish the Muslim military chaplain corps, who the government now acknowledges was an al-Qaeda fundraiser in America and is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for his direct involvement in an assassination plot directed by Libyan intelligence. The Pentagon selected Alamoudi despite repeated warnings from experts and extensive evidence of his terrorist ties. While law enforcement has begun to distance themselves from some of these extremist groups, most notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Pentagon continues to consult with them and legitimize their claims to represent “authentic” American Islamic leadership. As a result, our military leadership continues to legitimize and propagate the very ideology that is killing our service members.
I can just hear the conversation: "yeah, I know you guys are committed to killin' us n' all, but can we get you to help us while you work on that?"
O Noes! Rational thought! I can't answer that question....where's muh rainbows and unicorns at?!
No doubt there are critics, like CAIR, who warn that any attempt to address the internal and external jihadist threat to military personnel will put every Muslim in the military and American Islam itself under the microscope. To the contrary, the violent and anti-American jihadist ideology is fairly easy to identify and distinguish from classic Islamic teaching. In fact, it is the critics themselves who readily conflate jihadism and Islam.
For these critics to say that you can’t target jihadist ideology without targeting the whole of Islam is an acknowledgment on their part that the two are inseparable — a point I doubt they are ready to concede. Regardless, they can’t have it both ways: either jihadist ideology has nothing to do with Islam, as Islamic groups constantly represent, and thus it can be addressed without infringing on their freedom of religion; or they must admit, along with the “Islamophobes,” that jihadist ideology and the violence it promotes are part and parcel with Islam. The question for these critics is unavoidable: which is it?