The Jihadist Purge

I mentioned a purge of material relating to jihadism yesterday, undertaken by the US defense and intelligence agencies in response to complaints from terrorist-linked organizations. Here is a piece of it.One of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to an FOIA request is “showcasing that purge” — just a tiny portion of it, in this instance from the FBI Training Directory little niche of the US Intelligence apparatus. This is 600+ pages documenting that the offending material was removed. What was the offending material? “… any material that may be offensive to anyone, particularly someone of the Islamic faith…”

Note that these responses do not say “we made the corrections suggested.” They simply state that the identified items were removed.  And the 600 pages is not the material removed … it is a collection of references that it was removed from hundreds of responders. The material itself was much larger, though how large is uncertain.

The Muslim Outreach Meetings

One of the three people approving this effort (on page 2 of 606) is Kenneth Moore.  Moore, a leader of the effort to remove “offensive” references to jihad from intelligence training, is one of the two presenters engaged in the current efforts to placate Muslims. This was the effort I’d mentioned yesterday … they are doing twelve meetings just in the state of Tennessee. This American Thinker article describes one:

When it became clear at Tuesday’s event that the promulgation of lies was falling on deaf ears, one [American Muslim Advisory Council] speaker resorted to shaming the audience for their alleged rudeness and intolerance. In the crowd’s defense, the passionate response was one of righteous anger against a doctrine that increasingly threatens Western civilization and values in the wake of the Boston bombings and the murder and beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby. That indignation was also a response to the hypocrisy of a program designed to falsely portray Muslims as victims of prejudice in dire need of special civil rights protection from hate crimes. No mention was made of jihadist acts, honor killings, demands for special accommodations, and the Muslim disinclination to assimilate to American cultural norms.

To further insult the crowd, the AMAC speaker showed a condensed version of the video “Welcome to Shelbyville” in which Tennesseans were portrayed as ignorant, bigoted rednecks.

It’s a good thing that “shaming the [non-Muslim] audience” wasn’t done on a social site. He might have gotten in trouble, as Killian vowed to enforce laws against “oppressing” Muslims in Facebook postings.

The Alphabet Soup

People think of the CIA and the FBI, and now the NSA, when they think of US intelligence agencies.  In fact, there are more than thirty agencies involved in US intelligence, not counting the myriad contractors to these agencies and their own contractors providing second-level services. (Disclaimer: I have been one of these myself, the result of an odd advertising campaign in which the federal government took out ads in major cities across the country, when they knew in advance that I was the only person on Earth who qualified under their posted criteria.)

This purge, this removal of “material that might offend anyone, particularly someone of the Islamic faith,” is apparently going on at all of these agencies as well as in the main defense arena. We don’t have much direct evidence, but everything released through FOIAs shows the removals of offensive material.  They still manage to make allegations against Catholics and Mormons and Constitutionalists as “extremist groups” when recruiting new soldiers, it seems. But, as with NASA, the outreach to Muslims to “make them feel good” (as NASA’s chief described his new top priority) is a large effort by many branches.

Why the purge? Why the accommodation?

What promoted this? It’s hard to say. President Obama’s first speech in Cairo signaled loudly that he would make special effort to appeal to and to appease Muslims, and the details of that trip showed that this appeal extended to the country’s Muslim Brotherhood jihadists as well.  Not long after that, the jihadists took over Egypt, as well as Tunisia. The jihadist takeovers in Turkey, Libya, Syria, and the ongoing processes in Iran and Bahrain and many other places (including Europe!) should be viewed with alarm.

Sensing the friendliness to their cause, Muslim Brotherhood groups sent the Obama administration a letter in 2011.  It is readable here, and it demands exactly the purge that began shortly thereafter.

But this was late in the process. The orders to stop using terms like “jihadist” and so forth were long spreading through government agencies, pushed by the State Department; this effort actually began in the bowels of that bureaucracy before Obama took office.

What’s is in it, though, for the Obama administration. Accommodation and appeasement has long been the mainstay of State, the group that Edward Meese described to me as “making the world safe for cocktail parties.” But for those charged with preserving and protecting the United States and its Constitution, where is the gain from reducing our ability to defend?

Even from crass political considerations — jihadists don’t like US conservatives, and neither does the Obama administration — there hardly seems enough meat there. Is the notion of “common enemy” enough to make common cause? I would hope not, but it’s hard to interpret some of this in any other way.

At the same time, drone actions against jihadist mid-level managers seem to increase their recruitment. Since this is an effect that Candidate Obama complained of many times (against Bush), can it be that he is unaware of this now?  These are areas of speculation — but it is clear that no straight answers would be forthcoming, or could be believed if offered by him.

What’s Left for Defense?

Jihad is, in my opinion, a massive threat against the West, and most particularly against the United States. Removing materials that would educate our defenders about this threat seems foolish, but it is quite clear that this process is far along.

Of course, the military is keenly concerned about national security still. Thus, we have military advocacy of a crucial issue in our self-defense strategy: spending $75 billion on pre-kindergarten care. Why? (Other than this being an Obama initiative.) The rationale is that this will increase the quality of military recruits:

According to the report, military service is out of reach for an estimated 75 percent of young Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 because they are too poorly educated, they have criminal records, or they are overweight.

The retired military officials argue that high-quality early childhood education can improve student performance, boost high school graduation rates, discourage crime, and even reduce obesity rates, “by helping children develop healthy early exercise and good nutrition habits.”

This seems rather flimsy to me especially in the absence of evidence-based demonstrations that this education works.  Moreover, it seems a long way away from the United States primary self-defense issues and required expenditures.
On the bright side, if the US military establishment can convert much of their work to programs like “outreach to Muslims” and “pre-K education,” then they will be less likely to have their budgets slashed as has been this administration’s wont.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle