Allahu Akbar Orlando — Analysis of the Absurd
BO Gets It Wrong, Again
By Mark Alexander
"We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die. ... Let us
therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme
Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and
noble actions." —George Washington (1776
)
|
|
Historically, the worst in America brings out the best in
America. Whether the catastrophic
Islamist 9/11 attack 15 years ago, or the devastating Islamist attack in Orlando last weekend,
killing 49 civilians and leaving many others in critical condition, first
responders, friends and neighbors, and most Americans nationwide, are quick to
rally in support of victims and their families. This unity in moments of great
tragedy speaks volumes about the combined character of our nation.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said about most leftist demagogues and many of
their loyal constituents.
When a political machine depends on a generationally tried and true
"divide and conquer" strategy — one that foments discontent and
division based on income, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, education,
occupation and the like — in order to achieve its political objectives,
predictably their politics of disunity will emerge before the blood on the walls has
dried.
Indeed, that was abundantly apparent after the murders in
Orlando, when Barack Obama and his water boys wasted no time converting this
tragedy into political fodder, propping up their political agenda upon the
coffins of the dead. The contrast between the unifying good of the American
people and the gross politicization of this tragedy by BO et al. was crystal
clear. BO is not only divisive, but he appeals, directly, to the absolute worst
in America.
Breaking from my usual narrative column, allow me to share
some categorical observations about the Orlando attack.
The Perpetrator
As you know, the assailant, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, was the
son of Afghan immigrants, and his father has ties to the Taliban. He was 29,
divorced and remarried to Noor Salman, who prosecutors are now seeking to
indict as a co-conspirator on 49 counts of murder and 53 counts of attempted
murder. She also had knowledge that Mateen was considering a Disney property as
an alternate target.
Mateen was working as a security guard for a British
company, G4S, which has been the recipient of substantial DHS funds since 9/11.
In other words, our tax dollars supported the Orlando assailant.
Over the last 10 years, Mateen was indoctrinated in part by
the online teachings of Islamist cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki and
affirmed by members of his own Florida mosque.
He selected his target, an "LGBT" nightclub, based
on Islam's mainstream prohibition
against homosexuals. He had previously visited this club, either as a
patron or casing his target. If the former, he will likely become a "gay
cause célèbre" for those who blame Christians and Republicans for not
unconditionally embracing the LGBT agenda.
Notably, an Islamist imam who preached that it was merciful to murder homosexuals came to
Orlando in April of this year. After the attack, his father posted a video
message noting that his son should have refrained because "God himself
will punish those involved in homosexuality."
Mateen modeled his attack after the Paris and Brussels
assaults, as well as the San
Bernardino and Chattanooga
attacks.
I have spent some instructive time consulting with
counterterrorism analytical groups over the course of the last five
presidential administrations. While the focus of those groups has always been the
prevention of WMD attacks — and BO's Iran deal certainly ratchets
up the potential of that threat vector — the most likely terrorist threats have
always been low-tech assaults aimed at soft targets.
As I wrote in "Islamic Jihad — Target USA,"
"The most likely near-term form of attack against civilians on our turf
will be modeled after the conventional Islamist assaults in the Middle East —
bombings and shootings, as we have now seen in Paris, London, Berlin, Brussels,
Sydney, Toronto, Boston, New York and Washington. These attacks were low tech
but effective in terms of instilling public fear." Indeed, the 9/11
attacks started with box cutters, and subsequent attacks at Fort Hood, Boston,
Chattanooga, San Bernardino and now Orlando have all been low tech.
The Failed Investigation of Mateen
The day of the attack, FBI investigator Ron Hopper said the
assailant bragged about "having ties to terrorist organizations." He
added in the most politically correct phrasing, "We do have suggestions
that that individual may have leanings toward a particular ideology." (Of
course, Hopper would be reassigned to some FBI outpost on a Pacific island if
he dared use more descriptive language than BO.)
Now, what "particular ideology" might that be? The
assailant dialed 911 and swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State
shortly after his initial assault.
|
|
Indeed, Mateen was the subject of two extensive FBI
investigations based on his Islamist connections and his assertions of
allegiance to radical Islam. The first investigation began in May of 2013 and
lasted 10 months, and the second was launched three months after the conclusion
of the first, and lasted four months.
On further review, according to FBI Director James Comey,
Mateen had made "statements that were inflammatory and
contradictory." Comey said, "First, he claimed family connections to
al Qaeda. He also said that he was a member of Hezbollah, which is a Shia
terrorist organization and a bitter enemy of the Islamic State, or ISIL. He
said that he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault
his wife and child so he could martyr himself. When this was reported to us,
the FBI's Miami office opened a preliminary investigation."
Some of his co-workers expressed concern that if they
reported him, they would be viewed as insensitive to Islam and might,
themselves, become subject to discrimination charges.
To be clear, the fact that Mateen was not arrested prior to
this incident isn't so much about an FBI failure as it is about Barack Obama's blinding Islamophilia. This is
clearly reflected in his administration's policies, which set the bar so high
for prosecuting Islamists that the FBI took no further action.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said this week,
"We've got three examples now of folks on the radar — Major Nidal Hasan,
Tamerlan Tsarnaev and now Omar Mateen — who were on our radar, who were looked
at, are then dismissed."
Notably, this hypersensitivity toward Muslims is similar to
that harbored by Bill Clinton.
In 1999, his administration denied a request by an FBI agent to open a case
file on Saudi nationals who were taking flight lessons. The agent was informed
by a flight training supervisor that he thought it curious the Saudis were
learning to fly heavy commercial aircraft, but showed no interest in mastering
takeoffs or landings. Twenty months later, it would become tragically apparent
why.
As for the assertion that because Mateen was not directly
involved with a terrorist network, he is a "lone wolf" or
"self-radicalized," that is grossly misleading. Each of the thousands
of Islamist terrorist acts worldwide is unified by their allegiance to Islam.
Years ago, in order to better understand the Islamist
threat, I coined the word "Jihadistan,"
which is a borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising ISIL, al-Qa'ida and other Muslim
terrorist groups around the world. Most of these groups and individuals are
autonomous by the standard hierarchal nation-state definition, and are
connected by ideology rather than centralized command and control. This makes
identifying and containing this enemy more challenging.
BO's Obfuscatory Response
In his
remarks the day of the Orlando attack, Obama did not use the words
"Muslim" or "Islam."
Two days later, he angrily insisted that he would not
associate Islam with these acts of terrorism worldwide. "What exactly
would using [the term 'radical Islam'] accomplish?" BO huffed. "What
exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans?
Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by
this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name
does not make it go away."
Fact is, the correct answer is all of the above, and
indeed, failing to identify a threat by name ensures it does not go
away. Do the math — the number of Islamist terror attacks, foreign and domestic
since Obama took office has increased
tremendously.
Columnist Monica Crowley observed, "The fact that we
are still having this conversation [about calling Islamic terror what it is]
all these years after 911 is absurd, outrageous and dangerous. ... [Obama] has
an ideologically allergic reaction to linking Islam with terrorism. ... If he
makes that connection then he is going to have to pursue a more aggressive
policy in the Middle East and he has never been prepared to do that."
Indeed, as I wrote in "Patriots v. Appeasers,"
respected researcher Graeme Wood published an objective and comprehensive exposition
on the Islamic State, highlighting the absurdity of claiming that Islamic
terrorism is anything but Islamic.
Wood notes, "Muslims who call the Islamic State
un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading
expert on the group's theology, told me, 'embarrassed and politically correct,
with a cotton-candy view of their own religion' that neglects 'what their
religion has historically and legally required.' Many denials of the Islamic
State's religious nature, he said, are rooted in an
'interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.'"
Wood concluded, "The reality is that the Islamic state
is Islamic. Very Islamic."
Obama reiterated that Islam is a religion of peace, and
unquestionably many, perhaps most Muslims, are people who want to live and
raise their families in peace. But there is something that distresses me about
each of these incidents: Where is the unified national condemnation for these
attacks from American Muslim leaders? Where is it?
BO has demonstrated such limitless ineptitude and penchant
for obfuscation in every aspect of national security that even his staunchest
political allies should duck and cover whenever BO pontificates on the subject.
|
|
Obama's most catastrophic
foreign policy failure was his ill-advised withdrawal from Iraq, the
centerpiece of his 2012 re-election campaign. That political charade created
the power vacuum that gave rise to the Islamic State.
