While not stated directly, three recent public announcements offer cues as to how America is recasting itself as a global player: President Obama’s graduation speech at West Point, John Brennan’s speech at CSIS, and the newly released National Security Strategy.
The president, in his speech, focuses not on the threat of terrorism, but on two wars in two different theaters. This is not, notably, one war on two different fronts. Our soldiers are not fighting an unending war against an ill-defined enemy, but are focused on places where they are fighting. Obama says that our legacy should be one of building: “our future will be defined by what we build.”
At the same time, he does not deny that there is a transnational threat in al-Qaeda, and he names it as the enemy we are fighting. He sees us in a war against this ideology, but it is different than the idea of a war against “terrorism.” AQ represents an irregular army, against which we can measure success:
More than anything else, though, our success will be claimed by who we are as a country. This is more important than ever, given the nature of the challenges that we face. Our campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and to defeat al Qaeda is part of an international effort that is necessary and just.
But this is a different kind of war. There will be no simple moment of surrender to mark the journey’s end—no armistice, no banner headline…
So the threat will not go away soon, but let’s be clear: al Qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They lead no nation. They lead no religion. We need not give in to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. We cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. We are the United States of America.
Obama is clearly trying to move the center of debate away from the fear of a large, mysterious, undefined entity and back into a positive vision of America that can conquer clearly defined challenges. The enemy is not Islamism, but al Qaeda and its affiliates. Religion is not an enemy. “Muslims are part of our national life, including those who serve in our United States Army.”
John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, made comments about national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In many ways, his speech mirrored the president’s. In others, it showed how deeply ingrained the old narrative of the Islamist boogeyman is. Brennan, in introducing the National Security Strategy, said:
The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not “terrorism” because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not “terror” because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as “jihadists” or “Islamists” because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children.
The first part clearly echoes my analysis of the president’s speech. However, the second point is more interesting, as it accepts and normalizes the traditional Muslim understanding of “jihad.” More importantly, it reinforces the discussion that is happening in the Muslim world, one that does not often make it into mainstream media. Brennan seems to be aware of this point as he continues:
Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims. This is why Muslim leaders around the world have spoken out—forcefully, and often at great risk to their own lives—to reject al Qaeda and violent extremism. And frankly, their condemnations often do not get the recognition they deserve, including from the media.
The new strategy continues to emphasize America’s security, but does so by building up networks, so an attack on America is not an attack just on America, or even NATO, but on the very fabric and well-being of international society. In others words, create a situation where AQ cannot have safe havens, because there are no countries that would risk being ostracized by being a safe haven.
Unfortunately, though, Brennan still slips into the mode of thinking of terrorism as Muslim only. He ignores the Hutaree, who were turned in by a Muslim, and Joseph Stack, who flew his plane into a federal office building. I suppose Brennan’s caveat about those charged with “terrorism” is his “out,” but it seems like a technicality.
The National Security Strategy makes no such qualifications, arguing that “Several recent incidences of violent extremists in the United States who are committed to fighting here and abroad have underscored the threat to the United States and our interests posed by individuals radicalized at home. Our best defenses against this threat are well informed and equipped families, local communities, and institutions.” This statement comes under the heading of countering radicalization. While I have no doubt it primarily refers to Muslims, the NSS acknowledges other types of domestic terrorism more than Brennan does.
Overall, I see this administration as living up to many of points Obama spoke about in Cairo, almost a year ago. But I agree with Marc Lynch, writing at Foreign Policy: the foreign policy may be good, but the domestic policy with respect to our rights and torture leaves much to be desired.
We need more engagement as an informed citizenry that can move beyond the simplified rhetoric of the last administration, and embrace a vision of America that does not cower in fear and sacrifice our most cherished traditions to that fear.
