By Leslie Burt:
In his June 4, 2013 report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” Patrick Poole asks the question,
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.
Perhaps the most baffling element to the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach since the 1990s is the steadfast refusal by its supporters to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that testifies to its catastrophic failure. What pathology can explain how prosecutors can identify Muslim leaders and organizations as supporters of terrorism in federal court, and at the same time high-ranking government officials embrace these same leaders and groups as moderates and heatedly defend their inclusion as outreach partners? The answer might only lie in the realm of theology and not psychology.
While it is true that the Muslim Botherhood has, through very effective influence operations, affected U.S. counterterrorism policy we have to remember that it was the U.S. that originally reached out to them starting clear back in the Eisenhower administration. Our intent was to influence them and use them to counterbalance our enemies. However, it has turned out that the Muslim Brotherhood has won the influence game by taking advantage of our ignorance of their true theologically driven agenda. We’ve learned the hard way that they are only moderate while they are politically weak. When empowered, the mask comes off to reveal their true violent extremist nature. The evidence has been there all along for anyone taking the time to examine the history of the Muslim Brotherhood since their formation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna
In my May 6, 2013 post , Anatomy of a Coverup which I will re-post here, Daniel Greenfield gives what I believe is the definitive answer to Poole’s question. Why are we partnering with terrorists? Do click on the link and read his entire article. It explains a lot.
As the steady drumbeat for a select committee to investigate Benghazi continues, hopefully the drip, drip, drip of new information will edge us closer to examining the whole Middle East foreign policy rationale of the Obama administration. Elections have consequences and foreign policy should be a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections. But CPAC so far is playing it down:
Could it be the influence of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan? Sign the petition:
We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?
Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:
In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.
The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.
Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.
Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.
The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.
And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.
As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?
To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.
The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.
Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”
Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”
- Video: Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine (counterjihadreport.com)
- Bolton: Obama Blind to Terror Link in Benghazi, Boston (newsmax.com)
- Can a President Who Has Promised to ‘Stand with the Muslims’ Protect Americans? (americanthinker.com)
History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government (counterjihareport.com)
Phares on Benghazi hearings: “Did Washington consider the Salafi militias allies or foes?” (counterjihadreport.com)
‘White Out’ on Benghazi: State Dept. Issues Report (counterjihadreport.com)
Benghazi’s Real Scandal? Uncle Sam Joined the Jihad (dianawest.net)
- GOP Rep. Gohmert: Obama Admin Full Of ‘Muslim Brotherhood Members’ Who Reject War With ‘Radical Islam’ (mediaite.com)