Opinion

A SILENCE ON TERROR

HERE’S a wake-up call for a nation at war: We’ve had all but one of the presidential debates, plus the veep debate – without once hearing the words “Islamic terrorism.”

Seven years after 9/11, we still seem to be debating whether it’s polite to name our enemy directly. Worse, the emerging consensus seems to be “no.”

That is not a good sign. How is the next leader of the free world going to solve a problem he can’t even name?

Yes, the economy is by far the most urgent issue – but that doesn’t make the war any less serious.

In their first debate, meant to center on foreign policy, John McCain and Barack Obama focused on the tactical fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan and the cold war with Iran) or specific enemies (al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah). But neither mentioned the underlying geo-strategic conflict between Western civilization and jihadism.

As dissident and exile Ayaan Hirsi Ali told me, “The presidential candidates are focused on military and intelligence positions, but I patiently wait for them to define the ideology they are going up against – because it’s also a war of ideas. . . The collectivist Islamist system is not just wrong, but opposed to the American way of life.”

This skittishness about naming our enemy directly is consistent with the 20-plus debates of the Democratic primaries, where discomfort with saying “Islamic terrorism” led to its absence from the dialogue.

Which raises the question: Who are we afraid of offending?

For clarity’s sake, consider the term coined by former New York Sun reporter Eli Lake: “Islamic supremacists.” It fairly describes the enemy’s violent intolerance of difference and absolutist worldview – and shouldn’t offend mainstream Muslims any more than “white supremacists” offends white people.

Since the opening hours of this war, US officials have strenuously emphasized that our enemy is not Islam, but Islamist terrorists. America’s millions of Muslim citizens are vital allies in this effort – evidence of freedom’s opportunities for equality and success.

And we’ve formed (sometimes uneasy) coalitions with Arab countries that face a similar existential threat from fundamentalists who want to restore the caliphate. The Anbar Awakening of Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq against al Qaeda was evidence of this approach’s success.

But the next president has far more work to do before we can begin to declare victory.

Yet, as we’ve made some progress in finding common cause abroad, we’ve splintered at home. The Bush administration squandered the spirit of unity after 9/11 through the invasion of Iraq, making the wider War on Terror a source of partisan polarization in the 2004 campaign. And Democrats had an equal and opposite reaction – demagoguing the issue, demonizing the administration and dooming the prospect of bipartisan cooperation.

Now “9/11 Democrats” have been forced underground. Joe Lieberman’s support for the war triggered an outright rebellion in his own party; he lost a primary as a result. He won re-election as an independent because party activists don’t speak for most citizens. But now he’s supporting McCain – and his fellow Democratic senators threaten to strip him of his committee chairmanship when Congress reconvenes.

Reuniting the country to win the wider war against Islamic terrorism is one of the great challenges facing the next president. And it’s got to happen – because this challenge won’t go away if we ignore it.

The seven years since 9/11 have seen no less than 14 attempted terrorist attacks in America. Our success in stopping them has lulled us into a false comfort, but we can’t wait for an attack to succeed to remind us of the threat we face. Our domestic political differences are absurd in our enemies’ eyes.

Perhaps some of the polarization will heal with the end of the Bush administration. Both McCain and Obama, for example, favor closing Guantanamo and stopping the most notorious Bush-era “enhanced interrogation techniques” – some of the most divisive elements of the wider war.

And, despite rhetorical differences, they’re in underlying agreement on the need for keeping a stabilization force of US troops in Iraq over the long term, and to increase troops in Afghanistan to stop the resurgent Taliban.

If Obama wins, Democrats will be forced to recognize that they have just as much responsibility as Republicans to win this wider war against jihadism. It is inseparable with the larger constitutional responsibility of protecting the American people. And there certainly is no greater threat to liberal values than intolerant Islam.

The bottom line: Our enemy in this era is Islamic terrorism – and the need to confront it must be beyond partisanship. McCain and Obama should affirm that in their final debate.

JPA@independentnation.org