Rich. Educated. Westernized.
Poor. Ignorant. Uneducated.
Which is the group most likely to be a terrorist?
Liberals would say the second. And they would be wrong. As usual.
Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed…and now Detroit airline potential bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. These were all educated men, largely educated in Western instituitions. And most came from wealthy, if not absurdly wealthy backgrounds. Even the majority of the 19 9/11 hijackers fit the same profile.
Obama frequently talks about how the economic and democratic deficiencies in the third world are leading to the terror risk. That is simply not the case. None of the facts back up this claim.
The conflict is based on twisted ideology of an ancient religion. Islam, like Christianity, certainly has its violent aspects, but at the heart of both religions is love and understanding. In many ways, historically at least, Islam was a more accepting religion. But in the current environment, Islam has allowed certain fringe elements to hijack its central message, and distort it for their own convoluted world view.
Although there are certainly many poor members of Al Qaeda and other groups, they don’t appear to be the heart and soul of these organizations. The leaders are well educated rich individuals that, like many movements, use their intelligence to manipulate the masses.
In this sense, Islamofascism has many links to other forms of Fascism, whether it be Nazism, Communism, etc. The leaders mold the masses into believing whatever they want them to believe, and use their belief system(in this case, Islam) to achieve that goal.
The irony is that it seems that George W. Bush had a much better grasp of the issue than Barack Obama. For all his supposed intelligence, Obama falls into the classic liberal trap that believes that social pressures largely influence the creation of these movements. Bush, it appears, was much closer to the truth. This is about obtaining power for a few rich and intelligent individuals that are using religion to manipulate people to achieve their goals. Economic, democratic, and other social assistance will not alter the terror landscape in any significant way if this is the case.
And this goes to the heart of the future failure of the Obama doctrine. Obama simply does not believe there is actually good and evil. He largely believes the world is made up of shades of gray, and the ultimately even members of Al Qaeda have some twisted rationale for their acts of terror. In Obama’s world, these people are criminals that can be rehabilitated, not war criminals.
The War on Terror cannot be won by people who simply don’t understand the underlying dynamic of this generational conflict. That is what worries me most about the Obama Administration. Their complete lack of intelligence on the issue is disconcerting, at best, and at worst puts America at significant risk.