REASSESSING II

were i president i would be satisfied that the definition of our enemy should be expanded beyond, what in shorthand i have referred to as "al qaeda incorported," to include other people/groups based on (1)the "quantity" of their activities (2)the "quality" of their activities (3) the extent of their influence and (4) if they have practiced violence, even if not against us and (5) the risk in not attacking them, e.g. if they seek wmd.

i would view the madrid and bali bombers as part of a.q.i., so they would be part of the first category of our enemy, not this second, expanded, category of militant islam.

i am thinking out loud here, but having considered the example of hezbollah in "reassessing I", my inclination would be not to include hezbollah but rather to assasinate those thinkers/leaders/clerics who preach the same thing that was taught to obl.

that sounds bizarre, but until shown to my satisfaction otherwise, i would view hezbollah as "an israeli problem." i am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that hezbollah at present does not pose a direct threat to the national security of the united states.

those who teach/write/think/preach however--even if they don't act--i would include in the definition of our enemy because they are what directly inspired al qaeda.

having promised myself in "reassessing I" that i would always stop and think when i took another step, i acknowledge that including propogandists, for the lack of a better description, in my definition of the enemy, is a radical step which will effect all that follows.

we americans don't often punish speech. that prohibition is ingrained in our constitution and our common sense ("sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me," etc.).

still, not all speech is protected. we do not have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, and like famous examples.

i have inveighed about the teachings of islam many times in this blog. to just remind myself of some that come to mind:

(1) the article written about 1 1/2 years ago in the times magazine on what is taught in pakistani schools.
(2)the al jazeera interview of a 3 1/2 year old girl who when asked her opinion of jews said "i hate them." when asked why, she said "because they're pigs and snakes; when asked where she learned that, "from the koran."
(3) the cleric, so respected that he was part of the saudi delegation that visited president bush in crawford who had just a few months before preached a sermon calling for the enslavement of jewish women for the pleasure of muslim men.
(4)my own reading of the koran
(5) my own reading of "in the shade of the koran."
(6) public opinion polls in different arab societies showing support for obl
(7)the censored video of palestinians celebrating in the streets at the news of the 9/11 attacks.

i am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the current mainstream teachings of islam are THE PROBLEM in our war, just as mein kamph was, as william shirer wrote, the blueprint for the nazism.

there is an old islamic saying that "the first person to reason by analogy was the devil." the point is a sound one. i see many similarities between nazism and islam, including the centrality of a basic text. but i know that our war with our current enemy is different and will be fought differently than was wwII.

shirer wrote in "the rise and fall of the third reich" that what amazed him was how closely nazi policy hew to mein kamph and how mein kamph was ignored or explained away or rationalized when, if it had been taken seriously, the west should have taken the threat much more seriously.

"a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing" is another of those bits of fortune-cookie philosophy that i have to keep in mind, and i do. i aware of my "incomplete" education on the issue of islam and the koran's teachings. but i have been overwhelmed by the consistent message i have gained from the koran itself, commentary on it, articles in the popular press, and the anecdotes i've related above.

as president i would want this question addressed exhaustively by my advisors, but on what i know now, i'm convinced.

the next level we must think about for an expanded definition of our enemy under the concept of "militant islam" is the state level.

we have already expanded it to that level. we have warred against afghanistan with world approval.

we have also, more controversially, warred against iraq.

further, president bush included two other countries, north korea and iran as part of the axis of evil that he defined as our enemies.

i reject the inclusion of north korea for reasons stated previously on this website and i believe that that is consistent with the thinking of most serious people.

but what of iran and other states?

iran is certainly a militantly islamic state and one that is believed to possess or trying to possess wmd.

what of libya, which did directly attack the united states, in the panam 103 bombing?

syria? a long-standing member of the u.s. government's list of states who sponsor terrorism.

pakistan? a nuclear power, a country in which the u.s., with the cooperation of the pakistani authorities, captured the number two man in a.q. and in which obl himself is widely believed to be hiding.

saudi arabia? the home of 13 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and the base for wahiddism, the most radical, violent sect of islam.


-benjamin harris