Boko Haram and the failure of obama’s counter-terrorism strategy Via Joseph Wouk

Islam the death cult and Muhammad are depicted where they properly belong, Islam dead and Muhammad’s head on a woman’s spear.

Islam the death cult and Muhammad are depicted where they properly belong, Islam dead and Muhammad’s head on a woman’s spear.

Boko Haram and the failure of obama’s counter-terrorism strategy, Breitbart,  May 10, 2014

(The same “blame exogenous contingencies,not Islam, doctrine seems also to apply to other Islamist movements, including Palestinian terrorists in the “peace process” and Iran in her substantially unimpeded march for nukes. – DM)

hillary_obama_glare_reuters

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department failed to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization, in spite of the fact that Boko Haram had become second only to the Taliban as the deadliest terrorist organization. Clinton will rightly have to bear blame for that, but the lack of a designation also reflects the much deeper problem of the Obama administration’s overall approach to Islamic extremism. It is an approach that has led to bad policies, not only with regard to Boko Haram, but also to Iran, the Syrian rebels, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi.

[T]errorism becomes “a mode of contention,” and terrorists are not to blame for their violence; “exogenous contingencies” are at fault. Sources in the Koran, Islamic jurisprudence, or even contemporary calls to jihad are not to blame. . . .

For the Obama administration, Islamist extremism (except for Al Qaeda) is not a categorical evil which stands opposed to America’s good; it is, rather, an extreme expression—among a range of expressions—of protest against legitimate grievances. Islamic radicals such as Boko Haram are not responsible for their actions; they are forced to radicalism by their circumstances. And it definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, not even a distorted version of Islam.

The heart of the problem is that President Barack Obama and many of his top counter-terrorism advisers see Islamic extremism from the leftist perspective of social movement theory. Originating in the socialist labor movements of the 1800s and revived with the protest movements of the 1960s, social movement theory seeks to understand collective action. Academics concerned with what they saw as the relationship between “cultural imperialism” and “Islamic movements” began looking at Islamist extremism through the lens of social movement theory around 1984. It might have remained an obscure academic pursuit but for the fact that Obama elevated one of its principle proponents, Quintan Wiktorowicz, to the position of Senior Director for Global Engagement at the National Security Staff, where he became an architect of Obama’s counter-extremism strategy.

The singular impact of Wiktorowicz was to shift the focus away from the ideology driving Islamic extremism and to recast it as “Islamic activism.” He argued that Islamist violence is not a function of the call to jihad found in the Qu‘ran or in various contemporary fatwas, but is rather a calculated and rational response to state oppression:

In contrast to popular views of Islamic radicals as fanatics engaged in irrational, deviant, unpredictable violence, we argue that violent contention is the result of tactical considerations informed by the realities of repressive contexts. Islamists engage in a rational calculus about tactical efficacy and choose modes of contention they believe will facilitate objectives or protect their organizational and political gains. Violence is only one of myriad possibilities in repertoires of contention and becomes more likely where regimes attempt to crush Islamic activism through broad repressive measures that leave few alternatives. …From this perspective, violent Islamist contention is produced not by ideational factors or unstable psychological mentalities but rather by exogenous contingencies created through state policy concerning Islamists.

Thus, terrorism becomes “a mode of contention,” and terrorists are not to blame for their violence; “exogenous contingencies” are at fault. Read more…

_If you comment we reserve the right to use your comment in/as a post

Follow us Follow Boudicabpi on Twitter

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Islam, Jihad, Muslims, Obama, Obama Administration, President Obama, stealth jihad, terrorism, War on Terror, War with Islam and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Boko Haram and the failure of obama’s counter-terrorism strategy Via Joseph Wouk

  1. upaces88 says:

    Clinton was/is involved with them:
    Read all of this article:
    It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the Clinton State Department would have refused to designate it as such. A thorough investigation of the decision process that protected Boko Haram from 2011 until late 2013 could be devastating.
    Now that Boko Haram has attracted worldwide attention for its vicious assault on young girls, political leaders, including former Secretary Clinton, are rushing to issue emotionally powerful but practically meaningless statements.
    Hillary tweeted: “Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls”
    Hillary’s tweet contrasts vividly with her failure to stand up to terrorism in 2011 by naming Boko Haram for what it was.
    http://gingrichproductions.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=3872bad904308135ca41de823&id=9061f8525a&e=cebb6d7bff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s