• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam'

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The White House's official policy of banning the word "Islam" in describing America's terrorist enemies is in direct conflict with the U.S. military's war-fighting doctrine now guiding commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John O. Brennan, President Obama's chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.

But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.

Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam' - Washington Times

We can clearly see the difference between those that are serious about confronting the enemy, and defeating the enemy, and those that live in an academic bubble of fantasy.
 
We should recognize them for what they are, extremist Muslims. If the White House does anything, it should be to distinguish between extremist Muslims and those who are not extremist. We should cover up who our enemy is in order to fear offending those what want to deny that extremists in Islam exist, or that they use their religion to justify atrocities and recruit members. Obama is acting foolishly on this and is interjecting his political correctness crap into the military.
 
Is there an General that isnt at odds with the dictator Obama?

Maybe Obummer should fire Petrraus too & hire a crony from his administration to run the war.

Or.....perhaps Obummer should have a purge of the officer corps similiar to his idealogical idol (Stalin) so Obamas officers are all idealogically goose stepping in unison together.
 
This is a nonstory, completely and utterly. We're talking about public relations on the one hand, and Obama's sound policy of not describing the United States in terms that could be misunderstood to characterize the war as a war against the Islamic religion generally. On the other hand, the Petraeus COIN manual is a document that must talk frankly about the relationship between insurgents and certain radical Islamic groups. These two policies are not at odds. Obama's policy is sound because use of phrases like "Islamic extremists" to describe terrorists or insurgents legitimizes and creates the impression that the United States is somehow at war with Islam. As much as some xenophobes might like that idea, it is antithetical to the COIN goal of winning hearts and minds.
 
This is a nonstory, completely and utterly. We're talking about public relations on the one hand, and Obama's sound policy of not describing the United States in terms that could be misunderstood to characterize the war as a war against the Islamic religion generally. On the other hand, the Petraeus COIN manual is a document that must talk frankly about the relationship between insurgents and certain radical Islamic groups. These two policies are not at odds. Obama's policy is sound because use of phrases like "Islamic extremists" to describe terrorists or insurgents legitimizes and creates the impression that the United States is somehow at war with Islam. As much as some xenophobes might like that idea, it is antithetical to the COIN goal of winning hearts and minds.

Touchy Feely PR doesn't do diddly squat.
 
Touchy Feely PR doesn't do diddly squat.

You don't really understand COIN and why it works so well, do you? "Touchy feely" PR isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about giving the enemy ammunition to recruit with, which is precisely what happens when you frame the conflict as against "Islamic extremists." That makes it look like we are fighting Islam, rather than fighting criminals and insurgents who cloak their agendas in the Islamic religion. It is imperative to frame it in a way does not alienate Muslims, that is just playing right into the hands of the extremists. If you make it us versus them you've already lost.
 
Last edited:
This makes perfect sense to me, from the OP link:
Mr. Brennan on May 26 told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism, that the United States is somehow at war against Islam. The reality, of course, is that we have never been and will never be at war with Islam. After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America."
 
This makes perfect sense to me, from the OP link:

Thing is, conservatives actually see it as a war against Islam. Hence the disgruntlement.
 
Obama at odds with Petraeus doctrine on 'Islam' - Washington Times

We can clearly see the difference between those that are serious about confronting the enemy, and defeating the enemy, and those that live in an academic bubble of fantasy.

Nothing fantasy about it. The use of Islam in their terrorists activist is little more then a motivational tool to convert the ignorant. What we have is politically driven terrorist leaders using individuals religion to carry out their political objectives (You must do X if you want to go to "heaven"). I wonder how many were killed on the spot for saying No.

We should not limit our scope of current terrorist or potential terrorist to Islam.
 
Thing is, conservatives actually see it as a war against Islam. Hence the disgruntlement.

That's really scary, but I think you're right about some conservatives. Not all, or even most, of course. But far too many, mostly Tea-Party types.
 
Thing is, conservatives actually see it as a war against Islam. Hence the disgruntlement.

I don't know a SINGLE Conservative that thinks this is a "war against Islam". The only ones that utter such nonsense are leftwingers trying to paint Conservatives as bigots.
 
I don't know a SINGLE Conservative that thinks this is a "war against Islam". The only ones that utter such nonsense are leftwingers trying to paint Conservatives as bigots.

Lots of liberals love poker. Especially the race card, the bigot card, the rich card, the white male card, and the green card. (a twofer on that last one)
 
Last edited:
Petraeus should just single out Obama as a radical lawyer, who supports and is supported by radicals and terrorists, who is championed by the socialist left, whose distribute the wealth scheme is communist, and who has no ****ing experience whatsoever and wants America to become a socialist haven as much of Europe already is.
 
Lots of liberals love poker. Especially the race card, the bigot card, the rich card, the white male card, and the green card. (a twofer on that last one)

Liberals also love to call a spade a spade.
 
I don't know a SINGLE Conservative that thinks this is a "war against Islam". The only ones that utter such nonsense are leftwingers trying to paint Conservatives as bigots.

Conservatives jump all over the chance to talk about how many acts of terrorism muslims commit, how their religion "commands them to make war on infidels," and all sorts of stuff like that. They get incensed when someone dares build a mosque.. well, pretty much anywhere, but within some arbitrary distance from the former WTC site? Outrageous!

You may not have heard people use the term war, but that is the gist of the sentiment. (besides, I have heard the term war used)
 
Liberals also love to call a spade a spade.

No you don't. You want to evaluate everything long after reasonable people have already figured it out.

And you never want to pass judgment on something. That would be wrong. Lets all take a sensitivity class instead.
 
Conservatives jump all over the chance to talk about how many acts of terrorism muslims commit, how their religion "commands them to make war on infidels," and all sorts of stuff like that. They get incensed when someone dares build a mosque.. well, pretty much anywhere, but within some arbitrary distance from the former WTC site? Outrageous!

You may not have heard people use the term war, but that is the gist of the sentiment. (besides, I have heard the term war used)

The fact remains, Islam is at war with us, dude. It is a greater threat to western civilization than communism ever was. Failure to recognize that and treat it as the threat it is will eventually lead to our defeat.
 
All in your head, tex. Glad you are such a professional on the psychological processes of an entire nation.
 
I don't know a SINGLE Conservative that thinks this is a "war against Islam". The only ones that utter such nonsense are leftwingers trying to paint Conservatives as bigots.

The fact remains, Islam is at war with us, dude. It is a greater threat to western civilization than communism ever was. Failure to recognize that and treat it as the threat it is will eventually lead to our defeat.

Here you go MrVicchio
 
The fact remains, Islam is at war with us, dude. It is a greater threat to western civilization than communism ever was. Failure to recognize that and treat it as the threat it is will eventually lead to our defeat.

Glad you're joking.

Look up gallups research on opinion in the islamic world. There are only a few thousand 'islamofascist' warriors according to the US govt. And only a small fraction of muslims are supporters of extremism. A widespread opinion is that the west does not understand or respect islam. Funny that. I cite you as evidence.
 
Glad you're joking.

Look up gallups research on opinion in the islamic world. There are only a few thousand 'islamofascist' warriors according to the US govt. And only a small fraction of muslims are supporters of extremism. A widespread opinion is that the west does not understand or respect islam. Funny that. I cite you as evidence.

"WE" are not engaged in a religious war.... trying to impose a religion on Muslims, but there is a centuries long religions war in which they are trying to force their religion on everyone else.
 
Thats a new one. Weird how my class on islam and all demographic work all say something completely different.
 
Conservatives jump all over the chance to talk about how many acts of terrorism muslims commit, how their religion "commands them to make war on infidels," and all sorts of stuff like that. They get incensed when someone dares build a mosque.. well, pretty much anywhere, but within some arbitrary distance from the former WTC site? Outrageous!

You may not have heard people use the term war, but that is the gist of the sentiment. (besides, I have heard the term war used)

You really think that this is a "conservative thing"? If Gallup ever gets around to a nation wide poll question asking, "Are you supportive of a 13 story Islamic mosque being built at the site of the World Trade Center massacre?".....do you think the only negative votes would come from conservatives?

I'm guessing no....


.
 
Back
Top Bottom