Reuel Marc Gerecht is quite right that Muslims and Westerners need to ask some tough questions about Islam and jihadists ("Major Hasan and Holy War," op-ed, Nov. 23).
One of the questions that needs to be addressed is why Islamists (or maybe Muslims in general) become outraged when Americans or Westerners kill Muslims in war, but are silent when jihadists murder innocent Muslims in terror attacks. Jihadists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, southern Thailand, southern Philippines, Somalia, etc. murder more Muslims than non-Muslims.
For example, the victims of the genocide in Darfur are Muslims. Why is it that the Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference and Muslim organizations in the U.S. have nothing to say about the slaughter and rape of fellow Muslims? The obvious answer is that since the perpetrators of this evil are Muslim Arabs, many Muslims remain silent.
This issue screams out for analysis and debate.
Josh Baker
New Orleans
Mr. Gerecht's perspective on the polarized debate over the relationship between terrorism and Islam distorts understanding of the present conflict. Our enemy, regardless of any claims to apolitical legitimacy, is empirically nihilistic, sectarian, narcissistic and partisan. His goal is to create anarchy in order to rebuild a state consistent with his world view.
Our enemy uses Islam as a mask and he needs us to help him drive nonpoliticized Muslims into his camp. It is the essential element of his strategy. He cannot succeed without accomplishing this feat—and he cannot accomplish this goal without our help.
Consider the Machiavellian tactics of tyrants throughout human history. Repeatedly they conjure a "common (external) enemy" and an existential vision, binding the masses to them. Read, for example, Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements." Our enemy is trying to create and sustain a mass movement. If he fails in this regard, he fails completely.
Patrick A. Toffler
Col. (Ret.) U.S. Army
Hewitt, N.J.
Mr. Gerecht astutely points out that President Barack Obama has missed a critical opportunity to militate against holy warriors in our midst. But he fails to connect the dots on a larger trend: American reluctance to admit that we are at war.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was not merely one of many soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder any more than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a common criminal. Both should be treated as terrorists, not, as Mr. Gerecht suggests, because they are "Muslim radicals," but because they have committed terrorist acts.
We are living in a Sept. 12 world, and language has evolved. "War" no longer means uniformed soldiers lined up for battle; it should now include extremists wielding airplanes as weapons. Similarly, "terrorism" should have evolved to include making jihadist threats against soldiers and attempting to contact al Qaeda, as Maj. Hasan did.
As long as the government refuses to classify terrorist acts as acts of war, terrorist activity will continue and it will get worse. Only by removing his head from the sand now can the president reverse this trend.
Try KSM as a war criminal. Label Maj. Hasan as the jihadist he is. Admit we are at war now, or keep bowing until the terrorists remove any doubt.
Kathryn Ciano
Arlington, Va.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 