How to get where we need to go

“Got Leaders?” What a good question.

Six years after the September 11 attacks on the United States, what do Americans think about the threat posed by radical Islam? There’s good news and bad news.

The good news — from a new Public Opinion Strategies poll — is that despite a political environment that is extremely hostile to President Bush and his foreign policy, a plurality of Americans believe the threat from Islamic fundamentalism is greater than Soviet Communism was in the 1960s, and than Nazism was in the 1930s. The poll shows general agreement that the U.S. is facing a larger and more significant threat than one defined by the Iraq war, or indeed by the presidency of George W. Bush. That the Iraq campaign is increasingly seen as part of the broader war against Islamic fundamentalism — including Iran, al Qaeda, and other groups funded by radical Islamists — is encouraging. There seems to be recognition that because radical Islam is a long-term threat, America’s fight against it will constitute a long-term war.

The poll’s bad news is that Americans are generally unaware of the strategic partnerships being developed between radical Islamic regimes and governments in Latin America — particularly, Venezuela’s.

Sen. Santorum is right. That’s not covered much by the media, and it’s a topic virtually avoided by politicians.

So the poll targets three things neccessary to correct the course, and what political leaders need to do. First, listen to the American people who “have a good instinct about the enemy’s identity”. But then talk to the public about the dangers fomenting in Latin America.

Many Americans are still skeptical of the genuine security threat coming from Chavez, Bolivia’s president Evo Morales, and others in Latin America — discounting them as irrational dictators. That the U.S. government has refused to highlight Chavez’s strategic conniving with Tehran only encourages this complacency.

The presidential campaign, Santorum points out, is a prime time to start raising public awareness about this growing threat. And third…

U.S. leaders must define the enemy appropriately — and that means we must stop referring to our effort as a “war on terror.” This is no more a “war on terror” than the early days of World War II were a war against “blitzkrieg” or a war against “dive bombers.” Whether we call it a war against Islamic extremism, or Islamofascism, or radical Islam, we must clearly communicate and understand that we are engaged in a war of ideas against an enemy with firmly held religious convictions. We recognize that this war of ideas also rages in the Islamic world, in a debate over whether the Islamism of Osama bin Laden or the radical mullahs in Iran is a part of “authentic Islam.” We must also recognize that our enemies themselves believe that they are embracing authentic Islam — and we have to take their own ideas and words seriously. For good reasons and bad, our political leadership has not adequately acknowledged this and therefore has not communicated effectively the nature or extent of the threat to the American people.

This is a war of ideas, and calling things what they are would help define our purpose with a clarity that’s been lacking. Who will do that is part of what remains unclear. But whoever does, and identifies the threats to peace and civilized order, names the enemies of freedom and justice, deserves to be named leader.