The Wall Street Journal
Aug. 10, 2017
Candidate Donald Trump vowed to take a fresh approach to Islamic extremism. He ditched the politically correct language of the Obama administration by declaring that we were mired in an ideological conflict with radical Islam, which he likened to the totalitarian ideologies America had defeated in the 20th century.
Mr. Trump also promised, as part of his immigration policy, to put in place an extreme vetting system that screens for Islamic radicalism. He vowed to work with genuine Muslim reformers and concluded with the promise that one of his first acts as president would be to establish a commission on radical Islam.
Mr. Trump has had more than six months to make good on these pledges. He hasn’t gotten very far. The administration’s first move, a hastily drafted executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries backfired when it was repeatedly blocked in court. (And, the Democratic Party)
Worse, subsequent moves have tended to run counter to Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges. Aside from a new questionnaire for visa applicants, there has been no clarity regarding the promised extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants and visitors. The promise to work with and empower authentic Muslim reformers has gone nowhere. The status of the promised commission on radical Islam remains unclear.
Perhaps most discouragingly, the administration’s Middle Eastern strategy seems to involve cozying up to Saudi Arabia, for decades the principal source of funding for Islamic extremism around the world.
Some administration critics have blamed the loss of focus on Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who became White House national security adviser in February. The most charitable formulation of this criticism is that military men who slogged their way through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have an aversion to the argument that we face an ideological opponent, as opposed to a series of military problems.
But I put the responsibility on Mr. Trump. With regard to radical Islam, he simply seems to have lost interest.
Is all hope of a revamped policy on radical Islam lost? Not necessarily. Prominent members of Congress, among them Sens. Ron Johnson (R.Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R. Iowa) and Reps. Ron DeSantis (R.Fla.) and Trent Franks (R. Ariz.) understand that Islamism must be confronted with ideas as well as arms.
And this need not be a partisan issue. In the early years after 9/11, Sens. Jon Kyl (R. Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D.Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D. N.Y.) worked together to analyze the threat of Islamist ideology.
Even President Obama’s former representative to Muslim communities, Farah Pandith, who visited 80 countries between 2009 and 2014, wrote in 2015: “In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence, Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams.
In 2016, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Sen. Chris Murphy (D.,Conn.) sounded the alarm over Islamist indoctrination in Pakistan, noting that thousands of schools funded with Saudi money teach a version of Islam that leads into anti-Western militancy.
We have already seen one unexpected outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington this summer, over tightening sanctions on Russia in retaliation for President Vladimir Putin’s many aggressions.
I propose that the next item of cross-party business should be for Congress to convene hearings on the ideological threat of radical Islam.
Who wants America on offense, with a coherent and intelligible strategy?
Newt Gingrich asked in 2015, when he called for such hearings. Then as now, if the president has forgotten his campaign commitments lawmakers can and should step up to the plate.
Ms. Hirsi Ali is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and founder of the AHA Foundation.