Muslim-American Army Spc. Lamia Lahlou was born in Morocco and was living in New York in 2001. On September 11, Lahlou's best friend was in one of the trains below the World Trade Center and was killed...
Hardly one week away from the year two thousand and eight, five years after the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, there remains within the mainstream media a baffling eagerness to equate the attacks of September eleventh two thousand and one with Saddam Hussein and, now, much more strikingly, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Muslims and the nation of Iraq itself.
Within this purportedly front page worthy article, "U.S. Troops Turn to Faith amid Realities of War" by Alphonso Van Marsh, there is equated, among other suspect implications i will not touch upon within the articles fledgling tangents, that:
1. The invasion of Iraq is a proper response to the attacks of September 11, 2001...
1b. And, (and therefore), to participate in such an invasion/occupation fulfills a moral devotion to the victims of September 11, 2001.
2. Equating 'Jihad,' further muddling an understanding of the term within the United States, with physical violence and the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Upon hearing that her friend has been killed in the September attacks, Marsh writes, Lamia subsequently came to a profound conclusion:
"I needed to do something [in response to the attacks]," Lahlou says. She eventually enlisted in the U.S. Army. (Brackets Marsh's)
The proceeding paragraph, without contextual introduction or any variety of segue that indicates anything but an implicit understanding of the manipulation of information concertedly put forth by the administration, this paragraph follows:
Lahlou is approaching eight months serving in Iraq, monitoring Arab media with a classified unit linked to U.S. military intelligence. "My parents, it is hard for them to understand. Not a lot of people understand, especially Arabs or Muslims. [They ask,] 'How can you be a Muslim and you are fighting for America?'"...(Brackets Marsh's)
But...
The Muslim soldier says she has no problem reconciling her religion of peace, with fighting so-called Muslim jihadists. "I love America, so I fight for it -- that's my jihad," she says.
That is a profound and disturbing transition. Let's attempt to follow the trajectory of this logic as it "naturally" unfolds:
1. Lahlou (a "Muslim-American") had a friend executed in an internal act of terrorism upon the United States by (exclusively Muslim) Al Qaeda operatives.
2. Because of this sole catalyst Lahlou has enlisted in the United States Military.
3. Because of her enlistment Lahlou is now serving the United States Military in the occupation of (the predominantly Muslim nation of) Iraq.
4. Because of her participation in this occupation her family and alternate "Arabs or Muslims" find her enlistment to be an unreasonable decision.
5. In response to these sentiments Lahlou states that, despite these personal/familial protests she loves America and that participation in the occupation is her personal "Jihad."
There are very likely additional significant lapses of judgment in this segment of news reporting, but i would like to particularly draw your attention to two. The first is located in-between the lines. More specifically, lines 2 and 3 (as outlined above). From the sloppy, quixotic introductory sentences we descend into point 2: motivation by revenge. It is established by the author that Lahlou has enlisted specifically in response to the terrorist attacks of Al Qaeda. What is then omitted from the following paragraph, in markedly devoted compliance with the party line, is some kind of brief acknowledgment, however dependent upon educated insinuation, of the tragic sacrifice incurred by ordinary soldiers intending to devote themselves to eliminating terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You, the reader, are left to make that leap of faith yourself, as it becomes obvious Marsh was merely using the entire setup to indulge in neutered newsroom histrionics, padding another mainstream article on faith with an ultimately trite message about blind patriotism.
The second point involves Marsh highlighted presentation of Lahlou's personal Jihad statement. In the mainstream nomenclature of modern North America, the term 'jihad' is often used as the Muslim antithesis to the concept of Christian's engaged in Crusade. It is insignificant whether or not one believes the term may be used for describing peaceful matters of spreading the message of these religions or exclusively in regard to the violent attempts at conversion through intimidation/extermination. The term is used in its violent context here. And, suggestively, in a positive way. Even if it is a declaration of love, Lahlou's jihad is exhibited in the physical manifestations of violence: her devotion to the United States military. Effectively it associates Muslims with aimless, unquestioning violence, familial disloyalty in the cause of blind patriotism and simultaneously suggestively groups all Muslims as working for, or at least sympathetic to, the cause of some greater caliphate; that is, with the exception of this one unfortunately mismanaged example.
But, what should we expect? it is simply nice to take a bit of time now and again to dissect these types of stories. Also, i recently read Naomi Wolf's, "The End of America," so it was enjoyable to pretend like i was an alert citizen for a brief moment; happy holidays.