I know what he was trying to say; that there are some schools of Islamic thought that defines "jihad" as unarmed "struggle" by the pious Muslim against his own weaknesses.

So what?

That's not how our enemies describe Jihad. The Islamists combine religious fervor with a fanatical political ideology that instructs them to kill those who won't submit. It really is that simple and the idea that we have top officials (Brennan isn't the only one who holds this view) in the Obama White House who pretend that Islamists don't believe what they actually believe is worse than self-delusion; it is bordering on criminal negligence:

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

Please note in the second paragraph above where Brennan describes violent extremists as "victims." What does that make the targets of their fanaticism? Do we have victim on victim crime? Or perhaps the jihadists targets had it coming? You cannot have a terrorist attack without someone being at fault. And if Brennan is going to excuse the jihadists because they are suffering oppression or something, then he must believe that those who die horribly in those attacks deserved it.

This is the same naive fool who wants to look for and promote Hezb'allah "moderates." Michael Totten, who has forgotten more about Hezb'allah than this fool will ever learn, applies the necessary take down:

There are no moderates within Hezbollah, at least not any who stand a chance of changing Hezbollah's behavior. Sure, the terrorist militia has sent a handful of its members to parliament, as Brennan says, and once in a while they sound more reasonable than its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, but these people are employees. They don't make policy.

If you want to catch a glimpse of Hezbollah's org chart, just rent a car in Beirut and drive south. You'll see billboards and posters all over the place in the areas Hezbollah controls. Some show the portraits of "martyrs" killed in battle with Israel. Others show the mug shots of Hezbollah's leadership, most prominently Nasrallah and his deceased military commander, truck bomber, and airplane hijacker Imad Mugniyeh. Alongside the pictures of Hezbollah's leaders, you'll also see Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the two "supreme guides" of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran.

Sun Tzu famously made the first rule of war "Know your enemy." Brennan has taken that adage a step further. He is pretending there is no enemy, no war - only victims who who need us to address the "root causes" of their fanaticism.

I am not confident that we will escape the next three years without a massive terrorist attack. At this level of denial comes extreme danger. Seeing the enemy as potential welfare customers will not win any battles and will probably get a lot of innocent people killed.