A Little Further Yet?
A Los Angeles Times story suggests that Pakistan, not Iraq, is the primary source of danger to the West.
Unlike Iraq, where foreign fighters plunge quickly into combat, recruits in Pakistan are more likely to be groomed for missions in the West. Aspiring holy warriors drawn to the Pakistani-Afghan border region today include European converts and militants from Arab, Turkish and North African backgrounds, investigators said.
"Pakistan worries me more than Iraq," a top Belgian anti-terrorism official said. "It's true that Iraq scares them a bit because many of them end up getting strapped up with the explosive belt right away. In Pakistan, they have time to be trained as operatives."
So was Barack Obama right when he threatened, as reported in the London Times, to take unilateral action against Pakistan and attack "high value" targets? One thing to consider is that only part of the problem is physically in Pakistan. There's a whole conveyor belt leading in and out of Western Europe. The LA Times continues:
But the path is not straight or easy. In the German case, at least a dozen suspects meandered among Koranic schools in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, then traveled through Iran into Pakistan. Several suspects were detained by Pakistani authorities en route to training camps, their seemingly improvised, sometimes amateurish odysseys contrasting with their alleged ferocity. ...
Even if many teachers and students are not violent fundamentalists, Arabic and Koranic schools in the Middle East are classic gateways of radicalization for European Muslims. German suspects also attended such schools in Saudi Arabia and Syria and roamed in Turkey, investigators say, drifting abroad for months at a time. ...
"It's impossible for them to cross Iran without help," the Italian anti-terrorism official said. "I think it implies support from the Iranian authorities." The attitude of Shiite Iran toward Sunni Al Qaeda has been ambiguous. Iranian authorities have arrested some Al Qaeda figures and protected others, seeing the terrorist network as a useful weapon against the West, anti-terrorism officials say.
The pathway to Pakistan wends through intermediate sites, each amplifying the aspirant's radicalism is with variations repeated for the different countries of Europe.
Success against the Taliban in 2002 drove al-Qaeda from its base in Afghanistan. That was a great victory yet it merely relocated them across the border onto fertile ground, where it has fastened onto a social fabric rife with genuine grievances against the corrupt and authoritarian Musharraf regime. The US now seems to be enjoying some success in Iraq, but would even victory promise? The LA Times story suggests that the ratlines already exist just beyond American reach in Iran and snake their way onward to Pakistan.
The false debate over whether US military action should have taken place in Iraq or in Afghanistan obscures the fact that no matter where conventional military action is employed there will always be one more country, one more failed state, one more sanctuary to which the Jihad's terror training camps can move. With the Third World full of failed or failing states, there's no shortage of places which Islamic radicals can simply destabilize by rerouting their funding and redeploying their killers. If Pakistan were lost Africa or Central Asia would provide places in which to relocate their training camps.
That raises the question of whether Pakistan -- or any place like Pakistan -- is really ever the center of gravity at all. Pakistan, even if invaded, subdued and cleaned up at great cost, is an ultimately replaceable asset to the Jihad. The real center of gravity may be the intellectual centers of radicalism, based in the "religious" schools of the Middle East, Europe or America or on the Internet; it may lie in the funding networks that are basically sustained by oil revenues; it may exist in Muslim ghettos of Western Europe, agitated by a mixture of leftist ideology and Wahabism. That may be the center of gravity, the real beating heart of the terror system.
The American political debate over the "War in Iraq" suggests a fundamental desire to avoid remembering that on September 11 the nation embarked on a "War on Terror" and not simply war in a particular place. It was probably unpleasant to realize that seriously addressing the roots of terror would require generating "all the sources of national power" -- and that meant the end of business as usual. It meant challenging the "schools" and ideologies that some have held beyond question; abandoning valued business partners; giving up the self-hatred that some have perversely characterized as "patriotism".
Pakistan may be the problem today. But if we send men into Waziristan, the Jihadis can still move to Eastern Pakistan, and Africa and Central Asia and ... We can forever continue our journey never reach the destination until we come to the place where it all begins.
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/16/2007 03:56:00 PM
28 Comments:
We're jumping the gun here, W. Pakistan has to get in line after Iran and Syria. And there are Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, what about them? (Oh no, not Saudi, they grease the campaigns of the politicians!) And we need to draft all males from age 14 to 59 first, and figure out a way to attract foreign investment in Pakistan War Bonds, since they are payable in greenbacks, and the word on the street is that greenbacks aren't even worth counterfeiting anymore.
The root of the Islamic world's problems is a dysfunctional culture heavily funded with petrodollars. If Middle Eastern people didn't have crude oil, they would be no more a threat to us than the Tutsis and Hutus killing each other in Central Africa. The center-of-gravity is between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (Iraq/Iran?). Our task is to control the Middle East's capacity for violence (no nukes!) while extracting their petroleum as quickly as possible. As we do this, we need to convert our own economy into something not petroleum based so we don't collpase after the last drop of oil has been extracted (convert to nuclear power and coal based synthetic petroleum).
Excellent post. All this will be so much easier if we get Iraq squared away. How many times does the President have to tell us that it's not going to be easy? Even if the Left is correct in saying that it's not possible to fix Iraq, we really have no choice but to try, because the problem too big, too laden with nuclear implications, too consequential to ignore.
There's another option, the one that has been reviled these past two years. Increase the proportion of economic activity in the Middle East based on non-oil sources.
I don't think the Middle East is going to stop being Muslim any time soon. But Muslims are entitled to believe what they want provided getting rid of us infidels is not an article of faith in their most extreme elements. The best way to achieve that transformation is to somehow destroy dictatorial regimes and get people working in freer, less oil-based economies.
And the West, for its part, has got to stop hating itself. I'm not sure the Islamic world should entirely blamed for taking large sections of the Western intelligensia and media's pronouncements at their face value. "We are horrible! We are horrible! We deserve to die!" go certain sections of the West. Ward Churchill says that and he's back teaching unauthorized classes at university. Maybe the whole problem can be summarized thus: they believe what we say about ourselves while we disbelieve what they say they are going to do about it.
"and the word on the street is that greenbacks aren't even worth counterfeiting anymore."
A more competitive dollar is good for America
............................
Struggling along, no strategic vision at all -
1) Containment of Iran.
2) Detaching Central Asia and the Caucasus from Russian domination.
3) Opening up the area as a major supplier of oil and gas, - in order to diversify global energy production and thereby reduce the power of oil states (Sunni Wahhabism).
The Western Route (via Turkey): favored by Turkey, the United States, Israel, and the EU.
February 25, 2007 -
Turkey and Israel are acknowledging that they are once again discussing the possibility of constructing underwater pipelines from the Turkish port of Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. Ceyhan is now the Mediterranean hub of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline. That pipeline connects Ceyhan to Caspian Sea basin oil sources. Interestingly enough, Israel could ship the oil through pipelines to its Red Sea port of Eilat, and then load the oil back on tankers for shipment to East Africa, India, or East Asia (Japan and China). This is an interesting option for Caspian Sea oil exporters, like Azerbaijan, because it bypasses the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran often threatens to close. The pipelines don't yet exist, but the Israelis are supposed to be willing to put up the capital. Two other undersea pipelines could be constructed, one to carry natural gas and another to ship electricity. Turkey's new hydro-electric power stations are coming on line and Turkey has electricity to sell.
Belmont Club - 4/30/2007 11:41:00 AM
"We are saying that no (Caspian) nations should offer their territory to outside powers for aggression or any military action against any of the Caspian states," Putin said.
The Iran War Theater's "Northern Front": Azerbaijan and the US Sponsored War on Iran
The pipeline is widely seen as having considerable economic, geographic and strategic importance because of its potential to reduce the West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil. In addition, it could spur economic development and foreign investment in the countries along its route: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
and from the caspian westward to the black sea
Bulgaria, Romania and the Changing Structure of the Black Sea's Geopolitics
Bulgaria, U.S. Bases and Black Sea Geopolitics
The root of the Islamic world's problems is a dysfunctional culture heavily funded with petrodollars.
Isn't Pakistan a pretty poor country in addition to being backwards. Their nuclear scientist Khan was skipping around all the other third and forth tier countries selling "nuke secrets", and one reason the madrassahs are so popular there is that families can't afford to feed all their kids any way, so they ship them off to the local brainwashing factory to drink martyr koolaid.
Since we see both rich petrodollar countries and poor not-petrodollars countries in the Middle East equally producing hate and jihadists, it seems to me that a more likely common denominator is Islam and its Koran.
"And the West, for its part, has got to stop hating itself. I'm not sure the Islamic world should entirely blamed for taking large sections of the Western intelligensia and media's pronouncements at their face value.
"We are horrible! We are horrible!
We deserve to die!" go certain sections of the West.
Ward Churchill says that and he's back teaching unauthorized classes at university.
Maybe the whole problem can be summarized thus:
they believe what we say about ourselves while we disbelieve what they say they are going to do about it."
---
Thanks for that Wretch!
I've been trying to compose that comment for over a week!
Eggplant notes that if the ME had no oil, they would not be a threat, but the ME as it is now would be but a minor threat except for our national obsession with self-loathing, in which patriots spend most of our energies defending that which should be taken for granted.
Nice post Wretchard. Unfortunately Americans from both ideological camps are obsessed with themselves and are much more comfortable in attacking each other with whatever phenomenon takes place instead of analysing and synthesizing in into coherent strategies. So with 9/11 it is either the Falwell-camp attacking gays and liberals for causing 9/11 or it is the Churchill-camp attacking the little Eichmanns. In a similar vein one camp blames Bill Clinton for not responding sooner, and the other camp blames George Bush for not taking the warning signs more seriously.
And as both sides continue to beat each other around the head with OIF, the real tragedy of Iraq escapes them both, which is that the most likely result of it will be the introduction of another Al Qaida base in the Sunni areas to go along with the two existing areas in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
To be clear it will not be Al Qaida running the show in Iraqi Sunnistan. Instead, the most likely outcome will be the development of the same ambiguous relationship we see in both the Saudi and Pakistani cases, this time between the tribal leaders and the surviving Al Qaeda remnants, where the Islamic militants will be allowed to keep bases and set up Madrasahs in return for not directly attacking the tribal leadership.
Since the ultimate goal of the tribal leaders in Al Anbar is not just leadership of resource-poor Sunnistan. Can you imagine a Iraqi sheik trying to get laid in the bar at the Hyde Park Hilton without controlling all of the Iraqi oil reserves? The hot barflies who have Gas-and-Oil.com as the homepage of their BlackBerrys would relegate his resource-poor ass to fighting with the Jordanian princes for the fat chicks with good personalities. No, the tribal leaders want to rule all of Iraq, and they will see the high-octane ideology of Islamic militarism as potentially vital to achieving this goal. Of course storing these volatile solvents in the sheik’s own garage could prove dangerous if they are unable to maintain control over them and the militants manage to mix themselves into an explosive combination.
And as in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the US will ultimately have to acquiesce to this reality as we will grow more and more dependant on the Sunni tribal leaders as a counterweight to Iranian influence in Iraq.
Unfortunately to answer is so simple and clear and yet at the same time so totally unattainable. The root of (at least Sunni) Islamic militarism is Saudi Arabia. Saudi petroleum resources could quite easily be separated from the House of Saud by military means. Military means, by the way, for which the US is quite well trained to carry out. A tangible expression alone of this threat would likely result in the closing of the Saudi madrasahs. Unfortunately the Saudis know our political system better than we do and their strategically brilliant use of an astonishingly small portion of their oil wealth to corrupt our political process is comprehensively neutralizing the greatest military machine ever known to man.
The real center of gravity may be the intellectual centers of radicalism, based in the "religious" schools of the Middle East, Europe or America or on the Internet; it may lie in the funding networks that are basically sustained by oil revenues; it may exist in Muslim ghettos of Western Europe, agitated by a mixture of leftist ideology and Wahabism. That may be the center of gravity, the real beating heart of the terror system. –Wretchard
This is very true.
It would be very helpful to starve the roots of oil revenue. But, that will be long and difficult given China coming on line and its appetite for oil.
And, it would be nice to waive a magic wand and have the “black helicopters” take the terror masters away. But, that’s not going to happen in the near future.
Then, it is back to the "old" method of cutting down a tree.
First you cut-off the limbs, saw partially way through one-half of the trunk and move to the other side and saw through the rest.
The tree then falls where you want it to fall. It’s cut into smaller pieces and taken to the mill.
I think this will be the method to deal with the radical Islamists.
The branches must be cut. That would include Syria and Iran.
Next, the trunk with runs from the bottom of the peninsula to the top must be cut in two places.
After that the core of Wahabbis must be cut out and converted to pulp.
I believe this will be have to be done using military power.
Whether it is covert ops, overt ops or a combination – I don’t know.
Given the rapidly growing cancer surgical techniques are probably the only solution.
I am sure someone smarter than me can envision the necessary surgical operations to put an end to the petrol-dollar fed terror complex. But, I am fairly sure it will start at the branches and work towards the center.
The real center of gravity may be the intellectual centers of radicalism, based in the "religious" schools of the Middle East, Europe or America or on the Internet; it may lie in the funding networks that are basically sustained by oil revenues; it may exist in Muslim ghettos of Western Europe, agitated by a mixture of leftist ideology and Wahabism.
The "center of gravity" is demographics. Declining birth rates and an aging population among the native population across almost all of Europe (including and especially Russia) are leading to more and more immigrants from Islamic countries - who arrive with no interest in becoming "European."
Some estimates make Russia a majority Islamic country by 2050. Even today Russian policy makers must decide between promoting retention of native Russian professionals in the work force or in the military. There are not enough around to staff both. Contemplate that if you are concerned about a nuclear Iran or Pakistan.
The barbarians are at the gate - literally.
While we see historic changes in Iraq, that may lead to further alteration of the political landscape in the ME and globally, the threat of this stripe of Transnational Terrorism, the Islamic stripe (in general), has demonstrated its adaptability to such changes. The long-term end (30-50 years) is in a course of helping that change to happen and countering the effectiveness of the terror organizations that see their own change as the one that should win. Western culture prior to the 20th and 21st century could understand this and the necessary underpinnings to uphold so as to create viable societies that were accountable, at the very least externally, for their actions. Today we concentrate on a smaller subset of factors, none of which address those basic understandings directly.
The battlefield of those waging war against Nations and humanity, however, is not Nation-centered: these organizations (be they Islamic, Communist, Nationalist or Separatist) see little difference in who they attack so long as they get recognition for such. These other organizational types to actually gain recognition that has been soaked up by the Islamic sorts, have resorted to those things that have gained the Islamic terrorists their media attention. That is death-toll per incident, with more and heavier getting greater attention over time. Today the weakest form of Transnational Terrorism (the Communist/Leftist strains) are within hailing distance of where Islamic terrorism started in the 1970's. The other (Nationalist/Separatist/Right) sorts have likewise increased lethality beyond that point, and both are on upward trends over the last 40 years or so. By concentrating on the most destructive form of Transnational Terrorism, the Islamic, we give a free pass to the other forms, which have also utilized non-localized violence to their own ends. Bad enough when ETA and various IRAs stage bombings and attacks in Nations far removed from Spain and Ireland, but it is just *that* sort of attack that gets attention if it is deadly enough. Even worse is the sharing of contacts, training, tactics and often operations between organizations of disparate types (the Red groups and early Islamic groups started a trend on that which continues to this day), to the point where IRA bomb triggers for multi-type triggering now show up in use by al Qaeda in Iraq. Further ETA, the old ANC, FARC and IRA have trained PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda at various points in time. Syria has established long-term external terrorist training camps in the Bekaa, which have seen a wide gamut of organizations from the Japanese Red Army to Tamil Tigers training with Hezbollah. Iran has also distributed a number of 'meat packing facilities' that have allowed the infiltration of terror trainers from the IRGC/Qods and Hezbollah to train local terrorists in Bosnia and Argentina. That is not a simple thing to address if you address it as only Islamic in form, as the interconnects now made exist between groups in a 'many-to-many' network.
Prior to the 20th century the view was to engage Nations to behave within the framework of the nation state system. While breaches of that did occur for various reasons, it is that conception of regularized reciprocity, accountability, responsibility and general codification that served Western culture well, as it allowed a wide gamut of government types within nations, but each understanding their accountability to other nations. Today that goes untaught in all but legal courses, and even then not thoroughly nor deeply explained as to what these outlooks represent culturally. This is an attempt to make us forget what we can do to address the activities we see today with those concepts that scoped this sort of warfare out *and* what to do about it.
That view via Vattel's Law of Nations and such things as the Black Book of the Admiralty, give us insight into the concept known as predatory warfare. When practiced for monetary gain on the high seas it is Piracy, but even in those days not all Piracy was limited to the seas or monetary gain. Those practicing depradation on land were also recognized by various names that did include those seek monetary or personal gain, but also on those seeking war for the sake of war for themselves. When instituted the Law of Nations has localized written law, but the overall scope of the Law has no locale: it is global in extent as Nations are. Law of Nations is far more than that, it is a basic blueprint of how to stand up and form up accountable Nations and how to act towards other Nations regardless of the interior scope of the government involved. Thus, from that, there is even remedy of what to do when an organization exterior to a Nation that is *no nation* attacks another Nation from the host Nation's soil.
It is that scope of view that gives rise to both the military view of what is to be done with such actors in that realm where active combat takes hold. The Laws of War must adhere to the Law of Nations and cannot break the latter as it is the system that regulates war. And as those that fight for themselves that adhere to no nation have decided to wage war upon mankind by doing so, they are treated as such: predators. On the civil side, Civil Law must also uphold the Law of Nations, but it does give scope for plea if the Nation so warrants. It is the point of capture that determines outcome and it is the survival part of the Law of Nations that allows Nations to protect themselves to the extreme when facing such. To those that are brought in or surrender to be heard and sentenced, if need be, they do get trial. These are not individuals caught while fighting, but those caught in the manner of civil policing or even in voluntary surrender. Because organizations that practice such warfare are declared general outlaws (literally 'outside the law') that do not recognize civil law as being over them, when they are brought in to civil court they get that treatment although grounds for exoneration must be extraordinary. For all we see Capt. Morgan on bottles of spiced rum, it was his activities as lawful privateer staging a land raid against a Spanish outpost after a treaty had been signed that ran him afoul of the law. He went back to *clear his name* by explaining his activities, in which he had no knowledge of the treaty being signed and was not only exonerated but Knighted for his efforts.
That is why we have the civil side of the law: to allow those that understand their wrong-doings or that have been falsely accused to stand and show that they are not as they have been branded. Those that have avoided gracious clemency to continue their ways are seen as worse of all, as they kill to be an enemy of mankind, above and beyond any gain they may get. And as the Piracy laws dealt with those that aid, abet and support such organizations, so has that been seen against 'bandit armies' and those that just kill to despoil for their own gain throughout history. While the penalties for the aiding and abetting are lesser, they are still harsh and pre-date the conspiracy laws as a way to address distributed organizations gaining aid and succor from many places: remove the support infrastructure and the organization, itself, begins to collapse. This history we are only vaguely taught in recent decades, and so do not even hear of those activities and how they are rightfully addressed and that other Nations respect that those who are branded outlaw are an enemy to *them*. Of course you don't get to play 'favorites' in that... for freedom fighters wear uniforms, hold land, protect people, proclaim new government and die for those things. That is respected under the Law of Nations... predators are not.
The Fascist "Muslim" strategy is basically to "financially and physically bleed" and out breed the West.
The demographic aspect is noted by the West. Putin is aware of the demographic assault as demonstrated by the effort to birth more ethnic Russians.
An idea I mentioned a while back about an Armed Peace Corps is being implemented in a way, especially in Africa. One of the biggest eforts is the building of schools. This could be enhanced by enlarging the Western pacifist volunter corps protected by the military. This could counter the militant madrassa efforts in Africa and can be duplicated in other theatres.
The key is militarily assisting govenments in the Muslim Sphere in a way they are seen as legitimate by the majority of their people as we should be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our efforts need to be seen as assistance and NOT an effort at Western control. I believe the apparent turnaround in Iraq is due to this change in attitude brought about by Petreaus and the screwup of alQueda. I believe the situation in Iraq is partially due to dumb luck.
In short, the West has to assist the Muslims who desire Democratic Sharia defeat the Muslims who desire Despotic Sharia. This can not simply be done militarily and has to be an effort done across the board utilizing all resources.
Possibly, hopefully, less military assets will be needed and expenses consequently go down.
Salaam eleikum Y'all!
The Fascist "Muslim" strategy is basically to "financially and physically bleed" and out breed the West.
Well, that may be their strategy, but I fail to see how one could say they've really succeeded in any way. Iraq, which is probably the most expensive effort by the west in the Middle East, doesn't really make much of a dent in our nation's budget. Moreover, in all these areas of conflict, it's the Muslims who die far out of proportion to their opponents, be they Americans, coalition soldiers, Israelis, or other Muslims.
They're only bleeding themselves.
Democratic Sharia?
You gotta' be kidding me. That is a total contradiction in terms. If the Koran and the biographies are the basis of Islam then there ain't nothing democratic about Islam. Never has been and never will be.
That's not to say that majorities who self-identify as Muslim cannot establish or participate in polities with a form of representational governance. The Afghan jirga is probably as good an example as any but still a very long way from universal suffrage, which along with equal protection, are the hallmarks of modern democratic government.
Unless you mean something entirely different Sharia itself means a state religion and the unavoidable introduction of an authority that supersedes the legislator and the executive. If a Sharia Court can abrogate legislation because it runs afoul of Islamic Jurisprudence then what kind of democracy is that?
Look at the 51 countries in the OIC. With the hopeful exception of Afghanistan and Iraq (some day), and supposedly Turkey today, there is not one that is not authoritarian. And in any case each and every one of them is struggling for their existence with groups who read the Koran and the biographies the same way as AQ.
The policy of the USA should be to promote the skill sets and institutions that build economic prosperity everywhere that people are willing to participate by their own efforts. If that includes helping people who happen to be Muslim then so be it, but the notion that the USA should use its blood and treasure to help a particular brand of Muslim is foolhardy.
You claim to be a Muslim. Maybe you are, although I think sociology grad student working on a paper more likely.
In short, the West has to assist the Muslims who desire Democratic Sharia defeat the Muslims who desire Despotic Sharia.
Why? Why on earth is the West bound to assist any one? If they can't make it on their own, then according to Darwinian science, they should die out like the do-do bird. And a far as I'm concerned, if the Middle East forces us into nuking them into non-existance in self-defense, then that's a perfectly valid reason for their extinction as a people, as a culture and as a religion.
Peter,
I'm flattered you think I'm a grad student! I am insulted you think my field is socialogy. Actually my field is Environmental Engineering Technology.
As an avocation I am a scholar of 4GW/5GW.
I am a Muslim. I am a Muslim who understands the Quran in a historical perspective. Ask why the Ten Commandments are not in the Quran but many references to Moses, Noah and Abraham. My answer is Muslims have to read the Torah/Old Testament to get a fuller understanding of the will of Allah.
Your comment is a good one, by the way.
Nahncee,
In my study of 4GW the term Moral Level of War is important. The Nuke Solution would be useless in today's context, even detrimental to the interests of USA/West.
Islam has a stake as an institution. It must adapt (reform) or it will go the way of the dodo and passenger pigeon.
You are correct about the West being bound. The word "has" in my comment is a bad choice, maybe the word "may" would have been better. It is a matter of choice just as Islam may choose to reform.
Salaam. Peace an prosperity is my hope.
On another note:
Recently read about a tough man, a U.S. Navy SEAL named Marcus Lutrell. He was the sole survivor of an operation in Afghanistan called Operation Redwing.
The only reason he survived is because of the help of Muslim Afghan villagers.
Check out link to article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001492.html
If I may quote from the article a thought of Petty Officer 1st Class Luttrell: Three weeks ago, while in New York, Luttrell visited Ground Zero. On an overcast afternoon, he looked down into the pit. The World Trade Center is his touchstone as a warrior. He had linked Sept. 11 to the people of Afghanistan: "I didn't go over there with any respect for these people."
But the villagers of Sabray taught him something, he said.
"In the middle of everything evil, in an evil place, you can find goodness. Goodness. I'd even call it godliness," he said.
As Luttrell talked, he walked the perimeter fence. His gait was hulking, if not menacing, his voice angry, engorged with pain. "They protected me like a child. They treated me like I was their eldest son."
And then this about the man who rescued him, Gulab: "I put my arms around his neck," Luttrell recalled, "and said into his ear, 'I love you, brother.' "
I may be an idealist but I do not believe I am naive.
Salaam eleikum Y'all!
Wretchard and Teresita both hit it --
The West does not want to fight, because to fight against the threat of Islam and Muslims would require sacrificing power.
Feminists would be relegated to the irrelevant column, as would large portions of the Press, Entertainers, Media figures, many Dem politicos (who understand nothing about the military), and all of the Academy.
Since these people constitute the new nobility, they are fighting against any effort to stop Muslim terror tooth and nail. Indeed they (and Democrats) are openly allied with the Muslim enemy.
Kevin -- AQI has been substantially defeated and is not coming back. Not the least of which is that they form an existential threat to the power of local tribes in Iraq. As long as the US military has some form of presence to protect against Shia retaliation and sectarian cleansing, the Sunnis will stay. Absent that they'll decamp for Jordan or Saudi. But AQI is not coming back -- too much of a threat to their tribal power.
What is now all but inevitable is the pulling off a big "spectacular" -- it need not be nuclear either. One that as A Jacksonian points out hits the US public intensely with the Muslim message of submit or die.
What this is likely to produce (and why the new nobility fear it) is a true mobilization of all national resources under nationalism to solve the Muslim threat. Likely by the traditional method of solving a people-to-people threat: killing great whacking gobs of them.
If for example in response to an atrocity on US soil, Riyadh, Islamabad, Tehran, Mecca, and Medina all vanished in a nuclear blaze, likely all Muslim terror against the US would cease. Even Allah can't fight ballistic missile submarines. We are probably already there. Putin sensing weakness among Dems is using Iran as a means to attack the US. Dems passed another bill that requires warrants for NSA wiretaps abroad, akin to the one that cost 10 hours of delays and the death of kidnapped soldiers in Iraq.
OF COURSE we act weak and provocatively weak. Fundamentally, Dems and their leftist allies are threatened with loss of power if we do ANYTHING to push back on the threats. Even Obama knows this (and proposed not a war of the peoples but "magic black clad ninjas").
I have read the Koran and the Haidith and do not understand how Islam can be anything other than Zawahiri and many, many others say it is. Nor do I understand how any rational person can reconcile the Koran and Haidith with anything compatible with traditional Western values.
"Democratic Sharia?
You gotta' be kidding me."
---
PB,
Not really:
He's talkin "Democratic" like the Democrat Party USA, composed on the moonbat left of folks who could only be described as fascistic, and as we know, fascists of a feather flock together.
The rest are more than eager to submit as good Dhimmis.
Marzouq - what I've been watching for for six years now is for Muslims to start turning each other in when they know that their friends, relatives and neighbors are planning to do Bad Things. I haven't seen it happen yet any where in the West. They're all still clammed up and hunkered down, trying to ignore it until it goes away, trying to protect each other, and crying victimhood.
It's uncertain how many Iraqi's are finally starting to turn bad guys in, and I think that may be simply because their sheikhs have told them to, and not because they've finally figured out right from wrong.
Your story about the SEAL being protected in Afghanistan in nice, but there's a big difference between protecting one SEAL and picking up the phone to call the FBI to report that Uncle Achmed is making funny-smelling vests in the kitchen. One is proactive and one is reactive.
I have not seen Muslims any where be PROactive since 9/11 -- just REactive, yammering on about building bridges and how it's all a big misunderstanding: "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
Since as a society and a religion, Muslims as a whole refuse to be PROactive and turn their bad apples in to prevent them doing Really Bad Stuff, then to me that means they are forfeiting any right they might have to claim kinship through humanity. They have and continue to choose to protect each other and to allow their young men to continue to try to do Really Bad Stuff. That's unforgiveable, and I think that ultimately it will prove to be lethal to the Ummah as a whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter, it was Mossad. Silly boy.
It may be more correct to say that Pakistan is the weakest link in the War on Terror. Kill one man and you can take over a nuclear armed country. George Bush recently alluded to WW III if Iran gets the bomb. How about a terrorist-dominated nuclear Pakistan? Assassinate Musharaf, or discredit him by killing his main rival and watch the pro-American government fall.
The good news is that the Bhutto assassination attempt gives Musharaf license to clean house on the Islamists. Will he take the opportunity?
nahncee,
Your statement, "Call the FBI to report that Uncle Achmed is making funny-smelling vests in the kitchen."
My reply: Would the informant want it known he helped FBI? Can you see the risk in that?
Another question I ask is why nothing big has happened in USA since 09/11/01? Could it be Uncle Achmed is being neutralized by Mulsims who love USA but can not voice it loudly for obvious reasons?
When I had my blog up I stated my goal of conciliation of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Please do not mistake me for a MoveOn Liberal. I am not.
Salaam
A Christian who turned in an abortion clinic bomber would be applauded by fellow Christians. A Muslim who turned in the Muslim who blows up the Jewish Day Care Center would be reviled by his fellow Moslems.
Can you see the problem with that, Marzouc?
Yeah, Peter, there is a problem and it will be there a long time. another problem is working out a solution. See Long War Journal. A series of articles about the Philipines and how USA assists Armed Forces of Philipines in pursuit/pacification of Muslim insurgents.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/10/to_raise_them_up_par.php
I liked the article because it dovetails with the recent proclamation by Muslim scholars/religios leaders. I imagine you have read about it. I liked it because the scholars were trying find common ground and common denominator with Christian scholars/religious leaders.
Another theme is competition between the Abrahamic faiths and sons and daughters of Abraham in doing good instead of contention. A practical example is found at the end of the article in The Long War Journal.
Salaam eleikum Sir!
Post a Comment
<< Home