The al Qaeda strategy: Strike the soft targets in Iraq and in the U.S. Congress
what's worse, it's working in both places, but more so in Congress of late
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The most frustrating aspects of the current debate on Iraq are, first, the surge opponents' willingness to either ignore or understate the influence of the jihadist movement and, second, their unwillingness to give the six-month old counterinsurgency strategy a chance to work. Why can't they just sit tight 'til September?
Is al Qaeda & Co. really as influential as advertised? The answer appears to be "yes". First, General Petraeus has identified al Qaeda as public enemy #1 and Bill Roggio has painted a detailed picture of their role. This doesn't mean that al Qaeda is the only paramilitant group out there, as Roggio and Bob Owen and others have pointed out. But the fact is that al Qaeda & Co. is playing a significant role in contributing to the mayhem. More from General Petraeus:
More below the fold...
As they were run out of Euphrates river valley they moved east. There will be big fights in some of these areas. An awful lot of their foreign fighters come through Syria. Eighty or so foreign fighters come through a month. That does not sound like much but every one of those is a potential suicide bomber. We think that 80 to 90 per cent of suicide bombers are foreign fighters.
It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on and that is why he is here two thirds or three quarters of his time. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq.
Why withdraw troops from the central front in the War Against Militant Islamism? It makes no sense. Way back in early 2004, Abu Musab al Zarqawi has laid out the strategy for stoking sectarian violence:
The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a. Despite their weakness, the Sunnis are strong-willed and honest and different from the coward and deceitful Shi'a, who only attack the weak. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people and they fear them. If it were not for those disappointing shaykhs, Sufis, and Muslim brothers, Sunnis would have a different attitude.
Two years later, the Golden Mosque was bombed and the result has been heightened sectarian violence since then. The plan worked brilliantly. Ayman al Zawahiri also fleshed out the al Qaeda strategy, recognizing that they must first win the media war:
However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.
Al Zawahiri also told us that stage one for Iraq is to "expel the Americans". Why are so many in Congress willing to this terrorist's bidding? By engaging in spectacular attacks, al Qaeda is all too often winning the information war--and, by extension, the larger war--as J.D. Johannes explains:
What explains the downtick of confidence against a backdrop of success?
Since mid-2005, al Qaeda has aimed not to defeat the Coalition militarily, but to drain American public support politically. The strategy was forced on the insurgents by a string of failures in 2004 and 2005. The Baathist groups and their al Qaeda allies planned first to establish a geographic base of control within Iraq; second, to block Iraqi elections; and third, to prevent the establishment of the Iraqi Security Forces. They failed to achieve any of these goals.
The ensuing strategy was dictated by weakness. Mass killings of Shi'ite civilians - a tactic designed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi over the initial protests of the al Qaeda leadership - replaced military confrontation as the insurgency's operational focus. Civilian atrocity is, by definition, easy to implement, as it targets what is undefended. The strategy does nothing to "win hearts and minds." Support for al Qaeda has dwindled to under 2% among the Sunnis of Iraq; among other groups, it doesn't register at all. Nor can atrocities advance a political agenda, or control real estate.
But the mass killings were a boon to recruitment. The slaughter of Shi'ite civilians provoked retaliatory attacks by Shi'ite militias - attacks that were often as random as the carnage that initiated them. This enabled the insurgency to recruit, albeit from a diminishing population base. In effect, Sunni radicals kept the insurgency alive by sucking the blood out of their own community.
But al Qaeda's largest harvest from "random slaughter" strategy was realized in America. Through acts of indiscriminate violence transmitted by the media, insurgents brought their war to America's living rooms. The atrocity-of-the-day is the principal informational input most Americans receive. This forms their knowledge base. The public does not live in the villages and mahalas of Iraq. Patterns of recovery, of normalcy, are not evident.
This is the essence of 4th Generation Warfare. And al Qaeda is clearly winning it.
I'm afraid Johannes may be right, who in turn fears that Osama bin Laden may be right, that "the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear." Despite June being a better month and despite recent successes, politicians from both parties are advocating a change to the current plan. This makes no sense. In this, I agree with Charles Krauthammer:
It is understandable that Sens. Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, Snowe and Warner may no longer trust President Bush's judgment when he tells them to wait until Petraeus reports in September. What is not understandable is the vote of no confidence they are passing on Petraeus. These are the same senators who sent him back to Iraq by an 81 to 0 vote to institute his new counterinsurgency strategy.
A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.
Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus's plan just as it is beginning -- the last surge troops arrived only last month -- on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.
That's the logic of the wobbly Republicans' position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government's inability to meet the required political "benchmarks." As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.
But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al-Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial levels with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.
The costs are heartbreakingly high -- increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.
In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy -- al-Qaeda -- that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost.
I think I understand why so many are bailing. They are coming to the belief that we've already lost, and that any future actions would be fruitless. Maybe all of that is true, but maybe none of it is true. In either case, I believe it's in our best interests to give the current plan a fair shot. As I see it, it was too long in coming, but we finally have a strategy that has a decent chance of working, but it can't work if our elected representatives prematurely pull the plug on it. Regretfully, there is also a claque of Democrats who have made the ugly calculus that losing in Iraq spells victory for the Democratic Party. Nothing would please me more than to deny them both, but the critical issue is to turn the corner on Iraq. There's not much Redstaters can do about Democrats, but we can at least influence wavering Republicans.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | I Say Again, They Are Cowards and Tucktails — Comments (90) »
The al Qaeda strategy: Strike the soft targets in Iraq and in the U.S. Congress 77 Comments (0 topical, 77 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Much of the push for action to withdraw now and not wait until September is coming from those whose greatest fear is that there will be substantial success on the ground by that time. They are so deeply embedded in defeat that any chance of an American success will be fought tooth and nail. This represents about 30% of Congress, but includes much of the Democrat leadership group. Imagine the political catastrophe that would strike the Democrat Party if the perception of defeat in Iraq were turned around. Not only would the leaders in Congress be discredited utterly, every one of their Presidential candidates would be left with copious quantities of egg on their faces.
Nevertheless, those of us supporting continued US military engagement in Iraq cannot ignore the will of the American people (cf. the immigration bill). And regardless of liberal bias in the media and misleading propaganda foisted upon us, the American people themselves have lost faith in the war effort and are clamoring for a change. While I back 'the surge' to the hilt, I also see the need to refocus efforts in Iraq on the long term establishment of a defensible forward base, with less attention paid to whether the Iraqis are happy with their situation or government. I don't think the Warner/Domenici move is the right one, but perhaps it may carve out a middle ground and buy time. Like it or not, given a choice solely between staying and pulling out, the writing is on the wall.
The fundamental problem with the situation in Iraq IMO is that we have bought into the need to satisfy those who lost the war in the first place. A forced withdrawal from Iraq would be an American defeat. A chaotic Iraq with a well established forward US base in the Middle East on Iraqi soil would be an outstanding American victory by any reasonable measure. We will emerge with one of our major foes defeated (Saddam), a virulently anti-American regional military force destroyed, and with a central position from which to strike our enemies in the future. That may have to be sufficient for the present until new political leadership emerges in the US which can consolidate gains, persuasively articulate a victory scenario, and prepare for the next move in the broader war.
In brief, I am more interested in America maintaining a strong forward base in Iraq than what happens or does not happen to the Iraqis. It is up to them to determine their own future; we need to worry about our own.
the author did make some good points, but "being realistic" and "not ignoring the will of the American people" where not two of them. "Will of the American people"? What "Will"? All I see is lack of historical knowledge, apathy, and whining when you have sacrificed nada.
The president and his military leaders need to know why we fight and then make the best decisions. An ignorant and weak willed public be damned! This IS life or death, people are dying, and our civilization could end up dying as well. Once no one will fight for it, well, that means it is dead.
Molon Labe!
I agree completely 100%, "Much of the push for action to withdraw now and not wait until September is coming from those whose greatest fear is that there will be substantial success on the ground by that time."
It takes five years to get to know a people and culture and really infiltrate the community. Now, finally, as our troops are beginning to gain the trust and respect of the Iraqi people, to learn the language, we can root out the bad guys. Just when the Iraqi national army is finally stood up, and the Iraqi police force are working as one well-oiled machine all in a three-legged stool on which will perch Iraqi National sovereignty as a free and democratic Muslim country.
And the liberals know it, and they are deathly afraid we will have a stabilized Iraq leading up to the November elections in '08.
This sentence: "A chaotic Iraq with a well established forward US base in the Middle East on Iraqi soil would be an outstanding American victory by any reasonable measure."
By any reasonable measure? I don't believe so, particularly if al Qaeda gains a foothold and uses Iraq to recruit and train, particularly if Iranian agents are in positions of power in the Iraqi government.
The Iraqi people are going to have a secure, democratic government on their own.
What is the end game here? Do you really believe that an fiercely Islamic country with Shiite and Sunni's is going to live together in a western style democracy? I don't.
Meanwhile, In Pakistan the folks behind 9-11 are rebuilding their strength.
Political progress on the national level is going too slow, but Anbar and Diyala are military AND political successes. The 1920 Brigades have joined the coalition in Diyala, which is political progress. Al Sadr has bugged out to Iran (again), which is political progress. But first things first. Security is the number one priority among the Iraqi people, and it's hard to make a lot of political advancement when the people are being attacked by various factions.
It is true that those responsible for 9-11 are in Pakistan. But the group responsible for 9-11 has claimed Iraq as the central front in their war against us, so your point is what exactly?
Too bad so few took his words seriously. Al Zawahiri wrote his letter to al Zarqawi, and we intercepted it. Why would you believe that al Zawahiri was lying to a fellow al Qaeda member?
establishment of a desireable alternative to their Wahhabist rule more than anything. Up to now, the only other alternative has been secular muslims that oppress the people.
A good by-product of the pouring of Islamist resources into Iraq has been that they have had less resources to focus on attacking us here in the Lower 48.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The President has been very clear. Deep in every man's heart, is the yearning to be free. This is why the Sunnies and the Shitites will be happy to live together in peace without Saddam.
They lived in peace together before we liberated there country. Why would you think they couldn't live together in peace now?
Doubly so when the racism is this overt. Deal with your own inner demons on your own personal time, faker.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'm not a Director, so I can't assign yoou a 500-word essay.
But every time I see a post like yours, it always begs the question - what's your answer?
Partition Iraq?
Invade Pakistan?
Nuke and Pave the Middle East?
Fortress America (which would mean not only expelling most of our entrenched illegal population, but will almost certainly necessitate the end of free trade as well to do it right)?
So, give us your answer.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."
USA Today
This undermines the scary picture with which a withdrawal scenario is being painted by some.
him to say, knowing that it aint happening anytime soon. BTW I have some beach front property in Utah for sell.
It's time to use the T-word against those whose acts, conduct, and votes on the floor of Congress give aid and comfort and assist al-Qaeda.
Some of the Congressional "pullout" folks like to pay lip service to Afghanistan, saying we need to redouble our efforts there etc. Once we're out of Iraq and all the IEDs start showing up in Afghanistan instead, how long before they start screaming for us to high-tail it out of there. We've given the government there even more time to take over than in Iraq right?
...But they're lying.
As soon as we pull out of Iraq, the very same arguments put forward on Iraq will simply be shifted over the Afghanistan. (And, indeed, already are in nations like Canada - Canada will likely pull out all its forces by the end of 2008, despite the Minority Government's resistance to that.)
I guarantee this - if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq by the summer of 2008, we'll be out of Afghanistan by the Spring of 2009.
(And I believe we'd then be out of South Korea by 2010 - the Dems long-term goal is to remove all U.S. forces from overseas A.S.A.P...)
to allow Iraq to fall into an Afghanistan/Taliban-type lawless anarchy that is a safehaven for al Qaeda while we concentrate on al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
Sounds like whack-a-mole to me -- rather than attacking al Qaeda globally we wait until they have take over a country and THEN lob missiles at them.
The Congressional Dems have no clue what is even going on in Afghanistan - Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer...they wouldn't know the current status of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan if showed them a movie of it.
They don't care. Afghanistan is a talking point to them "We need to get out of Iraq and back to what our focus is...going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan" <---- how many times have you heard a Durbin or a Reid say that??? First off, they have NO intention of refocusing on Afghanistan. They didn't say they wanted troops shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan...they said they want them HOME.
And secondly, yes...let's take 100,000 troops that are currently within 5 miles of 2,000 Al Qaeda operatives and pull them out and send them 3 countries away to hunt for a pocket of 6 Al Qaeda sitting on top of a mountain 275 miles away.
That's brilliant. That's the Leftist Handbook of Warfare and Strategy.
Stupidity doesn't explain things the same way malicious intent does.
Assume Kerry, Hilary, and Co are up to sabotage, and their actions are more understandable.
since Vietnam, leftists have tried to prove the military can not accomplish anything. What possible good would it do them for us to have an accomplishment?
Molon Labe!
I think Democrats in congress have been clear about that.
Of course, some soldiers would have to come home, because the Democrats don't want soldiers to fight unless they have been back home for 1 year. But they have specifically mentioned Afghanistan as a battleground where many of our troops should redeploy.
There should be two “central fronts” in the War on Terror. For military purposes it should be focused on where the leadership and main strength of Al Qaeda and related organizations exist. To me, that is clearly in the area of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
call for redeployment of US forces from Iraq to the known aQ stronghold in Okinawa? You know, just "over the horizon" where they could be redeployed in case of "emergency".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But note that neither Pelosi nor Reid have called for this strange redeployment to Okinawa, and the person who i was replying to suggested Democratic congressmen had only said bring the troops home.
In general, Democrats have been very consistent. Remember the March bill calling for redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan?
Pelosi recently spoke of a "redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan". link
I don't think one quote by one American congressman is valid evidence to conclude that "they have no clue". I don't even think Murtha ever repeated his Okinawa nonsense after the first instance.
Keep in mind that Murtha is considered to be "the" expert on affairs military by the House Dem leadership. He WAS the front guy for over two years. And, FWIW, I know he repeated it because, at the time, our son had just deployed back home from Oki, so we were sensitized to Oki in the news.
The utterly amazing part of this, is that, not only is Oki over 5,000 miles from Iraq, we have been negotiating with Japanese for YEARS to reduce our presence there. As a matter of fact, at the time Congressman J-off was mouthing about redeployment to Oki, the Marine Corps was announcing they were going to redeploy the majority of the 31st MEU from Oki to Guam over the next few years.
The Democrats in congress have no clue about military deployments or anything military. They just want troops moved someplace. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a call for them to be sent to Europe.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If he did, i'm sure he did so after being asked about his original comment. I can't recall the last time Murtha suggestd that troops be moved to Okinawa from Iraq.
And I never saw Okinawa mentioned in any bill drafted by Democrats. I never heard Pelosi or Reid talking about redeployment to Okinawa, and Murtha's quote is so isolated that cannot be used as evidence to conclude that Democratic congressmen have no clue.
bk is talking about ordinance. Not aQ "leaving" Iraq. We leave Iraq and they will likely have a safe harbor from which to centralize planning that they do not have now. Their "leadership" may be in Pakistan, but Pakistan is no safe harbor for them, they are marginalized and hunted. Taking the pressure off them in Iraq - where we've had good success killing and capturing their senior leadership - gives them the ability to plan and execute with impunity elsewhere.
But I have no hope that you or the Democrats could every understand that.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little..
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
is decidedly NOT increased regulation. The "problem" is the market. We've gone from underwriters checking county records to make sure a borrower isn't dead before they give them a 100% LTV loan (and that's not far from the truth) to virtually no 100% financing for non-prime borrowers.
The issue of "high cost loans" is decidedly a load of crap. There are about a dozen states and municipalities that have "high cost" rules that can impact a residential loan. In today's market, if that's all somebody has to complain about, it's a really good day. And, FWIW, in 10+ years of mortgage banking and thousands of loans, I've run into that issue once. And it was a foreclosure bailout in CO where they have pretty ugly "high cost" restrictions.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
thinking of so-called predatory lending laws. But, yes, its underwriters driven by a rote following of internal non-governmental company guidelines that prevents any lender employee from making a human decision. Have I got it more right? I am deeply involved in investor loans but am no where near your level of expertise. We ought to talk about this later this week.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm just stating what it really is, regardless of whatever lies they may be saying about supporting the mission there today.
The Iraqi Police we have been training and arming have been working with us by day and attacking us by night. (Gates and Pace discussed it at their press conference the other day.
Congress doesn't do anything but talk. These guys are killing us with our own weapons -- after we train them. This is far more damaging to the war effort than anything Congress is going to do.
Americans tell everyone in Iraq, that they better not depend on America to help them because Congress isn't going to allow it.
Why would anyone be surprised that some Iraqis think it might be good to hedge their bets. Do anti-war Americans really think the Iraqis don't know what happened to the Vietnamese that sided with America in that war? Congress and the Anti war groups are fueling much of the Al-Qaeda support
police attacks on our troops? I'm sorry, but that sounds like the RW equivalent of "society is to blame for the crimes that gang members commit." The turncoat police are committing acts of terrorism, not "hedging their bets"!
There isn't a problem with traitors in Al Anbar anymore because the stepped-up efforts there convinced the locals that there would actually be enough US presence to defeat AQ. So they started turning the traitors in.
attack after training. The USSR, Germany and Japan had spies as well that infiltrated American ranks. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi police are with us. The infiltrators kill Iraqi police, so when you speak in general terms, you mislead, just like the MSM does each day.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Your link refers to a specific incident and Pace-Gates stated that U.S. forces are vetting and re-training Iraqi police. Of course extremist paramilitants will try to infiltrate. Iraqi military forces are significantly further along, with over 100 battalions (at 950± per battalion) at Level 1 or 2 status.
BIG PICTURE ALERT.....BIG PICTURE ALERT!!!
Setting up a US/West-friendly nation-state, or several of them, in Iraq is IMPOSSIBLE. Why? Islam makes this so. It will be, like EVERY other Muslim nation, a backstabbing one at best. (See: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, now Turkey too) Hell, the damn Iraqi Constitution already enshrines Sharia into their law system. Game over...no good, trustworthy ally there.
If we CAN'T set up a nation friendly to infidel states, then we shouldn't be wasting any more men or money there? We shouldn't. This is a clear and simple point ANY real conservative could recognize and have the courage to act upon, regarldess of the carnage that will ensue. Some liberals say "no blood for oil", well a hell of a lot of conservatives are saying "no blood for people who hate us now and will always hate us, because their religion commands them to."
Hey guys, isn't the War on Islamic Jihad a global war? If so, why get all hung up on Iraq as though it's the ONLY place we can win, or lose, this war? You sound like little children who have one toy taken away and scream their heads off when they've got a million other, better toys to play with.
How 'bout immigration? It won't matter what happens in Iraq as long as the border isn't closed to Muslims. EVERY Muslim community in the West and the US has already bred jihadists....you think this will somehow get better if we "WIN" in Iraq? Hell no, the larger the Muslim community, the more jihadists they produce, and the harder it is to protect the country from terrorist attacks. We will eventually become another Arab Muslim shithole, be it in 50 or 100 or 150 years. It's obvious, just take a gander at Islamic history and see what happens to countries where Muslims show up. HELLO!?!?!? It's the Quran stupid!!
The carnage in Iraq after we pull out will be a great blow to GLOBAL JIHAD. The greatest financiers of global jihad and Wahabbist Islam, Saudi Arabia, will be forced to spend money, men, and materiel in Iraq...as will Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Queda, etc....instead of using it all to pay off our corrupt politicians, to build mosques all over Europe and America, and to fund jihadist groups (both violent and non-violent)around the world (see: Chechnya, Albania, al-Queda cells in South America, CAIR). Traveling jihadist from all over the world will want a piece of the action in Iraq, and their Sunni, or Shia, or Kurdish, or Perisan adversary will put the bullets in them for us. Jihadist will literally LEAVE the West to go die in Iraq, to win the heart of the Islamic world for their tribe. Don't underestimate their hate for each other. Don't underestimate the ability of their pride to cloud their judgement and run them straight into death's arms, at the hands of their own. These people are nuts, and we'll TRULY see this once we leave Iraq.
The Camp of Islam would be terribly weakened my the mayhem in Iraq, and this would be a GREAT thing for the West and the US. Then we could start concentrating on the heart of the matter, Islam, and doing the simple things that MUST be done to defeat Islamic Jihad once and for all....like shutting down ALL Muslim immigration to the US and the West, and giving the boot to all non-citizen Muslims.
You're WAAAAY behind the curve here on RedState as far as the big picture goes, embarrassingly so. You're beating dead horses and it's utterly boring. And sometimes funny, especially when you get all self-righteous and blindly start calling ANYONE who wants out of Iraq a coward and a traitor.
You should really read up on Islam and Islamism. There're fundamental differences between the two concepts. Oh, and there's no profanity on this website.
...especially when you get all self-righteous and blindly start calling ANYONE who wants out of Iraq a coward and a traitor.
Categorically false, and a strong indicator of a reading comprehension problem.
tell that to the Kurds.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Tell that to the America mothers of the American soldiers who will die in the next few months....ALL wasted deaths at this point....ALL of them...just so Iraqis can set up another Islamic hole....which is the OBVIOUS outcome at this point.
I care more about my neighbors and my country's safety than some Kurds halfway across the world. And don't tell me we're in a "global village."
I know over 40 of those families that you toss off so easily. Those deaths were most certainly not "wasted", any more than those who will die in the future. And we're not doing "global village".
You are a patently offensive excuse for a thing with opposable thumbs.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
>>>You're beating dead horses and it's utterly boring.<<<
Then leave, and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. No one will miss you.
The difference between Islam and IslamISM....wow, are you "nuanced" or what? If only I could be so intelligent to use terms so precisely... like you do with "bigotry". Then I could be just like....uh....
Did you comprehend that?
Islamists or Muslims? If you truly believe that a solution to this war is to close our borders to all Muslims, then yes, I think you do have a religious bigotry problem.
Nuance and intelligence aren't necessary for grokking basic definitions of words. You really should learn a few some time.
Oooo, grokking. You're really out to impress the ladies today, aren't you Charles? Well, i'd assert you either don't understand the word "bigotry" or don't understand how non-extremist Muslim communities can, do, and will breed jihadists.
Yes, I truly believe that a solution to this war is to close our borders to all Muslims. No, that does not make me a religious bigot.
Let's see. We're at war, right. More specifically, Muhammad clearly declared war upon us infidels 1400 years ago and CLEARLY commands all Muslims to work towards the triumph of Islamic law over the whole of the earth.
Ok. So, if someone says that they are Muslim that means they are followers of Islam, Allah and Muhammed. Now, whether or not you believe Islam is inherently evil or destructive or oppresive, anyone with a decent understanding of Islam, Islamic history, and current affairs would admit that AT THE VERY LEAST Islam is highly agressive towards non-Muslims and non-Muslim nations, governments, and cultures, and that Muslims and Muslim communities are FAR, FAR more likely to be the source of religiously inspired violence than any other mainstream religious group in the world.
Let's see. Muslims openly pledge allegiance to a religion that is, at the very least, highly suspect. Thus, they are openly admitting that they are part of a religious group far more prone to violence and intimidation than any other religious group in the world. (Heck, they're more prone to violence and intimidation than any NON-CRIMINAL entity that I can think of.)
Also, we KNOW that a certain percentage of these Muslims are dedicated, right at this moment, to waging war against us and our way of life; violently, through intimidation, through the court systems, etc.
What we DONT know is how to figure out which Muslims coming into our country are coming here to wage Jihad or not. What we DONT know is when a "moderate" Muslim allowed into our country will suddenly decide to attack his infidel neighbors, or whether his children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren will decide to wage jihad later on, after being inspired by their religion which we KNOW is, at the very least, highly agressive towards all non-believers and their ways of life.
What we KNOW is that every country or community in the history of the world who has had the ill-fortune to meet and interact with this group of people has paid a serious price in terms of peace and prosperity.....some have never recovered and have been wiped off the face of the earth, violently.
Now, I say we don't take ANY chance with these people. There's not ONE reason to do so. They are HIGH-RISK people with OBVIOUS religious baggage and they are NOT worth the gamble, paritculary in a time of war.
How that makes me a religious bigot, I do not know. Please explain.
would be a moritorium on ALL immigration, except for persons that would enhance our national security/technology needs, esp given 911 and given the mass invasion of illegals since 1986 and since 911.
Short of that, I do think we should set a very high burden of proof on muslims/or and persons from nations that breed terrorists.
There is no right to enter the US.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Yup, I call that bigotry, and you should at least be honest enough with yourself to own up to it. Your fatal logical flaw is your failure to make any meaningful distinctions between the religion and the neo-Salafist ideology that is the true threat to our interests.
I wish I could write flytraps like this.
Run like Reagan!
may be in order here. Much as I hate to admit it, Vashine may have a point in that Islam is different from other religions in a very important aspect: It has both a political and a spiritual component. I’m speaking of classic Islam. The Islamists are the ones who attempt to propagate the political component at the point of a sword, but the reality of that activity being tolerated in classic Islam is not diminished. The vocal, pacifistic Muslins in the world are in a decided minority.
We have religious tolerance here precisely because we DO separate church and state. Classic Islam does not. This creates a problem for us, because we want desperately to oppose the political component without opposing the religious component. We want to fight the fascism without being prejudiced against the religion. The only way that is possible is for Islam to reform (which, I believe, it actually has in much of the American Islamic community), to a condition of the spirituality of the religion being distinguished from the political component.
Unfortunately, while there is a degree of that having occurred here, in most of the world I think the Islamists will be tolerated at the least, if not actively encouraged.
As long as the political and spiritual components of Islam remain bound together, we have an enigma, because we cannot fight the one without seeming bigoted against the other.
"As long as the political and spiritual components of Islam remain bound together, we have an enigma, because we cannot fight the one without seeming bigoted against the other."
Unfortunately, the Koran focuses just as heavily if not more heavily on political Islam than on personal Islam. More importantly, the Koran does not separate the political from the personal/moral/spiritual. Islam is a comprehensive worldview that covers everything from issues of personal hygiene to how society at large should be structured.
A couple of follow-up rhetorical questions:
If you wanted to devise a way to bring Western civilization to its knees by constructing a belief system to take maximum advantage of the PC/moral equivalence/timidity of the West, what aspects of Islam would you change to maximize the threat?
If David Karesh lived a thousand years ago, and people still followed him to this day, would we consider his followers to be part of a cult?
Luther was not shy about criticizing the Catholic Church. If the Western world wants to facilitate a reformation of Islam or at least a muting of "political Islam" then we can't be overly PC about questioning certain tenants. If we are, then the only people citing the Koran are people like Bin Laden.
If followers of David Koresh are still around a thousand years from now, we will have Janet Reno and the FBI's inferno to thank for that.
A point worth keeping in mind as we look to "eliminate" extremists.
Sufis aren't into that and neither are a number of Shia (al Sistani is most well known), and neither are an overwhelming majority of American Muslims. Vashine is on more solid ground when talking about Muslim-majority nations that practice sharia, but then he veered into unsupportable territory with his indictment of all Muslims, seeking to forbid all of them entry into our country because they pray to Allah.
I don't have a fond disposition towards Islam (see here), but I think it's fair to say that most Muslims do not seek a theocratic caliphate obtained by violent means.
questions and getting specific. We should not let the questioning of Islam or the challenge of Islamic teaching become taboo.
From a former Jihadist (link provided in an earlier comment):
"I disagree with those who say the pressing problem is simply how do we deal with an aberrant, extreme minority who have unleashed a reign of terror on Britain ? rather, I believe the heart of the matter is Islam itself and how its teachings are interpreted. If we isolate the problem to that of the extreme fringe, then we are merely skimming the surface.
What we Muslims need to do is go back to our books: we need to debate the teachings that are used to radicalise young men and legitimise the killing of innocent people. We need to discuss and refashion the set of rules that govern how Muslims ? whose homes and souls are firmly planted in the West ? live alongside nonMuslims. Only when we do this can we successfully dissect the radicals’ interpretation of Islam and fight back against terrorism.
We can no longer turn a blind eye to the driving force behind terror attacks both at home and abroad. It should not matter how painful or embarrassing this admission may be, and nor should it matter how taboo this subject is."
silent in the Middle East is that the extremists have the advantage in public debate of the actual language of the Koran and the actual history of Mohammed himself. That the moderate version of Islam practiced by most Muslims for most of history is similar to the social gospel mainline Christian liberal churches. Muslims chucked the call to violence. Liberal Christians chucked the Bible's teachings on sin.
Tell me your thoughts on this.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
in identifying moderate Islam as a result of individual human beings simply deciding not to follow everything in the Koran. Whether such individuals are better characterized as cultural Muslims, secular Muslims, Westernized Muslims, etc. is a largely a matter of semantics. I do think many Muslims living in the U.S. have internalized Western values, and limit their Islam to the non-political aspects. That being said, there is evidence that the younger generation is more strident in their practice of Islam.
I would disagree that any comparison to Christianity in this context is valid. The New Testament of the Bible does not have passages that permit, much less sanctify violence. Christians who misbehave behave (e.g. act out in a violent theocratic manner) behave in a way that is CONTRARY to their holy book. Muslims who misbehave act in a manner that is REQUIRED by their holy book.
You are right that post-modern Christianity can be light on challenging sin but I think that any comparison of Islam and Christianity is misleading given the key contrast in holy books.
Islam today seems to be like the Christianity of ~800 years ago during the Crusades. Don't they feel like they need to undo the damage done (including retaking Spain for example) from the Crusades? It's hard for us to think in those terms, but isn't that where we are today? The Islamists figure it's their divine duty to take over the world, converting those they can and killing those they can't. We tend to think in terms of our being more civilized in 2000 than we were in 1200, but that's not how the enemy acts.
When Christians were off doing bad things in 1200, they did so CONTRARY to what the New Testament told them. When Muslims of today do bad things, they point to specific verses in the Koran COMPELLING them to commit acts of violence.
Thus the Christian reformation involved people like Luther CITING specific verses in the Bible, not RUNNING away from the language of the holy book, like moderate Muslims seem to do.
This fact is why it is so hard for moderates to take on violent Jihadists. The underlying text of Islam (e.g. the Koran) cannot fairly be compared with the New Testament.
So it's even worse today than comparing to a "reverse Crusades" mentality. Yikes!
In asking Muslims to "reform" Islam, you are asking them to go against a book that is supposed to be written by God.
Another contrast with the New Testament, which was written by man but inspired by God, the Koran was allegedly not written by man.
It is a bad situation----should make for an interesting century.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I hope Pakistan doesn't become another hotspot. The suicide bombing carried out by militants that killed 42 innocents today worries me.
Muslims in general are crazy and heartless, but Pakistanis are particularly crazy. One of them gave North Korea nuclear weapons know-how, and they are said to be giving Bin Laden shelter.
If an awful lot of foreign fightrs are from Syria (10% of all foreigh fighters), then what would he call the number of Saudis that are infiltrating the borders and killing innocent? 45% of foreign fighters in Iraq are said to be Saudi, according to senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers. 15% are from Syria and Lebanon, and 10% from North Africa.
Yeah, exactly. First thing that should have been done by Bush after 9/11 was to halt ALL immigration from Saudi Arabia. A bunch of Saudis attacked our nation, pure and simple. Now we're letting more than ever into our nation. Keep the potential terrorists coming!!
9/11 was not an intelligence failure, it was an immigration failure. We can't just let any and everyone into this country, particulary when they openly pledge allegiance to a religion that has inspired millions of its followers to wage warfare against non-believers and threaten others with death over some silly cartoons.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)