There are a number of fallacies surrounding the current War on Terror-- a misnomer, I might add, since wars are conventionally waged on nations and armies, not emotional states or the methods that produce them. One such fallacy is that President Bush hyped or otherwise lied about the case for war in Iraq. This simply isn't true. Instead it's more the case of having heard a lie often enough that it's become accepted as truth. Which is where we are politically in this nation today. One faction knows the truth but refuses to publically address it, while the other faction consistently fails to defend the truth... until recently. One faction suffers from selective-- and disingenuous --gaps in memory, while the other faction consistently fails to call them on it, despite the mountain of evidence at their disposal... until recently.
Another such fallacy is that the war in Iraq, and the reasons for the war, were widely opposed, when in fact one political faction demanded the right to vote on a resolution supporting the war-- an obvious political move. Everyone wanted to be on record supporting the war, at least until the 2004 Presidential election, at which time, in another obvious political move, everyone wanted to go on record as denouncing the war.
I've presented the image a number of times, and it bears repeating: While we bicker like dogs over a dry hollow bone, our attention is diverted from the cat eating at our food dish. The old maxim that 'all politics stops at the shoreline' has been shattered. President's Carter and Clinton feel no shame in denegrading the U.S. on foreign soil to foreign audiences. In fact, it seems to have become a badge of honor among one political faction. Lying and acts of treason, too, have become commonplace and accepted as the norm.
So where does that leave the United States in this current political and diplomatic crisis? The New York Times can now release any classified material they please with impugnity because they know that no one will do anything about it; no one will hold them accountable. The hypocrsy of one political faction is so blatantly obvious it boggles the mind to wonder how the general public could fail to see it and not demand their elected officals do something to cut it off like the gangreous limb that it is. How is it one political faction can demand a special counsel to investigate the leaking of the name of a not-so-secret secret agent, and not demand the same for the New York Times? How it that one political faction can be so morally outraged that a CIA operative's life was put at risk, condemning the wrong persons for political reasons, and yet applaud the courage of a newspaper that actively works to undermine the U.S. government in the prosecution of this so-called 'War on Terror'? How is it this political faction can applaud treason?
Moving on... I was given a link to a story at The New Yorker today-- The Master Plan, by Lawrence Wright. The posit for the link was to 'get beyond th[e] tit-for-tat crap,' that is "liberals are bad, conservatives are good." Now, I reject that notion, but fine, let's look at the article and see what we can see. Eleven pages of print is a hefty read for someone who has to read between commercial breaks, and between newscasts, but I managed it--even finding time to use the trusty highlighter. What I found in Mr. Wright's piece was a very instructive, in depth look into the Jihadist's history-- specifically Al Qaeda --and the thinkers, movers and shakers of the Wahhabist movement. Much of the first eight pages is history; who met who and how. But nothing to support any notion that the war in Iraq in not essential to winning the War on Terror, or that one select line leaked from the NIE by the New York times and taken completely out of context. Returning the hypocrisy of one political faction; how dare they, our elected officials, make broad accusations and level condemnation on our current war strategy based on a New York Times leak, when these same elected officials have already read the complete NIE-- at least those on the Intellegence Committee? And yet none have seen fit to speak out against the New York Times.
Moving on... It's not till you get to about page 7 that the really interesting stuff comes along. The whole purpose of this article is to tell the world that Al Qaeda is simply the beginning of a larger, bolder plan. The article further reveals that these whack-jobs are not as whacked as they've been made out to be. They are thinking, planning, and wondering what will be needed should their jihadist dream be realized.
After coalition forces overran Al Qaeda compounds in Afghanistan in late 2001, they seized thousands of pages of internal memoranda, records of strategy sessions and ethical debates, and military manuals, but not a single page devoted to the politics of Al Qaeda. Alone among Al Qaeda theorists, Naji briefly addresses whether jihadis are prepared to run a state should they succeed in toppling one. He quotes a colleague who posed the question "Assuming that we get rid of the apostate regimes today, who will take over the ministry of agriculture, trade, economics, etc.?" Beyond the simplistic notion of imposing a caliphate and establishing the rule of Islamic law, the leaders of the organization appear never to have thought about the most basic facts of government. What kind of economic model would they follow? How would they cope with unemployment, so rampant in the Muslim world? Where do they stand on the environment? Health care? The truth, as Naji essentially concedes, is that the radical Islamists have no interest in government; they are interested only in jihad.
[Emphasis mine]
No interest in ruling nations, only in killing or subjugating others. Pretty much the same things the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan. But the Islamist writer and theorist known as Naji is asking the right questions.
The crux of the entire article however are the six well-thought out phases of Islam's plan to rule the world.
"Al Qaeda drew up a feasible plan within a well-defined time frame. The plan was based on improving the Islamic jihadist action in quality and quantity and expanding it to include the entire world."Which is as follows...
--Fouad Hussein, Author of "Al-Zarqawi: the Second Generation of Al Qaeda"
One-- Al Qaeda’s twenty-year plan began on September 11th, with a stage that Hussein calls "The Awakening." This first stage, says Hussein, ended in 2003, when American troops entered Baghdad.
Two-- The second, "Eye-Opening" stage will last until the end of 2006, Hussein writes. Iraq will become the recruiting ground for young men eager to attack America.
Three-- "Arising and Standing Up," will last from 2007 to 2010. Al Qaeda's focus will be on Syria and Turkey, but it will also begin to directly confront Israel, in order to gain more credibility among the Muslim population.
Four-- Attacks against the Middle East petroleum industry will continue, and America's power will deteriorate through the constant expansion of the circle of confrontation. "By then, Al Qaeda will have completed its electronic capabilities, and it will be time to use them to launch electronic attacks to undermine the U.S. economy." Islamists will promote the idea of using gold as the international medium of exchange, leading to the collapse of the dollar.
At which point an Islamic caliphate can be declared, inaugurating stage...
Five-- Lasting until 2016. "At this stage, the Western fist in the Arab region will loosen, and Israel will not be able to carry out preëmptive or precautionary strikes," Hussein writes. "The international balance will change." Al Qaeda and the Islamist movement will attract powerful new economic allies, such as China, and Europe will fall into disunity.
Six-- a period of "total confrontation." The now established caliphate will form an Islamic Army and will instigate a worldwide fight between the "believers" and the "non-believers." Hussein proclaims, "The world will realize the meaning of real terrorism." By 2020, "definitive victory" will have been achieved. Victory, according to the Al Qaeda ideologues, means that "falsehood will come to an end... The Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness."
If there was ever any doubt as to the jihadi's purpose in attacking the U.S. and their sanity-deprived willingness to throw away the lives of dedicated soldiers in suicide missions, this should dispell any such illusions; that Islam, as system of religion, is dangerously non-peaceful. I see nothing in the article, as a whole, to dissuade me from desiring complete confrontation with Islam... on foreign soil. It may sound cliche, but we ARE in a struggle for western civilization, and the greatest military power this world has ever known will undoubtedly lose-- and the rest of the world with it --if one political faction in particular wins meaningful power in either of the next two election cycles.
The Murtha idiocy must be prevented at all costs. This was never a battle between America and Afghanistan alone; between the U.S. and Bin Laden alone. The scope and nature of this new war is beyond anything this nation-- and much of the world --has ever faced, and it will take steadfastness and the courage of titans to earn victory. This war will not be over in two years, not even in ten. According to Fouad Hussein, we're in the midst of a twenty year war that began on 9-11. A plan which, seemingly, is right on course.
In closing, allow me to make an observation. People are commanded to turn the other cheek, not nations, and only for personal affronts. When fighting for survival and the freedom to worship God one will be called upon to do what one might not ever choose to do... given a choice. And while it's true that those who live by the sword often die by the sword, let's not forget that in order for someone to die by sword, someone else must wield a sword. If there was ever a reason to go to war, the potential for loss of liberty, and freedom to worship the one true God, to an enemy that neither knows God, nor believes in God, is that reason.
Rosie O'Donnell thinks radical Christianity is dangerous? Christianity doesn't want to put her in a burqa, force her into a subservient role, and stone her for being a homosexual. Radical Islam most certainly will. This new war is not for the faint of heart.
I regret to inform you that this weblog and some of its posts and links have been identified as potentially Islamophobic.
Under EU Directive DCLXVI it is compulsory for all contributors to websites accessible from the European Union to take the following Islamophobia test:
YOU MAY BE AN ISLAMOPHOBE IF...
(1) You refer to the midwinter holiday as 'C*****mas'.
(2) You save loose change in a p***y-bank.
(3) You allow your children to read unexpurgated versions of Winnie the Pooh.
(4) You doubt whether it's politically correct to stone rape victims.
(5) You believe that the earth is round.
(6) You think there's something weird about a 50 year old man marrying a six year old girl.
(7) Your children have Barbie dolls or Teddy Bears
(8) You object to being a second class citizen in your own country.
(9) You fail to celebrate cultural diversity when your daughter is gang-raped for not wearing a headscarf.
(10) You think government policy should be determined by your elected representatives rather than a howling mob.
(11) You object to your taxes being used to support people who are plotting to kill you.
(12) You aren't convinced that 'Jihad' means 'Inner Spiritual Struggle'.
(13) You don't understand why the Jews must be exterminated.
(14) You allow your children to play with LEGO.
(15) You aren't married to at least one of your cousins.
(16) You sometimes have doubts about BBC reporting.
(17) You occasionally wonder what's inside those walking tents.
(18) You realise that taqiyya is not a Mexican beverage.
(19) You believe moderate Muslims ride unicorns.
(20) You don't appreciate the multicultural need for Methodist grandmothers to be body-cavity searched before boarding aircraft.
(21) You claim to understand the words "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them", even though you don't speak Arabic.
(22) You object to taxpayers' money being spent for terrorists to hold a festival to commemorate the anniversary of their massacres.
(23) You have reservations about 'faith schools' where the kids will be taught that you and your family are najis (excrement), at public expense.
(24) You don't understand why flying your country's flag has become a hate-crime.
(25) You don't appreciate why it is so insensitive and offensive for the police to prevent oppressed minorities venting their frustration by mass murder.
EVALUATING YOUR SCORE
How many of the questions did you answer 'YES' ?
On a scale of 0 to 25
0 you are a Dhimmi
1 to 5 you are a Najis Kaffir
6 to 10 you are an Islamophobe
11 to 15 you are a Thought Criminal
16 to 20 you are an Enemy of Allah
21 to 25 you are a Zionist Crusader offspring of pigs and monkeys.
Fatwas are automatically awarded for all scores above 5
Fatwas will be posted in plain brown paper envelopes generously sprinkled with ricin, anthrax, sarin and cobalt-60.
I see a lot in the article that dissuades me from that.
First, most muslims were horrified and sickened by the 9/11 attacks. Lumping all of Islam together with the Jihadis is as mistaken as lumping all Christians with supporters of Eric Rudolph.
Second, such confrontations are exactly what the Jihadis want and where they derive their strength.
Look at what lay ahead for al Queda in the fall of 2001: "Two months later, the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which had given sanctuary to bin Laden, was routed, and the Al Qaeda fighters in Tora Bora were pummelled. Although bin Laden and his chief lieutenants escaped death or capture, nearly eighty per cent of Al Qaeda’s members in Afghanistan were killed. Worse, Al Qaeda’s cause was repudiated throughout the world, even in Muslim countries, where the indiscriminate murder of civilians and the use of suicide operatives were denounced as being contrary to Islam. The remnants of the organization scattered and were on the run. Al Qaeda was essentially dead."
Yes, the Jihadi mindset is a great threat and is to be taken seriously. But such a confrontation is exactly what the Jihadis have been trying to provoke, since it would radicalize moderate, peaceful muslims and turn them into Jihadi recruits. For every terrorist we kill, they make three more.
We must take this threat very, very seriously, but we have to understand it and understand how to defeat it. Just taking it head on militarily (especially by invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11) will not sap their strength- it will increase it. We must have a better strategy than they have, and not walk blindly into the traps they set.
No, I am not advocating leaving Iraq (now that we're there, dammit) or rolling over. But we have already made too many missteps in responding to al Queda. Had we not invaded Iraq we would have been in a much, much stronger position right now with Iran (an enemy of Saddam) and Afghanistan (where the Taliban are making a comeback).
It's time to think more broadly and carefully about our strategy so we can more effectively confront theirs.
Our strategy has so far done more to unite than divide the radical Muslim groups- again, what the Jihadis want. Proclaiming a war on Islam would do even more to unite these disparate groups and win them more converts. Painting them all as monolithic is simplistic and misses the opportunities we have to divide them and diffuse the threat the radicals pose.
Another misnomer perpetuated by media.
And my stance is that painting all Christians as supporters of violence because of the positions of a few is wrong, just as painting all Muslims as violent and anti-Western is wrong. Hence the analogy.
But, I KNOW WHAT I was led to believe by the president, and I KNOW that it was untrue. Period. There are millions of us. You can beoieve it's a media-driven myth if you like.
And, this caught my eye:
"The old maxim that 'all politics stops at the shoreline' has been shattered."
That "maxim" has never been true but once: During World War II. Every other war, police action, military engagement, what have you, by this nation has been bitterly opposed by by a loyal opposition -- and I'm pretty sure that disagreement spread past the water's edge in most of them.
Revolution itself? Check.
War of 1812? Check.
Civil War. Check.
Private attempts in the 19th century to cede Cuba and other Central American nations, against the law. Check.
Spanish-American War. Don't know.
World War I. Don't know.
Korea. Don't know.
CIA wars in Central Amnerica. Check.
Vietnam. Check.
Illegal Reagan-led war in Central America. Check.
Persian Gulf War. Don't know.
War in Iraq. CHECK.
I get accused of being too negative over at my joint. There's a post up now called Happy Happy Joy Joy, wherein I solicit happy thoughts -- because the complainers are right. I *am* negative a lot, in the direct face of plenty to be thankful for and glad about.
But dude. I think you trump me on negativity. I'm startled and bloggily concerned sometimes to see post after post of gloom and doom. It's like a game of Jesus and Dragons, or Dungeons and Jesus, or something. Darkness punctuated by tiny shafts of light only occasionally.
Just a thought. Here. Here's a grain of salt to go with it. :-)
Then why aren't they seeking to be heard worldwide, Sol?
"Moderate" muslims COULD put an end to this crap! If they are TRULY a majority. If the TRULY disagreed!
I agree that most Muslims were probably appalled at 9/11. But where are they? CERTAINLY not in NUMBERS! CERTAINLY not SHOUTING FROM THE ROOFTOPS for their brethren to cease and desist!
Until your "moderates" rise up against the extremists, I'll lump them together!
That's a GOOD thing, Sol! We now have our enemies out in the open...er...umm...both here AND abroad!
I am more aware of the threats to this nation than at any point in my life. I have the war in Iraq (as a result of 9/11) to thank for it!
I know who what America's enemies are!
I also heard a few reports from Islamic leaders-- Of Nations, mind you --condemning what had happened and extending their sympathies and condolences to America and the families of the victims of the 9.11 attacks.
Let's weigh those and compare.... Hmmm... Those shouting and demonstrating for Joy seem to far outweigh the calls of sympathy and condolence.
I know... Not particularly scientific, but then much of what passes for media polls today are likewise not particularly scientific. Still, The loudest voice of all since 9.11 has been to sound of silence from the Moderate Muslim world. Little or no condemnation of terrorism, and certainly no demostrations in the streets condemning Islamic terrorists. Also, no overwhelming desire in most Islamic nations to round-up, disarm, try, convict, and/or execute fellow muslims/terrorist murderers.
I don't doubt that millions of muslims abhor violence and the methods of modern jihad. But I will bet you dollars to donuts that they DON'T disapprove of the stated goal... a world where Allah alone is worshipped.
It was not my intention to drag theology into this but the question is more than a little apropos: Isn't this the intention of Satan as well? A world where anything other than God Almighty is exclusively worshipped?
Just a thought.
When's the last time Americans were on the rooftops screaming about something happening on the other side of the world that didn't involve them directly?
Plus, what you hear about the Muslim world is filtered through an imperfect media. Until you read that New Yorker piece, had you known that Hezbollah’s spiritual leader (yes, that same bastard, not giving him any credit here) had publicly denounced the September 11th attacks?
Plus, there is a culture of fear in many of the countries we're talking about. Shout on the rooftop in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan, and the radicals may kill you or your family.
Uniting Muslims against us is only a "good thing" if all you want for your children is war.
War came to us. The choice now is to resist and win, or fold and 'Await the Caliphate.'
I have no desire to pray toward Mecca five times a day to a god that is NOT God. You offer a lot of arguments and criticism but no solutions. Only lamentations for innocents in other war/violence torn nations.
So, tell us. What is the answer?
But then the most convincing lie always is wrapped around a kernel of truth. And such is Islam.
I get your point about criticizing without offering solutions.
I'd start with restoring checks and balances so that this or the next administration doesn't run off half-cocked and get us into another unnecessary and distracting war.
I'd make sure we remain a good country- that is, not advocating torture or depriving accused terrorists of rights. Would you have given the same blank check to Clinton to detain anyone he wants indefinitely? We can't give up what we stand for. I am angry at what I perceive as surrender monkeys on the right who want to surrender their civil rights too quickly.
I'd also do everything I could to better understand the Jihadis and how to defeat them- smartly.
I would not withdraw from Iraq, although some people I respect (including some republicans who have visited there many times) want us to do that. I still believe a perceived loss there would embolden the Jihadis.
I'd fire Rumsfeld- his arrogance and close-mindedness led to serious strategic missteps in the occupation. We needed (and I wanted) more troops.
I would pour much more into stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan. I'd pour more into aiding Afghanistan and Pakistan- it's their border region where the Taliban are strong.
I would put more into diplomacy with Iran. Their president is a nutcase, but he is not very powerful. Remember moderates were on the rise there recently. We're not in a good position to rely on threats or the credibility of our intelligence with the rest of the world right now.
Just a start.
George Bush has said from the very first after 9/11 that we were going to do what it takes. Iraq is a major part of doing what it takes.
If the LEFT would pull its head out of its nether-regions and actually realize that we are at war (we really are, you know...I'm not just making it up, Sol), we might make some progress! Heck, if that were to happen, islamofascism would lose its most valuable ally in this thing!
Iraq is only part of the war on islamofascism because we invaded it and cleared the way for islamofascist terrorism to take root there.
Put it this way: you think Iraq is safer for Christians now than it was before he was deposed? Then why have they fled the country? Why is sharia suddenly being imposed there?
And bullshit about the left. Stop blaming this administration's failures on its critics. You're just trying to shoot the messenger.
Solo, you have hit on something...
Have you ever worked on a car?
Did it run better while you had the Cylinder heads off of it than it did before you took them off?
Or did you have to STAY THERE AND FINISH THE JOB BEFORE YOU SAW MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENT?
I'm curious...
if Iraq has, and had absolutely nothing to do with the War on Terror, then why do you think President Bush wanted to invade there?
Why did the Congress and Senate vote by overwhelming majority to authorize that invasion?
What do YOU think we should do now?
I never said that just because Bush wanted to invade there that that was reason enough.
I just wondered what YOU thought the reason was.
Personally, the fact that Saddam Hussein SAID he had WMD, and that he would sell them to Terrorists, and that he ignored SEVENTEEN U.N. Resolutions, played patty-cake with the U.N. Inspectors (who were not really that effective on a GOOD day), Gassed his own people, put seven year old children in prison for political offenses, tortured, murdered and maimed citizens of his own Country, embezzeled Billions of Dollars from the rest of the World through the "U.N.Oil For Food" program, had 37 Palaces while his people starved to death, operated Rape Rooms and threw people into Plastic Shredders, etc, etc, etc...ad nauseum...
These things were enough for me personally to believe that it was a good idea to overthrow his regime and attempt to establish a system of Government there which would allow the oppressed people living in Iraq to live in Freedom, if possible.
But that's just me.
Oh, and for the record, the Congress and Senate did not authorize President Bush to Threaten Iraq, they authorized him to INVADE Iraq.
If they only meant to threaten Saddam Hussein, then maybe they should have been more clear.
Don't fool yourself Solomon. They ALL KNEW what they were voting for, and no ammount of retro-active spinning by you will change that.
You say that we are "Stuck" there.
I say we are not yet finished.
Same concept, different perspective.
One thing that I DO know, however, is that it would all go a lot smoother, and be over MUCH sooner, if all Americans could get on board with the idea of actually WINNING this thing, whatever that takes, and saving all the second-guessing and arm-chair quarterbacking until afterward.
Since you don't have any answers other than "woulda, shoulda, coulda...", maybe you could at least stay out of the way of those who are actually trying to solve this thing?
Just a thought...
There's no Political advantage to it...
I mean, that's the whole reason that you oppose the War isn't it?
Because Democrats are not running it?
I mean, if we were bombing Aspirin Factories to distract the Public from Democrat Sex Scandals, you would support that, right?
You guys did before...
Say the US chose to stay in Afghanistan, to chase after bin Laden, and say, foreign fighters all across the Muslim world came to Afghanistan to fight the Crusader armies of the west, and say, what if the American death toll reached 2700 there as well...
Would Ted Kennedy and all his crony pals be calling it a quagmire? Would Liberals and Democrats be calling Bush a liar and threatening impeachment for mismanaging the war? Would all you guys be calling for Rumsfeld's head?
I'd bet everything I own that you would.
So shut up already. Let's finish this, and move on to the next front in the lengthy decades-long war on terror. It's time for the American Left to choose sides.
Will it be an American victory? Or an American defeat? Put up, or shut up.
Great post and comment-provoking! You struck a nerve.
I'd much rather we fight the Jihadists on their turf and not here. But we'll see if the people here are smart enough to see through the Leftist Fantasia and get to the truth beyond: we have fanatical enemies and they want us dead.
Then you'd be livin' in a a box under a bridge.