The fundamental fact is that progress of the type we favor is anathema and a deadly threat to Islam and all it’s stakeholders, and according to Allah, Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islam, we “unbelievers” are Islam’s eternal enemy, the source of all that is corrupting and bad, for we unbelievers obstinately deny Allah and his commands, and stand athwart the holy path to victory and world domination that Allah has decreed.

The stranglehold of Islam, and the coinciding interests of almost each and every stake/power holder in the Umma—large and small, organizations or individuals–in maintaining violent, woman fearing/hating Islam in power—Imams, government and military officials, ideologues and most of the intelligentsia, leaders and followers of every Muslim organization and group, even husbands and men in general—makes progress and “redemption”—especially progress and redemption advocated, carried out, or spearheaded by us, almost universally condemned and hated outsiders, the “unbelievers,” impossible.

The dangerous truth that we have been denying and repressing, that Islam and Muslims have always been our implacable enemy–down through 1,400 years of deliberately repressed, covered up, and “forgotten,” Muslim slaughter, slavery and destruction aimed at unbelievers in all corners of the world and to this day–and that commands to and justifications and techniques for converting, enslaving or killing the subhuman “unbelievers” are the focus of most of the Qur’an, and were the focus of Muhammad life’s work–must be brought into consciousness and faced head on. Thus, “nation building,” somewhat altruistically tried by the Bush Administration and currently a component of the Obama administration’s effort in Afghanistan, is both futile and ultimately injurious to the U.S., for who would suicidally strengthen instead of weaken their main, and growing enemy?

Instead of futile, soft-headed and ultimately lethal (for us) denial and trying to “make nice,” what we should be doing is making the central, essential nature of the conflict—as Huntington named it, this deadly thousand plus year “Clash of Civilizations”–explicit, and right up front for all to see.

We should be fighting the totalitarian, military-political ideology clothed in a veneer of religion that is Islam on every level, much as we fought the Soviet Union during the long Cold War by, first, containing current day Islam within it’s current boundaries, next, by trying to roll back those boundaries, and by trying to weaken and attack the basic legitimacy, ideology, doctrines, practices and behavior of Islam and Muslims at every turn and also, as a key part of this conflict, by immediately and permanently halting Muslim immigration to the U.S., and finding ways to convince those Muslims already settled here —who the Saudis call “[Islam’s] scouts behind enemy lines,” to return back to the Muslim world.

The Crusades lasted a thousand years. We played defense for 950 of them. What we call the Crusades were the intermittent periods of the West going on offense. The real “crusaders” were the Muslims for 950 years.

As to the Irish, GK Chesterton said it best:
“For the Great Gaels of Ireland

Are the men that God made mad,

For all their wars are merry

And all their songs are sad.”

In this case, the “bone he threw to the left”, the 18 month timeline, will kill Americans and Afghans.

So far this is about the only instance in Obama’s presidency that can remotely be considered “pragmatic.” Everything else has been your basic hard left/big government/soft power/Democratic patronage mishmash that has yielded no gains.

Other than where Obama continued policies from the Bush administration, just about everything else — his policies in regard to Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Honduras, Guantanamo, our European allies, Cash for Clunkers, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare can hardly be called pragmatic.

Finally, Afghanistan may be pragmatic in the sense that it is not an ideological decision. However, I don’t really call it pragmatic when after eight months of inactivity and dithering since Obama announced his bold new Afghanistan policy last March, Obama has taken a sub-middle course that disappoints everyone, and looks to me like a sure way to lose the maximum American lives without being sure to achieve victory — a word not in Obama’s vocabulary when it comes to war/

Pragmatism also means “doing what works” and we haven’t seen much of that from Obama and I doubt we are seeing it in Afghanistan.

No, it’s about getting the most good done you can, while you can. Obama chose a strategy after extensive review which he felt had a good chance of success, while accomodating some of the pressure from the left to establish an exit strategy. You have to realize the pressure within the Democratic Party is intense right now to end this war. I’ve argued forcefully against this, my small contribution to the debate, online, but my voice is definitely in a small minority. Unfortunately most people still tend to align in a dove/hawk fashion on military matters, which I’ve always thought was absurd; my view is you make a careful assessment in each case and you go to war reluctantly, but when you do go you go all out. In this case it is a war in self-defense so obviously we have no choice; I find it strange that my fellow Democrats don’t see it that way, but then again I’ve often diverged from my fellow Democrats.

But Obama has more decisions to make, in the future, and he needs to navigate these waters. If he can throw a bone to the left because he thinks the good that will do will outweigh the harm, then he does it. He plays a long game — this has always been my disagreement with the right; the right tends, as a whole, to play short-term ball. The left plays the long game, for the most part (though many on the left use short-term tactics which is dumb, in my view).

“It’s inconceivable that anyone would ever summarize a variety of responses that generally have a similar theme.”

Ah, but that’s not what you said a while back. First you said they all said the same thing, then you said they gave various answers, and now you are claiming you are just summarizing what they all said – which would kind of go against, ya know, them giving you various answers to the same question.

Seems you are starting to qualify your statements long after the fact here.

“Truly you are a modern Sherlock Holmes.”

Another brit reference?

I mean I am familiar with Doyle’s writings, but I also recall Holmes is a brit literary character – which I guess does go along nicely with with your previous “whinge” comment….

Anyway, I’m just having fun kicking ya while you’re down.

Neo-neocon has done a superlative job of knocking you off your high horse already….

Too bad what his predecessor thought was right was so wrong much of the time.

Matter of opinion. Snarky contemporaries of Truman, Reagan, and for that matter, Lincoln, thought the same thing. History has proven them wrong.

Obama has to navigate the political waters because we don’t live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy, and that means for him to get things done he needs the political support of Congress and the American public

Good thing FDR wasn’t so craven. Pre-Pearl Harbor, Congress and the American public vigorously opposed any involvement in the war. FDR went out on a limb (and violated the Neutrality Act) to help Britain, because he foresaw how events would play out. That, and of course, because he was a leader, not a community organizer.

They [liberals] are unlikely to work nearly as hard for him in the next election, and that is not good for Obama then.

Ah, there’s the rub. It’s all about Obama, his prospects, his career, his aggrandizement, his hopes. This is exactly what’s wrong with Obama. He’s President (God help us); his duty is to make decisions in the best interest of the United States, not in those of Barack Hussein Obama. It’s called “statesmanship.”

Obama’s in exactly the same position as a lawyer representing a client, something to which you’d think a putative lawyer could relate. Imagine a defense attorney thinking that maybe he should go easy on a prosecution witness because otherwise he might blow his chances of a judgeship. It’s exactly the same.

Mitsu = An ideologue. Maybe can be shown the error of his ways by using facts and logic. Good luck, folks.

This is actually about principles rather than personalities. But perhaps that’s a foreign concept to you.