The problem is not so much their words…
Look, I’d love for all presidents and spokespeople to stop the claptrack and call the enemy what it is: vicious jihadi terrorists espousing a wing of Islam that is especially extreme. I don’t want that for merely semantic reasons; it would signal to the enemy that we understand who they are and what goals they have, and that we just may be in this for the long haul.
And then, and far more importantly, we’d have to follow it up with policies and behaviors that demonstrate that knowledge and that resolve. The actions mean far more than the words. Without the actions, all the hard-hitting words in the world mean nothing. With the actions, the wishy-washy words don’t matter nearly as much.
Bush said things that were at least somewhat similar to what Harf and Obama are mouthing about root causes and the like. If you think about it, neocons have generally said something of the sort: thriving democracies that protect human rights are much to be desired in the Middle East and elsewhere. But unless you are going to do something about it (which Obama has no intention of doing), and unless you know how to actually accomplish this goal of basic change (which I must admit at this point seems to be rather elusive knowledge across the board, left or right), concentrate on stopping groups such as ISIS from taking over more and more territory, hearts, and minds.
And that means war, not in the metaphoric sense of a war on poverty, but in the sense of actual military actions of enough magnitude to matter.
When the Iraq War began, I assumed that we were going to stay there at some level of involvement for decades, as in South Korea, because that was the only hope (albeit a slim one) we had of accomplishing meaningful change. But it turned out that that was never the plan, or perhaps it once was the plan but stopped being the plan at some later point.
But even then, the more modest commitment that Bush made (and which Obama initially continued, at least somewhat) was working to keep the situation in check, and more fundamental slow change might even have occurred. But then Obama signaled the end of whatever plan of that sort may have been in place, and left the country entirely. Now we, and the world, are reaping the whirlwind that has followed.
What he and his underlings say about it is just a minor symptom of a far more basic problem.
Had a similar thought about how long we’d be required to stay in Afghanistan. I figured it was going to be a multi-generational commitment.
Unfortunately, I don’t think even Bush was thinking on those terms with either country. I think Bush originally thought that he could be out of Iraq before the date that eventually became the start of the Surge. That obviously didn’t happen.
And that means war, not in the metaphoric sense of a war on poverty, but in the sense of actual military actions of enough magnitude to matter
Waged by Arabs, Persians, and the region’s Autocrats and of course moderate muslims – of course. No need our meddling there while we subvert ourselves at home. To quote the great man — “wouldn’t be prudent”.
Here’s one of my favorite NYT editorials (though there are so, so many):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/opinion/the-impolitic-jonathan-gruber.html?_r=0
It’s a fascinating example of the genre that was perfected by Pravda in the golden years of that paradise called the USSR; and as you slog through the muck and malarky, it’s actually funny.
Absolutely priceless.
Sorry, the above comment was meant for this post:
http://neoneocon.com/2015/02/18/the-ny-times-assault-on-language/
It’s true that “root causes” thinking has perfectly valid applications. What made these recent comments so ludicrous is the context in which they were made–discussion of actual warfare, happening right now–and (for me at least) the specific suggestion that these guys could just as well have started a business, and that it’s something of a mystery why they didn’t, and we need to figure that out. The rhetorical effect was as if a cop engaged in a shootout with John Dillinger stopped to muse about why he didn’t start a legitimate business instead of robbing banks.
I think there’s an important counterargument, Neo.
Yes, actions surely are more important than words, and the undue importance our current Administration puts on words — so many of them never actually having built anything — is a big part of the problem. Nonetheless, I believe that the Administration’s refusal to acknowledge the name of our enemy is a huge problem… because without the words, there isn’t a prayer of correct action to follow.
This is sometimes known as Category Error — when you define a problem so poorly that there is no possibility of solving it, at all, without starting over. By way of analogy, imagine that, after the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor by bombers of the Empire of Japan, President Roosevelt had responded… by declaring war on aircraft.
One runs into similar issues if one sees terrorism as a problem to be solved the way we deal with ordinary crime. One quickly becomes so entangled that there’s no way to fix things except to start over.
And, while we may insist that the President “do something” about ISIS, he will not do the right thing — he CANNOT do the right thing — unless he first understands, and correctly defines, the nature of the problem. Otherwise he will forever be pounding nails with a wrench, or trying to solve geometry problems with an adding machine.
(He might not do the right thing even if he DOES understand what we’re up against. But that’s a separate issue.)
Our Warriors, under the command of President George Bush, WON in Iraq. Yes, there were costly lessens(Duuhhhh..!!), but it was at peace and a fledgling republic was steadily coming to life. (Purple fingers, anyone?) Far, FAR fewer Americans were being killed in Iraq when Obama took office in ’09 than were being killed in Chicago.
He RETREATED & ABANDONED that Huge VICTORY. The vacuum which our abandonment left had one very predictable way to go: ISIS or other Radical Islamist Butchers.
Reaping what the Scrawny Loathsome Cowardly Weakling hath sown. No wonder Bibi detests The Boy King. No wonder the Persian Mullahs are licking their soon-to-be Nuclear Chops.
Unforgivable. “If history has taught us anything, it is that WEAKNESS IS PROVOCATIVE.” Thank you, Mr. Cheney & Mr. Rumsfeld.
Neo-Neocon:
While it is a symptom, it is also something much more. The administration is telegraphing that they are not going to do anything to combat ISIS or Islamic terrorism in general. Obama isn’t going to do anything today, tomorrow or at any time in the future.
We’re on our own now.
KRB
“What he and his underlings say about it is just a minor symptom of a far more basic problem.”
I agree that the larger problem is Obama’s unwillingness to take almost any action. However, it seems to go beyond Obama and his spokespersons’ inability to acknowledge the enemy. I’m at the point where I’m wondering if he’s purposely demoralizing Americans for being upset it. Sure seemed like he was trolling us with his speech today where he said “Religion doesn’t kill people, people kill people” and when he lectured on the Crusades, slavery and Jim Crow at the National Prayer Breakfast
“Look, I’d love for all presidents and spokespeople to stop the claptrack and call the enemy what it is: vicious jihadi terrorists espousing a wing of Islam that is especially extreme.
They are indeed vicious terrorists but they are NOT “espousing a ‘wing’ of Islam that is especially extreme” Islam itself is inherently and irredeemably “especially extreme”. Jihadists are simply devout fundamentalists committed to faithfully following Allah’s dictates. Dictates that are the theological obligation of every Muslim.
That the majority of Muslims do not directly pursue those dictates in no way changes Islam’s inherent nature. In addition, the culture of the larger society within which Muslims live dictates the degree of moderation Muslims may exhibit. 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy.
“thriving democracies that protect human rights are much to be desired in the Middle East and elsewhere. But… unless you know how to actually accomplish this goal of basic change”
George Bush and the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan disproved that theory. Culture channels human nature and Islamic M.E. cultures are overall, antithetical to democracy and classical Western liberal values because Islam is unalterably and doctrinally opposed to those values. There’s a reason why classic Greek and Roman precepts never took root in the M.E. and that reason is because ME cultures are tribal, the Bedouin proverb still reigns supreme in the M.E., “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers”.
“When the Iraq War began, I assumed that we were going to stay there at some level of involvement for decades, as in South Korea, because that was the only hope (albeit a slim one) we had of accomplishing meaningful change.”
Events have proven it to be a non-existent chance. S. Korea and Japan’s cultures, with the exception of individualism are not antithetical to democracy and classical Western liberal values. Which is why they were amenable to the adoption of democracy.
It is an exercise in futility to plant a crop in fallow ground.
The f#c%i €n â‚© root cause is islam. People who think they are ‘intellectuals’ are the West’s real enemies. They are the ones, mostly ivy league, who witlessly or knowingly prevaricate and turn in endless circles around reality. When it all comes down to blood and dust they will be cringing in a closet eyes closed and shivering with fear.
junior: “I think Bush originally thought that he could be out of Iraq before the date that eventually became the start of the Surge.”
Possible, but likely not.
One, the post-war peace operations were conditions-based.
Two, by law and policy, the US mission was bringing Iraq into compliance with the UN mandates, first by enforcing Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), then when that didn’t happen, with regime change.
The regime change of 2003 was not ‘mission accomplished’ as leftist propagandists mock. It was only the preliminary step of the US-led, UN-mandated process to make Iraq compliant to the mandated standard. The UN mandates covered far more ground than just WMD stocks and factory production. Just within the weapon-related prohibitions, the mandates were broad (see UNSCR 687). The UN mandates also covered humanitarian reform and restoring peace and stability to the region. Weapons compliance was just the 1st of multiple gates for Iraq. Per UNMOVIC (see the Cluster Document) and corroborated by the Iraq Survey Group (see the Duelfer Report), Saddam failed to come close to making it through even the 1st gate of compliance with the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687 in his “final opportunity to comply”.
So, did Bush believe we’d have the full spectrum of UN-mandated conditions for Iraq fulfilled before 2006-2007? It’s possible, but I highly doubt it given the comprehensive scope of the UN mandates.
That being said, I don’t think Bush anticipated that coalition and local security forces would be overtaken by the terroristic insurgents and terrorist invaders. I think Bush believed the UN-mandated compliance mission would be achieved not in shorter time, but rather with less cost of manpower, blood, and treasure. Say, something more like the Balkans mission, where US troops are still serving today.
Remember, OIF didn’t begin from zero with the Bush administration. The Clinton administration had been actively and openly working to overthrow Saddam’s regime since enacting the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), passed October 31, 1998, and probably secretly before PL 105-338. Perhaps starting with the HW Bush administration.
Due to years of outreach and aid to Iraqi opposition, we entered OIF knowing we had the Kurds and believing we had the Shia.
Our security plan was to incorporate the Sunni in the new Iraqi order and resolve the Saddam-led insurgency, like the Confederate rebel hold-outs after the Civil War, and defend Iraq from whatever other challenges arose.
The ‘black swan’ event that broke our v1.0 post-war peace plan for Iraq was Muqtada al Sadr. We had the senior Shia leadership buying in. We did not anticipate al Sadr’s insurgency which caused a cascade effect on multiple fronts that we did not catch up to until the COIN “Surge”.
What was our v1.0 peace plan? See http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030224-11.html.
So, did Bush think we’d be out of Iraq before 2006-2007? I highly doubt it. But did Bush anticipate a lower level of investment needed for the post-war US-led, UN-mandated compliance process for Iraq? Based on the the briefing I linked, yes. They planned for post-war Iraq with the context of the Balkans mission, which while state of the art at the time, obviously proved inadequate.
Geoffrey Britain:
They are a wing that is especially extreme because they are following the letter of the law.
Most people, even people who profess to be members of a religion, are neither extremists nor fundamentalists. That is true of most Muslims as well. But Islam has a huge number of extremists and fundamentalists nevertheless, and the text they are following is an inherently violent one.
But the terrorists still represent an extreme wing.
Geoffrey Britain:
It has not been proven that it was a non-existent chance, for the simple reason that we got out fairly quickly after the surge. That is not nearly the time frame I was thinking it might take. I still think the chance was slim, but there is no way that our involvement there was long enough to prove anything except that it was (and would be) a long, tough slog.
Kae Arby:
And THAT is the underlying problem, not the words or lack thereof.
Bush was reluctant to voice the words. But he walked the walk (at least to a fairly great extent). Obama does neither, but the lack of “walk” (and what’s behind it) is far more important than the lack of words.
The lack of words is still a problem, but a more minor one.
neo,
Yes, Islam has a huge number of extremists and fundamentalists
nevertheless, andbecause the text they are following is an inherently violent one.Daniel in Brookline:
I wish Obama’s problem were a mere category error. That would be potentially correctable.
His error is in his entire worldview, plan, goal, sense of self, and of course the words he uses. The words merely reflect all the other errors.
Neo: “But even then, the more modest commitment that Bush made (and which Obama initially continued, at least somewhat) was working to keep the situation in check, and more fundamental slow change might even have occurred.”
Don’t underestimate the difference we made, though the progress was nascently, tragically fragile at the point we left.
Obama, Biden, and Hillary Clinton’s optimistic assessments of Iraq’s progress up to 2011, while US peace-operations were still there, are well known.
Even more than US officials’ assessments, though, I think this UN press release about Iraq from December 15, 2010 is particularly telling of the progress we made with Iraq:
http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/sc10118.doc.htm
At the time, Iraq was meeting key metrics in the UN-mandated compliance process.
It’s true that Bush didn’t explicitly advocate for troops to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. When he left office, Iraq’s progress was promising enough where an indefinite stay of US troops was not a certain necessity. Bush gave his successor 3 years to assess the situation and decide what a post-occupation US-Iraq partnership should look like.
Of course, when Bush left office in January 2009, Maliki had not yet sold out to sectarian interests to seize power similar to how Democrats have sold out to the Left for the same reason.
The SOFA expired in 2011. But the open-ended Strategic Framework Agreement shows that, while the SFA mandated no concrete measure in and of itself, Bush sought to codify conditions-based guideposts for the longterm US-Iraq relationship. Implied: if conditions called for US forces to stay longer in a different configuration, then that’s what Bush’s successor should arrange. If Iraq’s conditions continued improving to the point where US forces were not needed after 3 years, then a different arrangement could be made.
In 2010-2011, it was evident US forces needed to stay on. But Obama was famously disengaged about Iraq and ultimately rejected Maliki’s offer of a new SOFA by executive agreement as untenable (but which Obama then signed in 2014), which only further pushed Maliki into his sectarian slide.
Geoffrey Britain,
Actually, I disagree. It has a huge number of violent extremists and fundamentalists because the text they are following is an inherently violent one, for the most part.
But is has a huge number of extremists and fundamentalists in the first place because its attitude towards that text is inherently literalist and conservative in interpretation.
“It has not been proven that it was a non-existent chance, for the simple reason that we got out fairly quickly after the surge.”
Technically, I have to agree since I can’t factually prove it to someone unwilling to accept that assertion. But I’m confident that it is true, despite my inability to ‘prove’ it.
As circumstantial evidence in support of my position, I offer; House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) “Meets With [U.S.] Islamic Leader Who Says U.S. Muslims Are ‘Above Law Of Land’”…
While I would agree with the claim that most US Muslims do not currently agree that they are ‘above the law of the land’, I am also certain that, as this country’s Muslim population increases, that agreement will lessen accordingly and the Islamic leader’s position will become the dominant one among US Muslims because the text that they follow declares it to be so.
That is exactly the progression that Muslim immigration into Europe has demonstrated and I would ask, if Muslims immigrating into Western societies reject* classical liberal Western values, by what ‘calculus’ can it be asserted that it would in time… be different in M.E. societies?
* “Sweden: Rape Capital of the West”
Eric:
I didn’t mean to underestimate the difference we had made, but I meant to say it was fragile and very incomplete.
neo-neocon at 8:02 pm,
I’m not exactly sure where our disagreement lies but I do know that Islam’s huge number of extremists and fundamentalists attitude towards that text is inherently literalist and conservative in interpretation because absent denial (the case with moderates), the text and Muhammad’s claim that he is not the Qur’an’s author leaves no other logical choice but an inherently literalist and conservative interpretation.
If, as Muhammad claimed, Allah is the Qur’an’s author then a failure to follow it literally (given its very specific commands) is tantamount to rejecting Allah and that is logically valid regardless of the majority of Muslims failure to fully embrace those commands. The brutal truth is that the fundamentalists hold Islam’s theological high ground. Islam’s moderates have no theological basis for objection to an inherently literalist and conservative interpretation.
Neo,
Yep.
We left Iraq at the 8 year mark, which is hardly enough time to take us to completion of the 1st stage in peace-building, even under relatively straightforward placid conditions.
As I like to point out, at our 8 year mark with Korea, starting from liberating it from Japan, we were still fighting the Korean War, having fought the Japanese, Soviet-sponsored north Koreans, and the Red Chinese in succession, like some masochistic late-19th century back-alley brawler taking on all comers. While absorbing some horrific all-time US military defeats, and coming back off the floor swinging.
The Iraq mission in 2011 hardly compares to the Korea mission in 1953, more so given we entered the Korea mission totally ad hoc with neither the standing military, nor the political consensus, nor the policy doctrine, and barely the precedent that came to define US leadership in the Cold War.
Eric Says:
February 18th, 2015 at 7:57 pm
This probably sounds overly maudlin and sentimental, but my hope is that some Iraqis who were children during the occupation will have good memories of American military personnel, and that will make a lasting impression on them going forward.
You folks planted seeds there, and they may yet come to fruition.
Geoffrey Britain: “The brutal truth is that the fundamentalists hold Islam’s theological high ground. Islam’s moderates have no theological basis for objection to an inherently literalist and conservative interpretation.”
Eg, Erdogen’s Turkey and other 20th century secular national movements that have fallen or buckled under the competing cultural-political pressure.
Bush said, to paraphrase, our goal with Iraq wasn’t to remake Iraq into mini-me America. The question was whether a sufficiently liberalized Iraq that we could work with as a keystone strategic partner to make a difference over there was possible.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe the US, UN project in Iraq was doomed if not in the mid-2010s, then in a decade or few down the road. Maybe Yugoslavia was always in its future even had we sustained a Cold War level commitment. Obama didn’t allow us to find out for sure either way.
Eric,
I agree, that was Bush’s and his neocon advisers hope and at the time I fully supported it. I and they were unaware of the importance of the ‘strong man’ tribal dynamic in the M.E. The choice in M.E. cultures is between the strongman who, in order to maintain their power reaches an accommodation with the Western powers ala Egypt’s al-Sisi or a jihadist regime. There are no other options because of the endemic tribalism in Muslim M.E. cultures, so democracy simply cannot gain a sustainable foothold. Inter-tribal dynamics is all about dominance because without the Christian tenet of brother/sisterhood, survival requires putting the security of the tribe above all else.
rickl: “You”
Not me personally.
I’m a veteran who knows Iraq veterans who’ve given me insights about the mission, but I served before 9/11. I spent my Army days in Korea training for a war that I, fortunately, didn’t get to fight. Korea afforded me some insight, though, of what Iraq’s progress might look like down the road with US help.
Based on my Korea experience, I don’t think memories of American soldiers in a knight in shining armor sense or even a Peace Corps with guns sense will make a lasting difference. Individually, sure. Maybe. But relatively few people, Koreans included, like foreign troops occupying their homeland, even if those foreign troops have made great sacrifices on their behalf. Most people, Koreans included, resent it at a nationalistic gut level. I would, too.
The difference, if any, would more likely be made by the memory of the hopes, promises, and conditions associated with the US-led, UN-mandated occupation of Iraq. Most Koreans who don’t want us in their home, and may even resent us being there, also understand they need us there.
Practical need is in ways a stronger basis for a strategic partnership than personal fondness and ‘friendship’, at least as long as the practical need exists.
ISIS shows Iraq has a practical need that the US met far better vis-a-vis AQI and the Anbar Awakening than Maliki’s Iranian friends vis-a-vis ISIS and the Sunni purge. It remains to be seen whether the President, who seems committed to currying Iranian favor with the P5+1 talks, will follow up in full with the opportunity to re-establish Iraq as a strategic partner. Even if Obama seizes the opportunity, Iran would compete with us for it. As long as the Left’s narrative of Iraq holds sway over our politics, we won’t win that competition.
Geoffrey Britain,
At the time, the COIN “Surge” re-established us as the strong horse. But then President Obama made us the weak horse.
Geoffrey Britain:
I think our only disagreement has to do with human nature.
The point I’m trying to make is that the masses of humans just want to live their lives and are not easily made into extreme fanatics. Islam especially lends itself to violent fanaticism for the reasons we’ve discussed, but still, there is a natural regression towards the mean. A lot of Muslims believe in the more moderate and peaceful verses of the Koran (many do not even speak Arabic, and translations are considered not the real thing, and they may not even be aware of the number of violent verses).
To use an analogy, there are Christians who believe the Bible is the literal word of God. I don’t think they are in the majority these days (not sure what the percentage is, though). At any rate, modern Christianity does not have this as a required doctrinal belief.
Islam does have that required belief re the Koran, although I’d still wager a lot of Muslims don’t pay all that much attention to that.
In addition, however, even for those Christians who have a very literal interpretation of the Bible, there are a few problematically violent verses (stoning adulterers, for example) but really very few, comparatively speaking. The Koran has many many more.
So: more people believing literally in the Koran, plus the Koran is more violent. Even if many Muslims still don’t believe that way, plenty do, and that’s enough to be a big, big, big problem.
Eric Says:
February 18th, 2015 at 9:26 pm
Oh, OK. For some reason I had the impression that you personally were an Iraq veteran.
Eric;
All excellent points! (at 8:24) I love them.
Rickl:
“my hope is that some Iraqis who were children during the occupation will have good memories of American military personnel, and that will make a lasting impression on them going forward.”
That is my hope too.
Neo, and others, I hope you don’t mind if I share something I wrote back in 2005 when I was writing a blog:
I was a student studying and traveling in Taiwan and met some old men up in the mountains. They were all transplants from Mainland China and when they found out that I was an American you would have thought I was their long-lost friend. They treated me to some fresh fruit, steamed peanuts, and even bought me a soda pop (they didn’t drink it, but they knew Americans loved it!). They invited me to play some of them to a game of Wei-Chi (here in the West, we call the game by its Japanese name – Go). They even let me win a couple of games!
It turns out that they remembered the American Flying Tigers, and others, who didn’t give up the fight and helped the Chinese fight against Imperialistic Japan. I felt both embarrassed and proud at the same time. Embarrassed because I, personally, was not the one who had helped them and here they were treating me as if I am some sort of celebrity or something; But proud that my country had helped those who needed it; when they needed it, not just when it was convenient to us, especially since it must have seemed easier to ignore the threat and not get involved. While there are many things to be critical of the U.S. there are far more things to be glad that the U.S. is there.
Wishful thinking perhaps; But I hope that someday in the future another student will be studying and travelling in a part of the world that is currently in turmoil but will then be at peace and come across a group of old men relaxing in a palm grove. And these men, too, will embarrass that student by treating him (or even her!) as a long lost friend; treating him to some dates, perhaps some oranges; and then invite him to play a game of backgammon (perhaps even letting him win?). Reminding him how the Americans helped to bring peace and freedom to them and their children. And they, too, will tell the student how they were glad that the Americans did not abandon them even though it must have seemed easier to ignore the threat and not risk getting involved.
Closer to today; when Afghanis and Iraqis were holding up their purple fingers I thought of those old men, who called me friend and treated me as such, simply for being an American.
I said to myself, well, if this democracy doesn’t hold, maybe this generation of Afghanis and Iraqis will be able to tell their grandchildren one day about the time that held elections and you could vote for whomever you wanted. Maybe they will tell their grandchildren about the good US military men and women brought to them.
My goodness, was I naé¯ve when I wrote all that back then! I never imagined that an American President would throw it all away.
And while, things are looking bleak, very bleak, hundreds of thousands more will surely die, part of me wishes that all hope is not lost. Although, prayers alone won’t be enough; let’s pray that all hope is not lost and somehow or other the West finds its moral bearings and helps to eliminate ISIS and other such evils.
The peaceable family loving bourgeois doesn’t matter.
Good people sleep peacefully in their bed at nigh because rough men are willing to do violence on their behalf . Orwell [attributed]
Email that has been making the rounds for a few years:
A German’s View on Islam
A German’s View on Islam. This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.
A German’s View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything.
I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories. We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant.
It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march.. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers. The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.
China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12
million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on before it’s too late.
I look towards the Swiss. They have it right. Every man a soldier. It is mandated that shooting skills be kept up to par, no exception, no exemption.
Book: Place de la Concorde Suisse, John McPhee
neo,
I don’t think that we disagree as to human nature.
“The point I’m trying to make is that the masses of humans just want to live their lives and are not easily made into extreme fanatics.”
I completely agree.
“A lot of Muslims believe in the more moderate and peaceful verses of the Koran (many do not even speak Arabic, and translations are considered not the real thing, and they may not even be aware of the number of violent verses).”
That, I find problematic. I do think that is, in their willful denial, what the sincere ones tell themselves. But the basic tenets are so explicit and the “doctrine of abrogation” (later violent passages supplant the earlier peaceful passages) so universal that I find it highly unlikely that the moderates in their ‘heart of hearts’, do not know the truth of the ‘religion’ they embrace. As evidence of this being the case, I would point to the utter silence on the internet of anonymous Muslim voices condemning the violence.
Geoffrey Britain:
I disagree on your last point. I’ve seen plenty of Muslim voices condemning the violence (see this sort of thing, for example, too—which of course could be co-opted by violent people showing up, but seems to be a good impulse).
You may not believe any of this (and of course people can lie in polls), but polls indicate that violence in the name of Islam is not supported by the majority of Muslims around the world.
g6loq:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
That is true whatever the denomination of the “good men.”
The violent fanatics in the Muslim religion are numerous enough to be extremely dangerous. That’s all it takes to do a lot of damage.
But we were also having a discussion about what percentage of Muslims advocate violence for their religion. It’s a separate issue.
My new understanding of why Islam is incompatible with Western values and norms is that the so-called radicals insist on following Sharia, which they interpret to be Allah’s law. In their eyes no country can follow any form of democracy and be in compliance with Sharia. Thus, the democracy projects in Afghanistan and Iraq were bound to be attacked by the Salafists (The most fundamental sect of Islam). The Wahhabis are also very fundamentalist. Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabi royal kingdom that follows Sharia in most ways but is detested by the Salafists because they claim it is incomplete Sharia. The Salafists believe that any country ruled by secular laws is immoral. ISIS is following Salafist doctrine.
Sharia is based upon the Quran, Sunnah and the actions and sayings of the first three generations of Muslims. So, it is not necessarily the literal word of Allah. That fact is immaterial to the Salafists.
Since the end of WWII these fundamentalists, who wish to return to basic Islamic religious values and law, have imposed harsh sharia punishments for crimes, curtailed civil rights and violated human rights wherever they have been in control. These extremists have used the Quran and their own particular version of sharia to justify acts of war and terror against non-Muslim as well as individual Muslims and what they consider apostate governments. They have taught and encouraged their particular interpretations of Sharia and their belief in jihad as a religious duty to see Sharia spread worldwide.
Some Islamic scholars state that Islamic law prohibits the killing of civilian non-combatants. In contrast, Salafists such as ISIS interpret Islamic law differently, concluding that all means are legitimate to reach their aims, including targeting Muslim non-combatants and the mass killing of non-Muslim civilians, in order to universalize Islam.
“A majority of Muslims favor sharia as the law of land in Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%). In Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Lebanon and Turkey, 40% to 74% of Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to non-Muslims as well. A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslims interviewed wanted sharia in British law. Elements of sharia are present, to varying extents, in the criminal justice system of many Muslim-majority countries. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania apply the code predominantly or entirely.” The material in quotes is from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Extremism
The facts quoted above say to me that Islam and democracy with human rights are incompatible. There may be sects of Muslims who could reform and build some kind of semi-theocracy with real elections, fair laws, and human rights for women, children, non-Muslims, gays, etc. To accomplish such reform would be a long term difficult task. Knowing what I have learned about Sharia and the attitudes of most Muslims, I am fairly well convinced our programs to liberalize Afghanistan and Iraq were Sisyphean tasks that our country could not accomplish because we are too impatient and too divided.
I am not looking longingly backwards for what might have been. I think we have to look forward with cold, hard reality staring us in the face.
I will not belabor what needs to be done. I’ve said it all before. If we aren’t up to it, Sharia may well be the law of the land here at some future point in time.
I have seen a number of Muslim organizations condemning the violence but so few individual Muslims as to be miniscule. When those organizations do condemn the violence, more often than not they make blatantly false claims about Islam and Muhammad. Which calls into question the sincerity of those condemnations.
Certainly the planned event in Oslo is a positive development but given the rape epidemic in Oslo over the past 5-10 years, all reported rapes being by non-natives, the best that can be said is that some Muslims deplore the violence.
As for polls, here’s some results;
“Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S. The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, just 30 percent agreed Christians have such a right.” http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/guess-who-u-s-muslims-are-voting-for/#3pw45zVsqGtFB77X.99
2011 Pew Research Center survey on Muslims in America:
“In 2011, 31% of Muslims aged 18-29 said suicide bombings are okay—that’s one in three young Muslims in America, who thinks it’s okay to blow you and your families up. 30% view Al-Qaeda favorably, only somewhat unfavorably, or don’t know/refused to answer (which means they support Al-Qaeda). 28% of U.S. Muslims said that Muslims should not adopt American customs. That number jumps to 44% if you count the Muslims who said they should both adopt American customs AND remain distinct and not adopt American customs. 35% of U.S. Muslims said they are not concerned about Islamic extremism around the world. 36% said there is a great deal/fair amount of extremism among U.S. Muslims. 40% said they are not concerned about Islamic extremism in the U.S. Pew’s results show that 66% of Muslims pray daily, that only 8% never pray, and that only 19% never attend mosque.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/41425/pew-report-13-of-us-muslims-support-al-qaeda-60-say-911-attacks-not-done-by-muslims-arabs-13-say-being-muslim-conflicts-w-modern-society-25-came-to-us-under-bush/60
“Sharia Adherence Mosque Survey: Correlations between Sharia Adherence and Violent Dogma in U.S. Mosques”
by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq.
Abstract
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html
PewResearchCenter 2013 poll: “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society”
Support for Sharia; % who favor making sharia the law of the land
Middle East- N. Africa:
Iraq: 91%
Palestinian terr. 89%
Morocco: 83%
Egypt: 74%
Jordan: 71%
Tunisia: 56%
Lebanon: 29%
Shariah as the Revealed Word of God
Middle East- N. Africa:
Iraq: 69%
Palestinian terr. 75%
Morocco: 66%
Egypt: 75%
Jordan: 81%
Tunisia: 66%
Lebanon: 49%
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
I happen to agree that violence in the name of Islam is not verbally supported by the majority of Muslims around the world but their actions and lack thereof demonstrate that they condone it and their silence makes them culpable in that violence.
A big part of the problem with the “leaders” is that too many of them are atheists or de facto agnostics (I include the “social justice” crowd who believe that that pablum is the Gospel, which it is not) — and these people have No Idea what it is to follow a deity, other than themselves.
Ergo, they can’t make sense out of the moslem terrorists of any stripe, whereas to a Christian believer or an orthodox Jew they are no mystery at all: they are, in a word, devil-worshippers, and they’re not about to submit to/get along with the Leftists when the s*** hits the fan. They hate Christians, but they really despise “liberals.”
They are indeed vicious terrorists but they are NOT “espousing a ‘wing’ of Islam that is especially extreme” Islam itself is inherently and irredeemably “especially extreme”. Jihadists are simply devout fundamentalists committed to faithfully following Allah’s dictates. Dictates that are the theological obligation of every Muslim.
This.
“Words and deeds, words, and deeds, words and deeds…”
(Hamlet?)
A contemporary example might suffice (there are millions and millions more…):
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/02/18/on-eve-of-synagogue-attack-in-denmark-copenhagen-imam-incited-against-jews-video/
Hey, maybe this dude should have a chat with Obama?…..
The post modern western liberal provokes this entire conflict by the one simple dictate of his PC religion. That being a majority of brown folks cannot be in the wrong when in conflict with a majority of white Christian folk.
It really is that simple and they really are to that amazing level of bigoted indoctrination.
SteveH Says:
February 19th, 2015 at 7:03 am
Exactly!
Beverly & Eric: Good, Solid, Muscular stuff, you two!! A pleasure to read you both.
2-Thoughts…In this current age of cultural and political madness(aka-Batshit Insanity), my mind flashes—many times each day—to Melanie Phillips’ great book,”The World Turned Upside Dowm” and how EVERYTHING in it(2010)has now leapt to steroids+meth leaps!! Who’da thunk it could get quantitatively worse?! I keep hoping the brilliant author is writing a Volume Two. F***!!
And, secondly, as Beverly was stating or at least inferring: One of the many constantly on display and growing exponentially is the Parody-Paradox-Irony of Western Liberals/Lefties aka (Thank You, Comrade Lenin)USEFUL IDIOTS is that they’d be burned alive/beheaded in nanoseconds if those (Cough-GAG)misunderstood, impoverished ‘yoots of Radical Islam took control. (*Full Disclosure: In my fantasies I get to attend as a witnessing Eagle on a Nearby Wall…Just sayin’…*)
Okay, this Old School T-Rex Neocon Sensitivity Trainer has gotta git for now((-: Hugs and Fuzziness for All,’Yo.
JJ:
These points added together explain why “looking longingly backwards” is critical to going forward correctly: past is prologue.
It’s not about trying to move backwards. It’s about orienting ahead correctly.
The narrative contest of the activist game sets the frame going forward with underlying, guiding premises for our culture and politics in general and leaders’ decision-making in particular.
It puzzles me that the people who best appreciate the manifested harm of the normalized, originally countercultural Vietnam narrative, which is the model for the narrative contest of the activist game, and rail often about its growing effects on successive generations of American culture, politics, and leadership choices, yet seem uninterested in countering the Left’s Iraq narrative despite that the Left is openly applying the same MO, for the same purposes going forward, for the Left’s Iraq narrative, which is the successor to the Left’s Vietnam narrative.
It’s like Neo’s change account about the Left’s Vietnam narrative has failed to teach us any practical lessons to deal with the analogous events happening right before our eyes that are shaping the course for current and future American generations.
Countering the malignancy of the Left’s Iraq narrative needs to be done decisively now or else it will cement and metastasize going forward, purposefully and deliberately, in the same way as the Left’s Vietnam narrative. ‘Now’ may already be too late to counter it, but it ain’t getting any earlier. And Left activists aren’t slowing down for their competition to catch up in the only social-political game there is.
In order to “to look forward with cold, hard reality staring us in the face” in order to do “what needs to be done”, We the People must be able to look back correctly in order to orient our azimuth and course ahead correctly. For cognitive frame and operative premises, past is prologue.
Eric and JJ: One hears nearly nothing said and pointed to regarding the Truth about the Iraq which Obama was handed by President Bush. It was peaceful, settled, growing democratic forms, a free press blooming, the Marsh Arabs’ land restored by U.S.Engineers, etc, etc, etc.
And, then it was abandoned by this Fool and his slathering bunch. Holy Smoke, Folks…What a surprise that weakness & flabbiness invited Provocation.
Eric, during Vietnam we were trying to preserve the South as a bastion of democracy as we did in South Korea. The war in Vietnam was different than in Korea because in Korea, tactical air power was very effective. Not a lot of forest cover where the trains, trucks, boats, and troops could hide. Artillery was also effective. In Vietnam tactical air power was used almost exclusively and had minimal effect on the logistics and supplies of the North Vietnamese. Why? Because they had jungle cover. The technology of the time did not allow us to see through the canopy.
It was not until Nixon unleashed strategic bombing with operations Linebacker I & II in 1972 that air power made a difference. It is now an accepted fact that, if Nixon had continued the bombing for another month (Linebacker II ended on 12/29/72.), the U.S would have been able to secure a much stronger peace agreement which would have insured the safety of South Vietnam. However, Nixon was embroiled in Watergate by that time and he was all too willing to conclude a less than perfect end to the war.
Our losses in Vietnam were enormous compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, the majority of people were very turned off by the war. It traumatized the country. The period after the North violated the peace agreement and overran the South was marked by enormous bloodshed and suffering. Our failure led to a human tragedy, but even today, few see it or care. Just as our failure to secure our gains in Iraq is leading to enormous bloodshed and suffering. I see it as history repeating.
What I see in looking back at the Cold War was some areas where we fumbled the ball militarily – mainly Cuba and Vietnam. Korea, Afghanistan (Charlie Wilson’s War – a proxy war par excellence), Nicaragua, and Grenada worked out in our favor and to the detriment of Communist interests. We muddled through with some wins and some losses, but never a Waterloo. We never realized until Reagan became President that our greatest strength against any foe is our economy. China and the USSR went bust as did Vietnam. They all had to change in order to feed their people. We won, they lost.
In evaluating this latest threat we have to take the longer view and accept that there will be failures along the way. And remember that a strong economy is our biggest weapon. We had a limited military success in Desert Storm, bigger military successes in Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan, but leftist political forces have given those successes away just as they did in Vietnam. The anti-American left never believed Communism was a threat. Just as they seem unable to see Islamism as a threat. Maybe ISIS is doing us a favor. Their vicious brutality is shocking even to the left and many in the press are beginning to get alarmed.
Only when enough people get on board with seeing an enemy that is implacable and wants war, when they see that war is interested in them even if they’re not interested in war, will the LIVs finally come around to wanting to taking action.
As for being an activist: Bill O’Reilly is asking all ministers, rabbis, and imams to ask their congregations this weekend to write to President Obama, asking that he put a plan in place to defeat ISIS. We’ll see how that goes.
I’m writing him and asking him to:
1. Put together a coalition of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and any other nation willing to join us against ISIS.
2. To challenge moderate imams to lay the ground work for reforming Islam by rejecting or modifying Sharia to make Islam a tolerant faith.
3. To immediately begin a strategic bombing campaign against ISIS supply bases, training bases, command and control centers, oil storage/production facilities, and other assets.
4. To pressure Turkey to stop ISIS from smuggling oil on their territory.
5. To interdict in any and all ways possible the ISIS money pipelines.
5. To stop immigration from Muslim lands unless the immigrants have a job, sign a pledge to obey American law and reject Sharia, integrate/become educated in English, and agree to never to ask for special religious dispensations from society at large.
6. To begin a covert campaign to either kill or deport radical imams. As well as a similar program against the most dangerous of those in the Muslim world.
7. To put a Marine Expeditionary Force into Iraq to help the Iraqis push ISIS back into Syria. Once Iraq is clear, then proceed as deemed necessary up to and including invading Syria.
JJ,
Korea is also a peninsula, which helps.
“I see it as history repeating.”
Right. My point is that the history repeating is not a passive, inevitable happening, as though it’s a collective naturally occurring phenomenon that just is. It’s a process, deliberately manipulated. The nature of the American people has not changed. Our collective will to compete and lead is a function of activism, yet that fundamental aspect of competition has been all but ceded to the Left.
As such, I would add to Bill O’Reilly’s call to action that petitioners should include a special set-aside chapter showing that Obama owes these actions due to his errors. You want results from this President? At least lay the foundation with a historical narrative deploying frame and premises, not just a recommendation going forward. Obama is an activist, for whom past is prologue and historical grievances are cause.
Activism is sociology weaponized. The narrative contest covers the ‘moral level of war’. The frame and premises are the underlying clockwork mechanisms that are necessary for any course of action to work. Most non-Left folks are disinterested in taking it on, but it’s necessary. The underlying clockwork frame and premises of the Left’s Vietnam War narrative were applied effectively to OIF. The frame and premises from the Left’s OIF narrative will be applied to any course going forward, unless it’s neutralized and replaced.
Range of Light, JJ,
Check this out: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19/irans-shiite-militias-are-running-amok-in-iraq/
About the author:
-By Ali KhederyAli Khedery is chairman and chief executive of Dragoman Partners LLC, an international strategic advisory firm. The longest continuously serving American official in Iraq, he was special assistant to five American ambassadors in Iraq and senior adviser to three chiefs of U.S. Central Command from 2003 through 2010.