President Obama will not have a knee jerk reaction on the fort Hood attack. We should expect him to analyze the facts after they are all known. Figure a few weeks for him to decide what he will do. After all, we have a war to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the Health Care bill has passed in the house, President Obama should be able to clear the decks and confront our enemies.
The issues at the heart of the war today are too widespread for this war not to become much larger. I cannot believe that President Obama does not understand this. I do understand that President Obama has no practical, direct recourse to this attack. The attacker will be prosecuted by the justice system. This is about all that can be done to directly react to the person who was responsible for the fort Hood attack.
The problem I have here is that the war is now beginning on our side of the ‘pond’. Defensive warfare sucks. I prefer offensive warfare at ending political Islam. (Syria and Iran are good places to start) Time is NOT on our side. It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic group obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Most likely this event is years from now. However, the potential price we will pay is worth waging war to delay or prevent this event. Wars are won by the side that escalates to a level the other side either cannot or will not match. President Obama does not see the war in this light. We can only hope that this war does not go nuclear (WMD) before he leaves office.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Fort Hood attacker and analysis
I pulled this from FOXnews.com today (11/7/09) (Please note that this is the first time I have EVER quoted from Fox news.)
"He obviously didn’t want to go," said Duane Reasoner, 18, who looked up to Hasan as a sort of religious mentor. "He said he shouldn’t be going to Iraq, and Muslims shouldn’t be in the military — it was an obvious conflict of interest. Muslims shouldn’t be killing Muslims. He told me not to join the military."
Reasoner said he wouldn't condemn Hasan after the shooting spree. "I don’t know his intentions," Reasoner told FoxNews.com. "I don’t know what he was thinking. I won't condemn another Muslim."
Please note the last quote. "I won’t condemn another Muslim." This is a pattern with many throughout the Islamic world. Refusal to condemn the acts of violence of Muslims against just about ANYONE. (Exception: Violence against other Muslims.)
I guess Hasan never heard of Sergeant York. He certainly did not want to go either. (It was far more likely that Sergeant York would have to kill and/or be killed in World War I than Hasan would face in Iraq or Afghanistan.) Although it was against his religion, Sergeant York still obeyed orders and eventually acted as the heroic soldier that he was.
I consider this to be the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Fortunately, this was just one person who’s attack, however tragic, was not nearly as effective as the assault on 9/11. Two points I would like to leave with you.
1) This is precisely why I am so adamantly against placing terrorists into our civilian court system. This is also why I am against placing terrorists into our civilian jail system.
2) The war has really yet to begin. Islam does not distinguish between church and state. As can be seen throughout the world, political Islam is at war against us. Loyalty to Islam is far above ANY government and this alone is a major cause of warfare. This issue is NOT going away until the war reaches the decisive level of ending political Islam.
"He obviously didn’t want to go," said Duane Reasoner, 18, who looked up to Hasan as a sort of religious mentor. "He said he shouldn’t be going to Iraq, and Muslims shouldn’t be in the military — it was an obvious conflict of interest. Muslims shouldn’t be killing Muslims. He told me not to join the military."
Reasoner said he wouldn't condemn Hasan after the shooting spree. "I don’t know his intentions," Reasoner told FoxNews.com. "I don’t know what he was thinking. I won't condemn another Muslim."
Please note the last quote. "I won’t condemn another Muslim." This is a pattern with many throughout the Islamic world. Refusal to condemn the acts of violence of Muslims against just about ANYONE. (Exception: Violence against other Muslims.)
I guess Hasan never heard of Sergeant York. He certainly did not want to go either. (It was far more likely that Sergeant York would have to kill and/or be killed in World War I than Hasan would face in Iraq or Afghanistan.) Although it was against his religion, Sergeant York still obeyed orders and eventually acted as the heroic soldier that he was.
I consider this to be the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Fortunately, this was just one person who’s attack, however tragic, was not nearly as effective as the assault on 9/11. Two points I would like to leave with you.
1) This is precisely why I am so adamantly against placing terrorists into our civilian court system. This is also why I am against placing terrorists into our civilian jail system.
2) The war has really yet to begin. Islam does not distinguish between church and state. As can be seen throughout the world, political Islam is at war against us. Loyalty to Islam is far above ANY government and this alone is a major cause of warfare. This issue is NOT going away until the war reaches the decisive level of ending political Islam.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Muslim victim argument
Muslims concerning the Arab-Israeli confrontation had suggested a victim argument. The argument basically says that because Arab losses are higher than Israeli, the Arabs must be the victims of Israeli aggression. This has to be one of the weakest arguments that I have ever heard.
Japan attacked the U.S. in 1941. Over the next 4 years, the U.S. lost around 40,000 men defeating Japan. We killed well over 2 million. (Men in uniform as well as non-combatants) Just because we were better at warfare does not necessarily make us the ‘bad’ guy. Aggression does not necessarily come from strength. In fact, in the form of warfare, many times it can originate from weakness.
In 1860, the southern states knew that once Abraham Lincoln became President, he and others would limit slavery to the areas that already had that ‘peculiar institution’. Slavery would not be allowed to grow in the form of new slave states as states were to be added into the Union. As these new, non-slave states were added, the relative strength of slavery would become weaker. Rising up in rebellion right then was their best chance to prevent a slow, long-term defeat. In other words, the weakness of the southern position helped to initiate the U.S. Civil War. Historically speaking, this is not an uncommon cause of warfare.
The fact those Arab losses are higher than Israeli only tells us that the Arabs are not as good at waging war as Israel. Israel has not always had the best equipment. Israel has not had the larger forces. However, Israel has had better discipline since inception. As important as numbers and equipment are in war, these factors are not always decisive in determining the winner or loser. In many cases, these factors do not play a decisive role in determining the losses each side suffers. In any case, these factors have nothing to do with who started the shooting, nor do they tell us who is the ‘bad’ guy in any particular case.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is an excellent example of the incompatibility of Islam and a democratic society. The lack of progress in any peace agreement and the constant violence that is generally initiated by the Arab side demonstrates Islamic concepts of co-existence. (Or more accurately, the lack of)
I hold political Islam responsible for most, if not all of the warfare and violence that is so common throughout the Muslim world. Many good reasons exist to wage warfare and generally it only takes one or two of these ‘good’ reasons to trigger open conflict. Political Islam contains numerous causes of open warfare*, both to defend and to attack. These reasons are the basic cause of the constant violence throughout the Islamic world and that will not end until political Islam is changed to such a benevolent form that Islam would be unrecognizable. This alone would trigger open warfare, as it should. Human nature demands it.
*I have identified more than 6.
Japan attacked the U.S. in 1941. Over the next 4 years, the U.S. lost around 40,000 men defeating Japan. We killed well over 2 million. (Men in uniform as well as non-combatants) Just because we were better at warfare does not necessarily make us the ‘bad’ guy. Aggression does not necessarily come from strength. In fact, in the form of warfare, many times it can originate from weakness.
In 1860, the southern states knew that once Abraham Lincoln became President, he and others would limit slavery to the areas that already had that ‘peculiar institution’. Slavery would not be allowed to grow in the form of new slave states as states were to be added into the Union. As these new, non-slave states were added, the relative strength of slavery would become weaker. Rising up in rebellion right then was their best chance to prevent a slow, long-term defeat. In other words, the weakness of the southern position helped to initiate the U.S. Civil War. Historically speaking, this is not an uncommon cause of warfare.
The fact those Arab losses are higher than Israeli only tells us that the Arabs are not as good at waging war as Israel. Israel has not always had the best equipment. Israel has not had the larger forces. However, Israel has had better discipline since inception. As important as numbers and equipment are in war, these factors are not always decisive in determining the winner or loser. In many cases, these factors do not play a decisive role in determining the losses each side suffers. In any case, these factors have nothing to do with who started the shooting, nor do they tell us who is the ‘bad’ guy in any particular case.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is an excellent example of the incompatibility of Islam and a democratic society. The lack of progress in any peace agreement and the constant violence that is generally initiated by the Arab side demonstrates Islamic concepts of co-existence. (Or more accurately, the lack of)
I hold political Islam responsible for most, if not all of the warfare and violence that is so common throughout the Muslim world. Many good reasons exist to wage warfare and generally it only takes one or two of these ‘good’ reasons to trigger open conflict. Political Islam contains numerous causes of open warfare*, both to defend and to attack. These reasons are the basic cause of the constant violence throughout the Islamic world and that will not end until political Islam is changed to such a benevolent form that Islam would be unrecognizable. This alone would trigger open warfare, as it should. Human nature demands it.
*I have identified more than 6.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Muslim world double standard
I pulled this from MSNBC.com. The last paragraph in an article titled: "Qaida-linked group claims rocket attack on Israel. Dated 10/29/09.
"Earlier this month, Israel troops cracked down to disperse hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinian protesters in a fresh eruption of violence at the most volatile spot in the Holy Land. The site is known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary.
The Israeli crackdown drew condemnation from throughout the Muslim world."
I would like to bring your attention to the last sentence. The reaction of the Muslim world is following the usual pattern. Throwing rocks begins the violence, yet the reaction to the initiation of violence is condemned. Maybe I am just a little sensitive to this issue, but I do remember the reaction of much of the Muslim world at 9/11 as being pleased. The U.S. reaction to 9/11 by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had also been condemned. This double standard is pretty universal.
"Earlier this month, Israel troops cracked down to disperse hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinian protesters in a fresh eruption of violence at the most volatile spot in the Holy Land. The site is known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary.
The Israeli crackdown drew condemnation from throughout the Muslim world."
I would like to bring your attention to the last sentence. The reaction of the Muslim world is following the usual pattern. Throwing rocks begins the violence, yet the reaction to the initiation of violence is condemned. Maybe I am just a little sensitive to this issue, but I do remember the reaction of much of the Muslim world at 9/11 as being pleased. The U.S. reaction to 9/11 by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had also been condemned. This double standard is pretty universal.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Afghan strategy may be a repeat of Vietnam
I pulled this from MSNBC.com today:
"President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability."
One of the reasons the United States lost in Vietnam was because we controlled the cities and villages, yet we did not control the countryside. The enemy was able to ‘melt away’ into the countryside and we could not force continued engagement that would wipe them out. Historically speaking, this is a typical problem of a conventional army facing irregular forces. Iraq was different.
In Iraq, the desert allowed the U.S. to wipe out the enemy. The desert is one of the most ideal environments for mechanized forces to operate within. The enemy could not ‘melt away’ into the countryside. This allowed us to isolate the battlefield and inflict maximum damage upon the enemy without taking much in the way of losses. The enemy could not disengage. The mismatch of conventional forces firepower against an irregular force who could not ‘melt away’ could only end with victory on the battlefield for the conventional forces.
This is a major reason why the ‘surge’ worked. I see that President Obama and his advisers are either not drawing the same lessons from Vietnam and Iraq, or else are unaware of their significance.
"President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability."
One of the reasons the United States lost in Vietnam was because we controlled the cities and villages, yet we did not control the countryside. The enemy was able to ‘melt away’ into the countryside and we could not force continued engagement that would wipe them out. Historically speaking, this is a typical problem of a conventional army facing irregular forces. Iraq was different.
In Iraq, the desert allowed the U.S. to wipe out the enemy. The desert is one of the most ideal environments for mechanized forces to operate within. The enemy could not ‘melt away’ into the countryside. This allowed us to isolate the battlefield and inflict maximum damage upon the enemy without taking much in the way of losses. The enemy could not disengage. The mismatch of conventional forces firepower against an irregular force who could not ‘melt away’ could only end with victory on the battlefield for the conventional forces.
This is a major reason why the ‘surge’ worked. I see that President Obama and his advisers are either not drawing the same lessons from Vietnam and Iraq, or else are unaware of their significance.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Afghanistan and Iraq
One day is not enough to see how the war is going. However, the news today is not good. In Afghanistan, 3 helicopters were destroyed, two in a mid-air collision and the other possibly by hostile fire. Two attacks in Iraq have left at least 155 dead, making this the worse attacks in years.
As a general rule it is unwise to jump to any conclusions. Seeing as the U.S. is scaling back and withdrawing from Iraq, it is clear that the war in Iraq continues. The fighting in Afghanistan has been increasing for the past few months so heavier losses can be expected. The overall concern here is that our strategic posture is shifting to a defensive one and the pressure from our enemies appears to be increasing.
I have been expecting something along these lines. As our emphasis shifts to using the civilian police and FBI for internal defense from the use of our military to wage offensive warfare, we can expect our enemy to regain the initiative by increased activity. This shift of the U.S. to a defensive posture is not completed, so we can expect this trend to continue. In addition, we can expect our enemy to become more active in areas where he has been less active and in new areas where he had not been active before. This process will most likely take at least another year or two before it becomes more obvious.
As a general rule it is unwise to jump to any conclusions. Seeing as the U.S. is scaling back and withdrawing from Iraq, it is clear that the war in Iraq continues. The fighting in Afghanistan has been increasing for the past few months so heavier losses can be expected. The overall concern here is that our strategic posture is shifting to a defensive one and the pressure from our enemies appears to be increasing.
I have been expecting something along these lines. As our emphasis shifts to using the civilian police and FBI for internal defense from the use of our military to wage offensive warfare, we can expect our enemy to regain the initiative by increased activity. This shift of the U.S. to a defensive posture is not completed, so we can expect this trend to continue. In addition, we can expect our enemy to become more active in areas where he has been less active and in new areas where he had not been active before. This process will most likely take at least another year or two before it becomes more obvious.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Internal terrorist threat
MSNBC.com: "A 27-year-old Massachusetts man has been charged with conspiring with others to carry out terror attacks against shoppers in U.S. malls and against U.S. military in Iraq."
NEW YORK - A Queens imam has been indicted on charges that he lied to federal agents about an Afghan immigrant who was later charged with plotting a bomb attack in New York City.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have you noticed how it appears that we are seeing more internal (United States) terrorist threat arrests in the past few months? It seems that I am seeing terror threat arrests on an almost daily or at least a weekly basis. It can only be a matter of time before one of these threats is successful. Offensive warfare is unpleasant. Defensive warfare is far worse. I expect this trend to continue to accelerate as our national emphasis upon a defensive strategy begins to take effect.
Our police and FBI are doing well. However, they cannot hold the enemy off. Only our military has that capability, and with our shifting to the strategic defensive we can expect to see the war begin to go against us. If you live near a major city, it is a good idea to prepare an emergency kit. The possibility of your needing it is increasing.
NEW YORK - A Queens imam has been indicted on charges that he lied to federal agents about an Afghan immigrant who was later charged with plotting a bomb attack in New York City.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have you noticed how it appears that we are seeing more internal (United States) terrorist threat arrests in the past few months? It seems that I am seeing terror threat arrests on an almost daily or at least a weekly basis. It can only be a matter of time before one of these threats is successful. Offensive warfare is unpleasant. Defensive warfare is far worse. I expect this trend to continue to accelerate as our national emphasis upon a defensive strategy begins to take effect.
Our police and FBI are doing well. However, they cannot hold the enemy off. Only our military has that capability, and with our shifting to the strategic defensive we can expect to see the war begin to go against us. If you live near a major city, it is a good idea to prepare an emergency kit. The possibility of your needing it is increasing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
