Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Israeli attacks

I am seeing a number of reports that anger in the Muslim world is at dangerous proportions because of the recent Israeli attacks. This is not much of a surprise given the amount of attacks. Officially, many Arab governments are not giving HAMAS the support that the Palestinians are accustomed to. However, the common view is that Israel is the aggressor and should be forced to halt.

The Palestinians elected HAMAS – Fair and square. (By a very large majority as well) The ‘cease fire’ was officially lifted on December 19th, 2008 and attacks upon Israel have shot upward. This means that HAMAS has resumed open war against Israel. Israel should not be allowed to respond to an open attack from another government? I am guessing here that the response has been considered to be too much. It should be more restrained. This violates one of the basic principals of warfare: In order to win, you must raise the level of conflict to a point that your enemy either cannot or will not match. "Irregular" warfare depends upon maintaining an ‘army’ that survives long enough to outlast the enemy’s will to win. Israel is a conventional military. Now the world expects them to behave like their enemy? NO. It is obvious that no matter what action Israel undertakes (Outside of surrender) will be acceptable. I do not envy them, particularly with a new U.S. President about to take office who is no friend of theirs.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Islamic law - An eye for an eye

An Iranian woman who had been blinded by an acid attack is seeking Islamic justice by having her attacker punished by having acid poured into his eyes. I can sympathize. However, it is counterproductive. In general, Iranians do not favor this type of penalty. In this case however, public opinion is in favor of having her assailant permanently blinded, as she was. This is literally, an eye for an eye.

Most of us already have our reasons to disagree with the eye for eye penalty. Speaking on a strategic level, it would require that after World War II, we would have had to exterminate millions of Blond, blue eyed Germans, as they supposedly caused the holocaust. This would have made it almost impossible to rebuild that country into anything like it is today.

Revenge is not a good quality to encourage. Chopping off hands to punish theft would appear at first glance to make sense. It would discourage people from stealing in the first place. A problem that this creates on a national level is a sense of blaming others. In some cases, others really are to blame. On many occasions, the blame can be targeted and become a scapegoat for your own problems. If they do ANY injustice to anyone who you sympathize with, then this justifies a like act. We are seeing this occur throughout the Middle East. Particularly regarding violent acts, like bombings and shootings. The cycle of violence cannot be broken without the eye for an eye concept becoming unacceptable by society. An additional problem here is that getting rid of the eye for eye concept could very easily trigger open warfare. An additional reason why warfare is so common throughout the Islamic world.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

War in Afghanistan requires a tourniquet

The Chicago Tribune, 12/23/08, Section 1, Page 6. Title: "Obama staff briefed on war plan".
The beginning of paragraph 4 reads: "Right now there is a sense you need to apply a tourniquet of some kind. Said a senior defense official"

This is reference to the war in Afghanistan. The article goes on to point out how this has been a record year for our troop losses in Afghanistan. Applying a tourniquet to a wound would slow the bleeding down to a level where the person could survive. For me, this implies that our losses are unsustainable. And that the best course of action is to slow down the war thereby slowing down the bleeding. What this article demonstrates to me is a 2nd grade level understanding of the war.
1) If you added up all of the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan plus the wounded, you would arrive at a figure of troop losses that the U.S. has lost in just a few days in wars in the past. While I do not like to lose ANY soldier, our losses today are those of a low level, minor war at best.

2) We need to slow down, if not stop the bleeding? This is NOT how wars are won. We will win by accepting that our enemy is stronger and will now talk to us on our terms? No, we will be talking to them on their terms. This is how wars are lost.

The quotes I took from this article are only part of the picture. Please read the article as I am analyzing the big picture that is being attempted to be painted.

On a side note: President-elect Obama must not believe this either. He is talking about sending additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. This is escalating the war, not slowing it down.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Islam was born in hostile environment

The desert is one of the most hostile environments on Earth. It makes sense that many of the ideas presented within are harsh and authoritarian. Survival depended upon strict separation of tasks. It would require stringent rules to control excess, as very little to no excess could be tolerated. No wonder that so many rules are so rigid that little to no evolution can take place. After all, the desert is not very flexible nor is it forgiving. The Koran was apparently designed so that it could not be modified. The concept of the Koran as the final word of God makes this clear. These are additional ways the Koran is in direct contrast and conflict with the systems that rule our lives. We based them upon ideas of being flexible so that we can adjust to changing situations.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Iraq did not attack us

Yes, Iraq did not attack us. Being attacked by another country is not the only good reason to wage war. England and France declared war against Germany in September 1939 because they were attacked by Germany? This was wrong? North Korea did not attack the U.S. in June, 1950. It was a mistake to fight in this war where we had not been attacked? England did NOT attack the U.S. in 1812. Why DID we declare war against the country that was fighting the 19th century version of Hitler? We ended up fighting on HIS side. Yet we had a damn good reason.

Why did the Confederacy shoot at the U.S. at Fort Sumter? It started the U.S. Civil war. It certainly was NOT because the U.S. attacked them. And that war was certainly worth fighting, for both sides.

Iraq HAD attacked Iran AND Kuwait. We waged war after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and it was demonstrated over the following 8 years that not taking out the government of Iraq was a major mistake. It never mattered to me if Iraq was not even remotely responsible for the attack on 9/11/01.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Arab insult

The Chicago Tribune, 12/15/08, Section 1, page 1. A picture on the first page shows President Bush dodging a shoe that had been thrown at him by an angry Iraqi journalist. A thrown shoe is a major insult in the Arab world. We can add this to the list of Arab insults. As if we need another one.

The Arab culture is easily insulted. And easily pissed off. Anger management is a major problem throughout the Muslim world. The severity of the restrictions on economic activity, creativity, personal behavior and sexuality serve to keep the population on the verge of boiling over. This is the opposite of capitalism and democracy, which through openness allow many types of expression and release of creativity that channels aggression into much less harmful activities. (Such as our preoccupation with sports, which is an excellent, constructive outlet for human aggression as opposed to violence against other individuals and ‘irregular’ warfare.)

No wonder the Islamic world hates us. We are opposite in just about everything. They don’t have many outlets for many human qualities so they take it out on everyone else. They even take it out on each other, including the ones that they love. It makes sense that such a restrictive culture would tend to be insulted easily. This is one of the few outlets for many of the qualities that are so strictly repressed.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The appeal of the Islamic legal system in failed states

Failed states are vulnerable to implementation of the Islamic legal system. Although the Islamic legal system is very restrictive and harsh, it can be seen as a valid source for law and order. Islamic jurisprudence has been around for more than 1400 years. Many scholars and legal experts are available throughout the Muslim world. Most political and legal systems that are restrictive have a great deal of strength. They require strict enforcement to keep the population in line. Islam is no exception. In a state which has failed, anarchy rules. Islam can defeat this situation and install order relatively quickly. Even though many would not like it, the positive benefits would gain loyalty within a short period of time. This can occur even within progressive nations. Germany in the 1920’s is an excellent example. Hitler and the Nazi organization had the country working within a very short period of time. A primary reason why Hitler was ‘Man of the year’. In the end, the cure was worse than the disease, but before it was ended, the Nazi organization had commanded unusual loyalty from a population that was well educated and modern in most, if not all respects.

It makes sense that terrorism and ‘irregular’ warfare is a major weapon of those who seek Islamic domination. If an existing system can be broken down and anarchy triggered, then another much stronger system would be required and desired. If Islam is already somewhat accepted by the general population, it would be a natural progression.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Pakistani villagers deny knowing terrorist

The Chicago Tribune, 12/8/08, Page 1. "Village: Terrorist doesn’t live here’.

Officials have tied the only surviving terrorist from the Mumbai attacks last week to the village of Faridkot, Pakistan. Villagers have denied knowing the family. "It is as if the Qasab family never existed".

Here lies a major problem at getting to the root of terrorism. In prison, everyone is innocent. Using the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ rule of law enforcement makes it almost impossible to effectively combat terrorism through law enforcement. This is one reason why I believe it is necessary to wage offensive warfare. Force them to attack you on ground of your choice.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Islam under siege

Islam IS under siege, from the modern world. A large percentage of Muslims worldwide believe in many of the issues that are worth fighting and waging organized warfare against. Although many interpretations of the Koran are agreeable with us, many ‘authentic’ laws are so hostile to us and to the rest of the world that ‘irregular’ warfare can be expected to continue indefinitely. So hostile are parts of the Koran to the rest of the world that just interaction with any other culture would explain the ongoing violence as change is resisted. This would also place pressure upon those who either supports or is against these ‘laws’. Looking at it from inside Islam, it would be apparent that the entire world is picking on you. It would look as if everyone is against you. And to a certain degree, they are.

Islam must change. Those who believe in many of the ‘authentic’ laws that are so hostile to the rest of the world are causing much of the violence. There is no alternative way to interpret the penalty for leaving Islam. You either enforce the death penalty, or you do not. It is worth waging war to end this practice. It will trigger violence when enforcement is ended. Take the example of stoning a convicted adulteress to death. Riots occurred in Nigeria in the summer of 2006 because the court refused to administer the penalty. (Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 50% Christian) In 1804 the Barbary pirates seized some U.S. ships and demanded Tribute. Under Islamic law, Tribute is to be paid by all non-Muslims living in Islamic governed land. These ‘pirates’ expanded that law to include non-Muslim ships traveling through Muslim waters. The U.S. sent our fleet over there, killed all that got in our way, and burned our ships. We fought for freedom of the seas. Think that this is an old, dead issue? In 2006, the Iraqi government was debating implementation of collection of Tribute from all non-Muslims living in Iraq. I don’t know what eventually happened, but this ’law’ is still considered valid. We fought against this ‘law’ then and we should today.

These ‘laws’ are under siege, as they should be. The war will not end until the entire Muslim population is convinced that these laws are invalid or should be ignored.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Nuclear 'football'

The Chicago Tribune, 12/5/08, Section 1, Page 47. Title: "Nuclear ‘football’ carries global arms woes".

The article describes how the idea and responsibility for ‘the football’ has been difficult for previous presidents to absorb. (The briefcase that carries the codes for our nuclear weapons is called ‘the football’.)

I have been reading the news since the early 1970’s. I don’t ever recall any article even remotely connected to this subject being published prior to ANY president taking office. I find it very interesting that this article comes only a few days after the report that indicates that ‘time is not on our side’ and that a WMD attack is likely to occur by 2013. In other words, near or just after the end of President-elect Obama’s first term.

One primary reason that we went to war in Iraq was to prevent the war from reaching us. This was successful. Even though many disagree, the fact remains that we have NOT been hit since 9/11. This is a period of more than 7 years. We had been hit 5 times in the 8 years prior to 9/11. Taking the offensive may not have been popular, but it has been effective. Well, President-elect Obama has promised change.

If President-elect Obama follows through on what he has said, he will be placing the U.S. on the defensive. These articles appear to me to reflect the appropriate rise in the risk of not just being attacked again, but with the possibility of WMD used against us also at a higher level. What I have been telling others is that if you live in New York City, Washington D.C., L.A., or Chicago on January 20, 2009, you will then be in the front line. Our enemy may have many more targets than these cities, but you can bet that these are a high priority. Of course, the police may be able to stop them.

To have a good defense against terrorism we only need to look at Israel. Here we have a country that cannot permanently defeat its enemies through military means. Israel is simply not big enough. Israel has adopted a strategic defensive posture because it cannot end the war by defeating its enemies. Israel is permanently under siege. I have never been there, but I know enough that I would not like to have our police walking around with automatic rifles. Our police today would not last 5 minutes in a terrorist attack such as Israel has had to endure on a regular basis. A six shooter up against automatic weapons? And surprise is NOT on your side? A death sentence. No wonder we are seeing articles in the paper about how the threat of WMD attacks upon the U.S. are closer at hand and why the ‘football’ is even being brought up.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

General Patraeus or general betray us?

Remember this one?

This to me demonstrates one of the major political problems we have in this country today. History demonstrates time and time again how the military is usually much more loyal to the government than anyone else. The holders of the view that general Patraeus was a bad guy must really be much more afraid of the internal threat our own military represents than any external enemies. I find it consistent that these same individuals constantly underestimate today’s Islamic militancy threat. The very people who have the ability to defeat the enemy in open combat are the greater threat. Well, this needs to change.

President-elect Obama is going to take the military and show them whose boss. We don’t need them in this war, so he needs to put them in their place after the free hand the military has been given under the Bush administration. Like the good soldiers they are, they will obey orders. JFK had an attitude similar to this when he took office. As with any parallels, a number of differences are present. This is not a good one to be similar to given how today’s threat is much less immediate, but much more likely to evolve into events.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Time is NOT on our side

The Chicago Tribune, 12/2/08, section 1, page 6. Title of article is "Bio attack likely by 2013, report says." Former Senator Bob Graham: "We think time is not our ally."

I am pleased that our government is finally going public with this view. I find it interesting that they are predicting an attack by the end of President-elect Obama’s first term. Placing our military on the strategic defensive would appear to be moving up this date. It makes sense that we will need to bolster our civilian ability to respond to attack seeing as it will be more likely.
Prior to a new attack on the U.S. mainland, I would expect to see the frequency of attacks increasing in other parts of the world, similar to the one staged in India last week.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Attacks in India

Now that the war in Iraq has settled into a lower level conflict, more attacks can be expected worldwide. Today, the enemy is not taking enough losses to slow this down.

Chicago Tribune, 11/30/08 section 1 page 7.

"The attacks in India could increase pressure on Obama to seek a more regional approach to the war on terror in South Asia, and he previously has called for more attention to the Kashmir conflict. But his initial response has been cautious, offering condolences but holding off on any promise of tough action."

In other words, this war is larger than just the immediate area. Hopefully, President-elect Obama will understand that this is even larger than a regional conflict. It is in character for him to be cautious when fighting a war. This is a strategically defensive way to think. President-elect Obama is probably a good defensive mind. This can be seen as one of his strengths. A potential problem that I see is that while good defense is very important in war, time is NOT on our side. We need to wage offensive warfare.

The bloody nose we gave our enemies in Iraq is already cleaned up. Even if no direct connection exists between our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, these attacks in India ARE related regarding ideology. This ideology is why I am at war. The rampant irregular warfare that is so common throughout the Muslim world is another symptom of this ideology. This ideology must be terminated. It will require warfare to do so. Defensive warfare will fail to prevent the eventual spread of this type of war. It is far better to wage offensive warfare and fight it on your terms. The war in Iraq has shown that terrorists have much more difficulty defeating our military in open battle on ground of our choosing.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Piracy versus terrorism

In the past, I have compared terrorists with pirates. With the piracy running rampant off the East Coast of Africa, I thought a more detailed comparison is in order.

Pirates are similar to terrorists:

1) Dress in civilian clothes
2) Do not carry arms openly
3) Prey on civilians as opposed to an army or organized force.
4) Use military weapons and tactics.

Pirates are NOT like terrorists:

1) Pirates attack for personal gain.
2) Terrorists have an ultimate political objective. Pirates generally do not.
3) Terrorists destroy what is inherently valuable. Pirates intend to keep what is of value.

I am certain that I have missed some. In any case, I am not so certain that the piracy of today is not only for personal gain. Please note how the list of similiarities concerns behavior whereas the differences are not. Piracy is a act, a behavior. Not some political viewpoint.

I have noticed that the most dangerous pirates of today are at the least being supported from bases where Islam is fighting. Is it a coincidence that Somalia is a battleground where Islamic forces are fighting? Waging war is VERY expensive. It would appear that they need money. I suppose that the pirates of today use the same ‘Tribute’ argument that the pirates of Tripoli in 1804 were using. We owed them money because our infidel ships were passing through Muslim waters. We fought for freedom of the seas.

This is another issue that is worth waging war over. No wonder the Islamic world is a witness to so much violence.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Irregular warfare and Islam

Features common in Guerrilla wars:

1) Conventional forces tend to outnumber irregular troops.
2) Conventional forces have better weapons.
3) Conventional forces have better training. (A large reason why atrocities tend to occur on the irregular troop side.)
4) Conventional forces have better firepower.
5) It is in the interest of conventional force to have greater amounts of combat. The more combat, the better. The difficulty is in bringing the irregular troops to battle.
6) Typical strategy of ‘insurgent’ side is to outlast the enemy. Get them to quit. Because they
can’t stand up in a straight fight, ‘insurgents’ tend to attempt to gain local advantages and bite
off small bits of the conventional army. (Small battles)

Irregular warfare has been with us since organized armies. As the features listed above indicate, irregular warfare is usually not chosen because the fighters want it this way, but because this is the only effective method of organized resistance that is practical without the inferior units being wiped out. Many examples throughout history are available where the guerrilla units fought with distinction and honor. Although atrocities occur in EVERY war, irregular warfare has tended to spur more atrocities than usually occur. Two of the reasons for this are:

1) Conventional forces prefer to fight against other conventional forces. It is a frustrating type of warfare, in a way that siege warfare is frustrating for the combatants.
2) Lack of training on the irregular side does not hinder the occurrence of atrocities. When the conventional forces find out about atrocities, it becomes more difficult to hold the conventional forces back from retaliation.

I have noted that irregular warfare is rampant throughout the Islamic world today. All this tells us is that Islamic forces are subject to many of the six features that I have listed above. What does distinguish much of the warfare that Islamic forces are involved in today is the level of brutality. This cannot be explained away by just the fact that Islamic forces do not tend to be well trained. (As most, if not all irregular forces tend to be.) Once again, I would like to point out a comparison with the code of Bushido and the brutality that occurred with even well-trained Japanese forces.

Thursday, November 20, 2008


Saadia commented on my post about attacks in Pakistan and asked for a reply. I am not going to reply to every point in the comment.

"And why was Iraq attacked? There were no mass weapons there. Quite obnoxiously, many Americans believe Saddam was Al-Qaeda. Please write a post to correct that perception. Thanks."

Being new to my blog, you don't know my reasons. Frankly, I could not care less if WMD or any connection between Al-Qaeda existed. Iraq had shot down three of our unmanned aircraft after the First Gulf War. Iraq was sending money to the families of suicide attackers who had died killing Israelies. The WMD was a good excuse. Everyone thought that they had them.

I am a historian. On the afternoon of 9/11/01, I watched the film of the attacks and finally drew the connection. The first time Repeated suicide attack had been seen in all of recorded history was during the 1940's with Japan's effort to win the war. The parallels between Japan and it's culture prior to the war are strikingly similar to that of the Middle East. All wars and cultures are unique. The most basic instinct in all living things is survival. Humanity has learned to get past that, but for organized suicide, a cultural pattern would probably exist. We won the war against Japan by literally blowing the people apart before they could reach you. Most importantly, they started the shooting. After 9/11, just in order to protect ourselves, the U.S. HAD to wage offensive warfare. Iraq was as good a place on Earth that we could have chosen. Please research the culture of Bushido. Then judge for yourself.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008


Some comments about the book "Reconciliation by Benazir Bhutto. (C 2008)

Page 2. "Within the Muslim world there has been and continues to be an internal rift, an often violent confrontation among sects, ideologies, and interpretations of the message of Islam."

Bhutto is correct and I can see where this problem originates: The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This ‘authentic’ law has been enforced for 1400 years. Therefore, if anyone disagrees on any of the fundamental issues, he/she must be an Apostate.

"The goal--the great hope of the militants—is a collision, an explosion between the values of the West and what the extremists claim to be the values of Islam." As with all that start a war, they believe that they will win.

"And as the Muslim world—where sectarianism is rampant—simmers internally, extremists have manipulated Islamic dogma to justify and rationalize a so-called jihad against the West."

I find these three quotes interesting because she apparently believes that ‘extremists’ are wrong about Islam, and she also makes the same assumption that many in the West make: That the ‘extremists’ and their supporters are not all that numerous. No wonder she was killed. Not only is she an Apostate, but she underestimated her enemy by a rather large proportion. Musharraf has not made this mistake as has been demonstrated by his ability to avoid being killed for more than 6 years when those very same people want his head even more than they wanted to kill Bhutto. She apparently doesn’t believe in jihad, as her phrase "so-called jihad" indicates. Jihad is an obligation and is a very important part of Islam.

Page 3. "One billion Muslims around the world seemed united in their outrage at the war in Iraq, damning the deaths of Muslims caused by U.S. military intervention without U.N. approval."

I find it very difficult to believe that the one billion Muslims would have been OK with the invasion of Iraq if the U.N. HAD given it’s approval. The moral obligation to "kill the occupiers" of Muslim land has nothing to do with justice or any international concept.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

The War is NOT over

Madison Wisconsin is known to be a liberal town. So I asked a brother who lives in the area what people are talking about in town. The economy is just about everything in conversation. I asked about the war and the reply was that it was not even coming up. I am guessing that the view is that the war will be pretty much over after we leave Iraq.

This view would understand that by taking the U.S. military out of the direct fighting, the war would wind down to a much, much lower level. Play good defense, like during the Cold War. ‘Soft’ power would dominate and eventually help bring about reconciliation. Wars are won by bringing down the violence level. When we aren’t killing civilians, many people who are against our ‘occupation’ will become more moderate in their views of our position and us. Forgiveness and healing could begin. It will take a long time. For humanity’s sake, it is the best way. One of many problems that come to mind is that this view does not consider our enemy.

The first rule of warfare is "to know thy enemy". It only takes one side to start a war and only one side to keep a war going. The view that the war will wind down and eventually die off does not take into account who our enemy is and why they hate us. Our enemy hated us long before 9/11. Long before the invasion of Iraq. The issues that our enemy is fighting for and against us is every bit as important as slavery and loyalty to the state over the federal government that were two of the primary reasons for the U.S. Civil War. The point here that the reasons for warfare today are every bit as valid as both North and South in 1861. This is NOT going to go away. Our enemy will not allow it to.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Guns are selling

In the Chicago Tribune earlier this week, an article appeared that described how since the election of Senator Obama as our next president, gun sales in the area have skyrocketed. I would guess that one primary reason is that many expect our new president and the Democrat majority in both houses to make the purchase and/or ownership of guns more difficult, if not illegal. I personally am interested in the purchase of some firearms, but for a different reason.

President-elect Obama has made it clear that he plans to place the U.S. on the strategic defensive. No more invasions combined with withdrawal from Iraq. He plans to eliminate weapons procurement, missile defense plus research and development. I imagine that a large part of this program is to reduce the military’s budget so that our armed forces have to cut back in numerous places. As a result of these moves, I consider my family to now be in the front line.

If you drew up a list of 5 cities in the U.S. that are a potential target for a terrorist attack, Chicago will be on that list. I also expect terrorist activity and effectiveness to increase steadily as our new President enacts his changes. It is only a matter of time before one of these groups obtains and deploys an effective weapon of mass destruction. As the looting and violence that occurred in New Orleans demonstrated, any type of firearm can possibly be a lifesaver for my family in the event of a disaster.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008


The violence throughout the Muslim world is about a number of issues. These are all part of the same ideological war. The common denominator for me is the repeated suicide attack.
Suicide has always been a part of warfare. However, repeatedly organized suicide attacks have only been seen on one prior occasion throughout all of human history. This was Japan in the 1940's.

Although markedly different from today (All wars are unique) many similarities exist that are worrisome. The brutality exhibited in both occurrences is one symptom of the ideological persuasion necessary to supply an organized campaign of repeated suicide attack with volunteers. After all, the suppression of the most basic instinct of all living things would require extensive training of the minds of many. To support an ongoing campaign of repeated suicide requires far more people who believe in the concept than just those who actually carry out the attacks. In Japan, the concept was culturally based. I believe that it is today and this is the main reason as to why the rare occurrence of repeated suicide attack is so relatively common throughout the Muslim world.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Attacks in Pakistan

President-elect Obama will place the U.S. on the strategic defensive. Since September, nearly 20 attacks have been made by U.S. forces inside Pakistan. (Like the one executed Thursday) During the Obama administration, I would expect this number to not only drop significantly, but to cease altogether. This should help stop the killing of civilians, although not as many of our enemies will be meeting Allah. I cannot see how this will speed up the end of the war, except on someone else’s terms.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Afghan civilian losses

"This is my first demand of the new President of the United States—to put an end to civilian casualties."—President Hamid Karzal.

The first demand? It looks to me more like the last demand. Why do I say this?

1) Civilians get in the way during wartime. It is inevitable, no matter how much of an effort you
make. Civilians are hit during wartime.

2) The enemy is targeting civilians. Asking this is like asking us to wage war without losing

3) The enemy ARE civilians. The only time that they are not is when they are shooting at our

4) The ONLY way to end civilian losses is to stop shooting.

It is possible that President Karzal wants our soldiers to just ‘take it’ and only shoot back in the most desperate situations possible. You know, act like the UN.

I find it more likely that he wants our soldiers gone altogether. In this, he is in agreement with just about everyone else who lives there. And many who live in Pakistan, Iran and throughout the Middle East. Not to mention the rest of the world.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008


The Iraqi government has recently announced that it is reducing salaries of the members of the awakening movement. Eventually, the Iraqi government wants to end payment entirely. Threats about quitting are rampant. It remains to be seen how many actually quit. This will be a good indicator on how well Iraq can stand on it’s own. I am not very optimistic. Particullarly if Senator Obama becomes the next Commander-in-Chief.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Remove President Obama from office

Senator Obama’s birth records may end up being the way that he is removed from office. I am not afraid of many politicians, but this man really scares me. He wants to go to a completely passive peace standing with our armed forces. Not only this, but he will cripple our ability to anticipate and implement new weapon systems for armed conflict. We are at greater risk of starting World War III by our not making more aggressive warfare. Our enemy is willing to use WMD as soon as it is possible. We are not talking about a 3rd world gassing of civilians. If Israel, Western Europe or the U.S. mainland were hit with nuclear weapons, I would be very seriously looking into those birth records of President Obama.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Declaring war

Since our inception, the U.S. had waged numerous campaigns without declaring war. In 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917 and 1941 the U.S. Congress declared war. I left out the U.S. Civil war 1861-1865.

The last declared war by the U.S. Congress was in 1941. Since then, the U.S. has waged several large "police actions". The most recent was the ‘authority to use force’ in 2002 that the U.S. Congress gave President Bush. In other words, the permission to wage war against Iraq.
The wars fought 1950-1953 (Korea) and 1965-1972 (Vietnam) were undeclared wars like today. The threats then were thought to be grave enough to wage open warfare, yet too dangerous to declare war against a government. This applies today. If the U.S. had declared war in 2002 against Iraq, it was deemed possible that a number of Arab governments would act likewise to defend their colleague. I still find this unlikely, although the price of getting it wrong would be very steep.

Looking at it another way, the "authority to use force" was a way for the U.S. Congress to get out of the long-term difficulty of having made any mistakes. If all went well, it could take credit for being ‘courageous’. If the war went bad or turned out to be a mistake, it could just take it all back. That sure is a nice position to be in, and we all know how political figures like to pay for their mistakes. The problem that I have is that time is NOT on our side. WMD makes it imperative that we wage offensive warfare to prevent future attacks.

The known nuclear powers in the world are:

1) U.S.
2) Russia
3) China
4) England
5) France
6) Pakistan
7) India
8) North Korea

South Africa had developed nuclear weapons, but has since been in compliance with dismantling nuclear weapon systems.

Israel most likely has nuclear weapons.

If an attack with nuclear weapons occurs anywhere in the world, the aggressors will most likely have come from the Islamic world. The material and/or weapons may have actually been built elsewhere, but the cause of the strikes will be in the name of Islam. This actually significantly raises the risk of WMD being used. Once nuclear weapons are used, openly declared war against governments would become likely.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


The U.S. launched a raid into Syria on Monday, claiming to have killed an important ‘terrorist’ organizer. The U.S. has attacked targets within Pakistan and Syria, violating both countries territory. The Pakistani government had given unofficial support to the idea. I am certain that Syria has NOT given any support for anything of the kind.

Senator Barack Obama would most likely end this type of activity. From what he has said, only if Bin Lauden himself were identified would he seriously consider launching raids of this type. Like JFK, I am certain that he would attempt to respect international boundaries. Even if raids were being launched from land that is in another country. This is one of the reasons why Vietnam was considered to be a war that could not be won. I am guessing that this is one reason as to why Senator Obama believes that this war cannot be won by our military and contributes to his list of reasons as to why he believes that it is best to withdraw from Iraq.

Sunday, October 26, 2008


Opposition to U.S. ‘occupation’ in Iraq is growing. This is to be expected. One of the ‘authentic’ laws of Islam is to ‘kill the occupiers’. ANY land that was EVER Muslim is to be defended. Many things about Islam must change, and this is one of them. However, it looks as if this will not be the case.

Current negotiations with the Iraqi government are leaning toward a full U.S. withdrawal by the end of 2011. Of course, an Obama administration will speed up this date. With this in mind, the Iraqi government wants to wait. If Senator Obama wins, they will get the withdrawal sooner. In any case, pressure is within and on the Iraqi government to get us out of Iraq.

If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq by the end of 2010, it will have been 7 and ½ years of ‘occupation’. This is about ½ of a generation. This is by no means long enough to rid Iraq of the ‘kill the occupiers’ mentality. This is not satisfactory to me. It takes 3 full generations to rid a behavior. It is not politically possible to ‘occupy’ Iraq anywhere near this amount of time. However, a very strong influence during the 2nd and 3rd generations would probably suffice. No way will the U.S. meet this goal if we withdraw before the end of the 1st generation. A problem here is that the war is far larger than this one issue and one country.

In many of our enemy’s eyes, the U.S. has replaced Israel as the main opponent. What this means to me is that if the war slows down significantly, we could expect much more effective attacks upon our ‘soft’ targets. This new offensive will intensify as time goes on unless we attack forcefully and effectively enough. I find it difficult to believe that a President Obama would wage war effectively enough to accomplish this. He just does not see why I am at war.
The ‘authentic’ Islamic issues that I am at war against are:

1) "Kill the occupiers" The moral obligation to kill occupiers of Muslim lands
2) Loyalty to Islam above ANY government
3) Stoning ANYONE to death.
4) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate)
5) The Islamic electoral policy of "One man, (men only) one vote, once."
6) Payment of Tribute by ANY non-Muslim. And I don’t care if this would exempt them from military service, because loyalty to religion does NOT trump loyalty to the government. (Separation of church and state)

These are issues that we MUST wage war over. To do otherwise is to invite attack. Far too many Muslims are active and passive supporters against us on these issues for them not to wage effective warfare. A strategic withdrawal will only delay and enhance the size of the eventual war. In years to come, we will need those bases that we have in Iraq today. Senator Obama seems to believe that time is on our side. Time is NOT on our side. This is a recipe for surprise attack. It is a recipe for disaster.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Blasphemy case in Afghanistan

The Chicago Tribune, 10/22/08, Section 1, Page 15. An article titled "Blasphemy case stirs worry in Afghanistan". The first sentence, "In a case that has illustrated Afghanistan’s drift toward a more radically conservative brand of Islam as well as the fragility of its legal system, an appeals court Tuesday overturned a death sentence for a student convicted of blasphemy but sentenced him to 20 years in prison."

A drift toward a more radical brand of Islam? Fragility of its legal system? Yes, I think you can say this is true.

The Islamic legal system is far more powerful than the version of a western type legal system that is being attempted in Afghanistan. Afghans are used to a much more restrictive system of governance and enforcement. It is natural that a ‘drift’ takes place to move back to where they are more comfortable. If a poll were taken in Afghanistan, I would expect the majority of the population to agree to a severe punishment for Parwiz Kambakhsh. Insulting Islam is no laughing matter. Paragraph 8, "After the death penalty was decreed in his January trial, public demonstrations were held in support of the verdict, and some prominent clerics declared he deserved to be executed for violating the teachings of Islam. "

People like this student are a minority in Afghanistan. This is the case throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world in varying degrees. This is one of the basic issues that this war is all about. I would not be surprised if he were to die in prison. Cultural change can be very slow. And time is NOT on our side.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

President Obama and JFK

Senator Joe Biden recently said that President Obama would be tested within 6 months of his taking office by a "generated" crisis. I agree that either candidate WILL be tested. However, I believe that it will take at least two years before we see a "generated" crisis that will be as powerful as I fear. More likely 2-3 years before the really serious crisis hits. Senator Obama has been compared to JFK. In a number of ways, these are accurate. I just hope that in the case of a nuclear crisis, this is NOT the case. The Soviet Union turned their ships around and avoided the war. I find it very difficult to believe that our current enemies would do anything similar.

Every Presidency is filled with ‘crisis’. They vary greatly in severity and size. I believe that a President Obama will not respond forcefully enough when presented with any warlike ‘crisis’ early in his administration. Wars are won by the side that escalates to a level the other side either can not or will not match. This will lead to a much more serious crisis, as I believe it did with JFK and the Cuban missile crisis.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Evolution of U.S. involvement in Vietnam

Many people are comparing the war in Iraq today with the war in Vietnam. In some ways, they are similar. In others, they are not. It may be helpful to have a condensed recounting of how the U.S. became to be involved in Vietnam:

France controlled Vietnam during the 2nd half of the 19th century, and the 1st half of the 20th. A number of uprisings occurred during this time. They were brutally suppressed. This had been common practice by ‘occupiers’ throughout colonial history. After Paris fell to Germany in 1940, the French control slackened some, and the Vietminh began to resist more openly. Japan overran Vietnam in 1942 and occupied it until the end of the war in 1945. Resistance to Japanese occupation was at a noticeably higher level.

In January 1944, General Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander in Europe. He moved his headquarters to England. During the next few months, he became familiar with the French resistance. Our viewpoint was from the resistance side. He was exposed to the organizational problems, abilities, and limitations.

After the war, Vietnam was re-occupied by the French. Resistance was at a much higher level than pre-war, and this did not drop off. In 1954, the situation had deteriorated so much for France that a good portion of their army was surrounded at Dien Bien Phu. The French government appealed for direct help, and Eisenhower said no. It fell and Vietnam was divided into North and South.

In 1956, reports began to come into President Eisenhower’s office. Small groups of armed men would enter a small village in South Vietnam and demand food (Rice) and loyalty in exchange for ‘protection’. The villagers were hostile to these demands, but frequently gave in as they were unarmed and wanted to protect their families. President Eisenhower did what any general would do: He took out a map. Terrain: Swamps and forests. Economy: Agrarian. Population: Spread out in small villages, population generally between 100 and 500 people. One large city, Saigon was the capital. The strategy that was developed and implemented was to select a village. Out of a population of 100, about 10-15 people would be men of ages 15 to 45. Have a few men (CIA or similar) enter the village; supply them with small arms and training. Enough ammunition and training to enable them to maintain the equipment and to defend themselves. The U.S. men would then go to the next village a few klicks away and begin the process again. Within the first year, this process was showing signs of success. The hostile force was entering the village and was not getting any food. They were also losing a few men in the process. It was a painfully slow process. By 1959, estimates were that the job would be completed by 1970. Then came the election of 1960. It would have been unprofessional and completely out of character for Eisenhower not to brief his replacement in what he had been doing.

Did you ever see the movie JFK? You know, the movie that claimed that JFK was killed because of a memo that he sent out a week after he took office? The memo said that he wanted the war ended by January 1st, 1964. He was setting a political deadline because he was thinking re-election. (I am guessing here.) In any case, the implication is that he needed to change the plan. Here we have a man whose military experience was command over 10 men for a few months. He had his command destroyed by an enemy ship running over his. He was going to change the military plan that had been created by one of the better military minds that this country has ever produced.

His idea was to use the officers coming out of training in guerrilla warfare and have them speed up the effort in Vietnam. This would allow us to leave by 1964. After all, the military has the assets to do this. These officers began to arrive in Vietnam during the late spring of 1961. The result was a reorganization of Vietnam’s military. It was set up as a conventional force. The villages were required to send the men 10 miles up the road into a conventional battle formation. The village had just been stripped of its defense. This placed the South Vietnamese men in a cruel position: Either be patriotic or join the other side to protect your family. The war began to go noticeably worse. Over time, we (The United States) became the enemy. President Johnson took the next step and increased the number of our men that we had posted there.

General Eisenhower knew the army. I am certain that this is why he did not have them get involved in the first place.

Friday, October 17, 2008

We have yet to be hit again

Since 2001, the U.S. has yet to be hit again by Islamic terrorists. This is a period of 7 years. During the 8 previous years, we had been hit:

1) 1993 First World Trade Center attack
2) 1995 Riyadh barracks
3) 1998 Twin embassy attacks
4) 2000 U.S.S. Cole
5) 2001 9/11

Please note #2 and #4 took place outside of the U.S. They were hitting our military at places of their choosing.

During President Bush’s administration, we HAVE seen change. It appears to me that our enemy was engaged directly in battle with our military in Iraq. The desert is ideal for mechanized units, which is what our military is primarily. They have cut back the attacks in Iraq because the attrition is so poor for them.

And we want to CHANGE all of this?

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Muslim insult

Not long after the fall of the Taliban, a western magazine news crew interviewed an anti-Taliban ‘general’. The problem was that the interviewer would be a woman. She first had to agree to dress and behave in a certain way. A list of things she had to do to avoid potential embarrassment was drawn up. I have not seen the list, but it was agreed that she would abide by all of the rules in the list. I understand the list was lengthy, but only a few of them were of real concern. Because these issues were so important, I am certain that she practiced.

During the interview he said something funny and the interviewer and the cameraman laughed. He stormed out; a woman laughing had insulted him. From what I understand, a woman laughing in this situation was not on the list that she had been provided. Apparently it had been missed.

I am not so certain that our enemy has been defeated in Iraq. This is one contributing reason as to why.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Stoning to death

During the summer of 2006, riots ensued in Nigeria because the court would not enforce the sentence upon a woman who had been convicted of adultery. Islamic law on this issue is not only clear, it has generally been enforced for 1400 years. Nigeria is approximately 50% Muslim. A sizable portion of Nigeria is under sharia law. This in effect makes that part of the country a different country in everything but name.

The entire concept of stoning ANYONE to death has to end. And it must end NOW. It is obvious that this will trigger violence. Combined with any other challenge to Islamic law, organized warfare can be expected. We are already seeing this in a number of places where Islamic ideology is making intimate contact with other cultures. History has shown time and again that changes in many viewpoints will result from this contact, as both sides tend to adopt attitudes and behaviors and traditions. Resistance to this type of change is common. What is different concerning Islam is that resistance to change of this type has been so consistent and prevalent. Islam has proven to be particularly resistant to change in general and this resistance is continuing to be violently pursued by Muslims in many parts of the world. This can be expected to not only continue, but to increase as the global economy enhances Islamic interaction with the rest of the world. It is a necessary step to eliminate some of the worst aspects of Islam, and we must begin today.

Time is not on our side. Sooner or later, an Islamic terrorist organization will obtain and deploy effective WMD. The resulting massive loss of life would dwarf the loss of life in the current war. It could easily trigger a much larger war. It is far better to fight a conventional war today. We must begin to force Islam to accept some modern principals. The concept of stoning ANYONE to death is a good place to begin.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Defensive warfare is a mistake

Senator Obama (As do many others) feel that invading Iraq has caused many more problems than it has solved. We took our eyes off of the ball. The war is in Afghanistan and we directed way too much effort into Iraq. We should withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible, and place a portion of these forces into Afghanistan. No more toppling governments, no more wars of ‘occupation’. In other words, we will wage no more offensive warfare. Only attack when attacked. He will take us off of the strategic offensive and place us on the defensive.

While defensive warfare is an important part of fighting terrorism, wars are not won by playing good defense. The police fill an important part in playing good defense by arresting terrorists in their ‘safe’ houses. Effective defense will prevent attacks on a tactical level. The problem is that taking a strategic stance that is defensive in nature will not change the overall tide of the war. The strategic offensive is required to do so.

Taking the offensive when you don’t have the means usually ends in defeat within a short period of time. However, the United States Military has not been defeated in open battle in a long time. Tactically we have lost; the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 is an example. However, at the operational and strategic level, we have not seen defeat since Korea in the early 1950’s. We did not lose a single battle in Vietnam, and we dominated in Gulf War I and II. The defeat of our enemies in open battle in Iraq has forced our enemy to retreat. Switching to defensive warfare after such a victory would throw many of the hard won advantages away. This is the time to press the attack home. This is not the time to allow our enemies to recover and re-deploy.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008


My observations from the debate last night:
For most of us, I am certain that we saw what we wanted to see. I saw the candidate I do not like mumble about stuff that I did not want to hear. He gave me very few answers that I expected to hear. I saw my candidate do much better, although admittedly, I am not entirely happy with the guy I intend to vote for.

I did note a couple of things. I noted how Senator Obama gave ‘a bunch of government scientists’ credit for the invention of the computer. This makes sense and is revealing in that he favors government over private enterprise. As with his opponent in some cases, this is not entirely correct. Computers were invented over many years with private companies contributing many important concepts. But what I found most revealing is that much of the momentum for the invention of the computer was gained by the large need for them during World War II. Computers began as electronic versions of mechanical calculators. Modern warfare has great need for machines that can make calculations quickly. Artillery firing tables, homing torpedoes, detection equipment such as radar and sonar, rocket guidance equipment all have need for what computers can provide, and all saw great advances during the war as it became increasingly automated. War has a habit of speeding up technological advances. I was under the impression (Possibly flawed) that Senator Obama did not know this. Which leads to my other major observation:

The very last question in the debate was: What don’t you know? Both candidates were tired. They had been at it for well over an hour and I was tired too. This is where you can potentially see how they will handle pressure. Senator Obama went into his background and how he overcame obstacles to enable him to be where he was last night. Senator McCain said simply that he did not know what the rest of us don’t. None of us know what will happen. I like the obvious, so I favored his answer over his opponent. In addition, the greatest threats are those that remain unseen. Senator McCain was pointing this out in that he believes that he would recognize threats (Mainly external) earlier than his opponent. Of course, if you believe him or not is most likely based upon if you favor him over his opponent or not. However, speaking as one who has studied warfare for almost his entire life, Senator McCain understands warfare far better than his opponent does. He will not have to learn nearly as much about the current war if and when he became President. Seeing as I believe the number one function of the President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief, and that we have a war on our hands, I will give him my vote.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Why are we hated?

Remember this question? It came up quite a bit not long after 9/11, but well before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Islam goes against human nature in many ways. The rules limit the individual from pursuit of interests that most likely will be in his/her favor, as well as society in general. Strict rules of behavior limit much opportunity. Islam can be considered a closed system, economically as well as socially. The frustration of being raised and living with such limited options would lead to friction with just about any and all groups (Internal as well as external) and at every level. In this way, capitalism and democracy is quite the opposite. This open approach is repulsive to them. For many of those who move into an open system, it would appear to be anarchy. Because they are used to such limited options and so many rules, having so many options and so few limits would appear to them as if nobody is obeying ANY rules, anywhere, anytime.

This must be one of the basic reasons that we are hated so much. They hate us for what we are. It is a mistake to misinterpret this as being hateful for what we do. This problem has been around for a very long time, long before even Israel became established. Historical pattern indicates that changing this will trigger organized warfare. Even if successfully changed, this problem can easily be seen as being around for many additional generations, possibly centuries.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Cost of war

Warfare is ALWAYS expensive. You deliberately destroy what is inherently valuable. Military equipment is expensive and the personnel who use them are for the most part, highly trained in the skill of destroying what the enemy has built. Civilian infrastructure is damaged and destroyed, many times deliberately. The economy of the enemy is a valid target, hence damage and destruction of this vital resource. Prior to the rise of the professional army, pay was what you took when the city was sacked or the enemy defeated. (Booty) Because most armies are professional today, the sacking of cities has generally disappeared. Genocide is quite another matter.

In wars of conquest, you attempt to minimize damage. Particularly when regarding civilians. One of the better examples was the way Romans ruled. Rome was very good at turning former enemies into subjects and/or allies. Punitive warfare is an altogether different type of warfare. Today, it can be called genocide, although punitive warfare involved killing and destroying EVERYTHING, not just people. Rome was good at that one too. In other words, these issues have been around a long time.

Fortunately, while our losses are important, we have not lost any measurable combat capability, on the tactical level or strategic. Unless of course, you count the fact that our forces are committed in Afghanistan and Iraq and much of what is deployed there is unavailable to be deployed elsewhere.

With the loss of one regiment dead (4,500) and two divisions wounded, (40,000) our strength in the field remains the same. Our losses are on a small scale. In past conflicts, we have lost these many in just a few days and those wars went on for years. We have not instituted the draft. Our military could be expanded a great deal, although this would take months to begin to have an effect. Short-term combat capability would drop because portions of the military would be needed for training and equipping the new units.

This war is particularly expensive in terms of financing. We have spent a great deal of resources in the form of billions of dollars. However, in military terms, the cost has been relatively small.

The plus side of this war is difficult to estimate. A few things are certain. The U.S. has not been directly attacked since 9/11. The savings in prevention are very large. The enemy has been unable to hit us again, I am certain that they do want to hit us, BADLY. One reason they have been unable to do so is our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They tried to engage our military in an environment that is ideal for conventional militaries like us. Iraq has proved to be high loss rate for little in return for our enemy. This cannot have any effect other than to reduce their capabilities. Our enemy would love to obtain some effective WMD.

WMD are expensive to make and/or purchase. While our enemy was committing its resources in Iraq, it could not use these same resources to obtain WMD. This could have no other effect than to delay our enemy’s effort to obtain WMD.

The savings from the delay of our enemy obtaining WMD are inestimable. However, even then, it can only be a matter of time before they are successful in obtaining and deploying WMD. The only questions are when and how many. Time is NOT on our side. As expensive as it will be, we must continue to wage offensive warfare.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Repeated suicide attack

Repeated suicide attack was seen for only the first time in of all recorded history in the 1940’s. Japan resorted to this tactic after the fall of Saipan. The Marianas were part of Japan’s inner defense perimeter. Once this had been penetrated, it was obvious that they were losing badly. Many suicide attacks had been seen prior to that point. All were on the tactical level. The attacks were more on the spur of the moment. It was not to be repeated and they were usually not planned well in advance. After the defeat of the carrier air groups in the ‘Marianas Turkey shoot’, it was obvious that conventional methods were failing badly. Japan then began to organize ‘special’ (suicide) attack groups. A number of influential Japanese were horrified by this turn of events, but they were in the minority.

The air force is most commonly remembered. However, it took many other forms as well. Among other things, suicide ships and torpedoes were built. Aircraft and other weapons were built to be expendable and cheap to make. "Human bombs" were organized. They strapped explosives to themselves with the intent to jump under a tank or into an U.S. position to blow it up. They were given minimal training. The scary part is that it took nuclear weapons to put an end to it. (Many argue that Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway, but no doubt the nuclear attacks sped up the Emperor’s decision to intervene.)

The 2nd occurrence of repeated suicide attack has been going on for at least the past 20 years. This method has also evolved from conventional methods. The land that made up Palestine was one of the first to fall to Islam, during the 7th century. Islam expanded at a fantastic rate for the next few hundred years. Islam is considered to have reached a peak at the siege of Vienna in 1529 AD. Since then, Islam has been in slow decline and withdrawal. The formation of Israel can be seen as a breach of Islam’s inner defense perimeter.

Defense of that inner area had been as determined and desperate as that of Japan and the Marianas. Conventional Islamic armies were likewise defeated. The defeat was not as clear-cut because the areas from which the attacks were launched were not threatened.

Once conventional methods had been proven to be a failure, unconventional methods evolved. Like the development of the suicide attack groups by Japan in 1944, they boosted the effectiveness of attacks immeasurably. Of large concern is that the suicide attackers are coming from such a large population and geographical area. This population can be expected to produce far more suicide attackers if the need became obvious.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The war is coming

On Friday, September 26, the end of a week in which thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West -- the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail -- were distributed by mail in Ohio, a "chemical irritant" was sprayed through a window of the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, where 300 people were gathered for a Ramadan prayer service. The room that the chemical was sprayed into was the room where babies and children were being kept while their mothers were engaged in prayers. This, apparently, is what the scare tactic political campaigning of John McCain's supporters has led to -- Americans perpetrating a terrorist attack against innocent children on American soil.

Please note how John McCain's ideology is the problem. The other political party and it's ideology is becoming more of a threat than our external enemies are. This war is going to become BIG before it is over. And it is heading this way.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Islam 101

Thanks for the comments! I will post all comments, even if I disagree, as long as they are not making personal attacks and are in good taste. Just because different viewpoints are held does not make them wrong, nor does it make the person who holds them a liar nor do they make him/her evil.

Bernard Lewis is an internationally respected historian on the Middle East. "For the majority of the fourteen hundred years of Islamic history, jihad has been most commonly interpreted as being armed struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power". "The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue (interrupted only by truces) until the entire world adopts Islam or is subjected to Muslim rule".

This is not the view of a few ‘extremists’. This was commonly accepted for a VERY long time. I would expect ANY viewpoint that has been so strong for so long to be retained by a significant percentage of ANY population for at least a number of generations after it fell into general disfavor. And I am not certain that this is the case regarding Islam and jihad.

I must disagree with Omyma’s comments regarding three concepts:

1) "The version you're exposed to is extreme Islam." I have read numerous positive articles and books about Islam. They all deal with the life of Mohammed and what a wonderful prophet he was. Many good lessons. The negative viewpoints tend to deal with the Koran and Islamic law. In other words, how Islam is practiced and enforced. This does not appear to be a few ‘extreme’ individuals, but general practice.

2) "They are 100% Fake Islam." This comment is in reference to al-Qaeda. The problem I have here is that ‘Fake Islam’ is popular in the Middle East. I am not referring to al-Qaeda in particular. I am referring to many of the principals they stand for. In many places throughout the Middle East, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah command significant support. In a number of cases, they are the MAJORITY. Not some insignificant minority like in the western world. In other cases where the ‘Fake Islam’ is a significant minority, the population tends toward violence when ‘insulted’. This may be ‘Fake Islam’ from your and my viewpoint, but in a population of hundreds of millions of people, it is ‘Real Islam’. (I am including those ‘good Germans, good Japanese and good southerners who like those who will fight for ‘Fake’ Islam, fought for evil.)

3) "Islam is not totally at odds with our culture." Islamic scholars have issued rulings based upon the Koran for 1400 years, in a way similar to our U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court. Many of the laws that are considered ‘authentic’ ARE directly in conflict with U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution. Much of the foreign policy that is specified in the Koran is hostile to our nation and our beliefs.

A classic example is ‘occupation’. By definition, all of the territory encompassed by the state of Israel is ‘occupied’ land. Once land is Muslim, it is ALWAYS seen in the eyes of Islam as being Muslim. (The penalty for leaving Islam is death) In 200 years, Israel (If it still exists) will still be sitting on ‘occupied’ land. Killing the ‘occupiers’ would be like Native Americans taking up arms against anyone who is not Native American because we are ‘occupiers’. In fact, we did take much of this land by force and we are ‘occupiers’. The problem is that sooner or later, it is in everyone’s best interest to accept fact and forget about the past. Islam has some mechanisms like jihad that prevents this and ensure that it grows and defends itself. Much like a nation-state.

Friday, September 26, 2008

New law would prohibit immigration from Islamic lands

A new law being proposed would prohibit Muslims who favor Sharia law from immigrating to the U.S. The sponsors claim that this would slow down the growth of "Radical" Muslims within our own country. Critics say that it discriminates against Muslims. This is true.

As a general rule, I do not favor this type of discrimination by our government. However, as I have posted many times in the past, Islam represents a real danger to the U.S. Constitution, legal system and culture. The term "Radical or extremist" Muslim is misleading. To our eyes, a "radical" or "extremist" is a very small percentage of our population. It is implied that this is true within Muslim countries. The problem is that what we consider to be "Radical or extremist" views are prevalent throughout the Muslim world. Islam is not just a religion, nor can Islam be considered a ‘moderate’ legal system. The majority of Muslims from Islamic countries believe in the legal system and culture they come from. (As do most people) One basic problem that I have is that these common beliefs are not moderate by our standards.

Because Islam is so hostile to our culture, our legal system and the U.S. Constitution, I am making an exception to my general rule. I am in favor of this bill and I hope it is passed into law. Islam has a number of basic issues that are causes for warfare and violence. These issues need to be resolved before they become part of us. The violence prevalent throughout the areas of the world where Muslim immigrants have grouped together should be and can be prevented from happening within the U.S.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008


The U.S. should attempt to focus upon areas that have environments better suited for our military than Afghanistan. We will not win the war there. However, Pakistan is such a threat that it demands our attention. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. In order to keep this war from going nuclear we must contain Pakistan. Similar changes will need to occur in Pakistan as is necessary in the Middle East.

The war must be won in the Middle East. This is where Islam is the most aggressive and entrenched. This is the source of Islam and how it is interpreted. This is the epicenter of Islam and the change that MUST occur.

The large potential for warfare in Africa is one place to become more directly involved. This is a shooting war that is widespread. If we do not engage on a significant level of combat consistently, we will make it easier for the enemy to obtain WMD. By engaging in offensive combat, we will drain the enemy of valuable resources, in both material and manpower. The obvious targets of Syria and Iran should be the first to go. Ultimately, these governments will need to be changed. However, the West does not have the political will to begin a new conflict over these governments. In the meantime, we need other targets. While we probably lack the manpower for massive troops to be deployed, we should become more directly involved in the violence that is happening in Africa. Particular attention should be given to North Africa.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Reasons for war

Some of the issues that are reasons for the 'war on terror'.

1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death.
2) Jihad
3) Honor killings
4) Loyalty to Islam above government
5) Moral obligation to kill ‘occupiers’

Throughout the Muslim world, the current, most widespread interpretation of these issues is hostile to our constitution, our values and our way of life. In fact, the interpretation is hostile to EVERYONE that is not Muslim. Islam needs to be changed in a way that is acceptable to us and the rest of the world. These changes are of such a nature that organized warfare will result. Like slavery in the U.S., these issues will create new enemies in order to rid the world of them. Like getting rid of slavery, resistance to these changes will trigger organized warfare. Like getting rid of slavery, we MUST do this. And we cannot do this by fighting defensive warfare. We must attack.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Redeployment of the enemy

Now that combat has died down in Iraq, irregular warfare is on the rise in Afghanistan. I would expect irregular warfare to expand into new areas. For our enemy, Iraq was a real losing situation with high loss rates. Now that the losses they have been taking have dropped off, they can deploy new effort into areas that are more tactically sound.

The only way to stop the spread of these attacks is to engage them in the open. We need a new front. It must not be a defensive one. We must place more troops into Afghanistan, but a major effort there will not win the war. Governments within the Middle East must be changed, by force. Syria and Iran would be the next obvious move. This is very unlikely at this point. The problem here is political will is not able to allow us to do this. Africa offers additional chances for conflict but like Afghanistan, the war will not be won there. Africa offers opportunity to drain our enemy of valuable resources and support. It is a place where an expanding enemy ideology can be stopped or reversed. Political will for conflict in Africa may be available. Once again, the problem is that time is not on our side.

The populations that support the ideology of our enemy is so large that this war will not end within the foreseeable future. The cultural changes that are required to end this war are to large. This process will take generations and will not end without serious escalation. A nuclear attack will most likely be the next large escalation. This can only be a matter of time.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Loyal to Islam

Democrats are correct in that the U.S. should not trust the Iraqi government. Change is occurring there in a relatively safe, positive way, but many of the issues that are worth waging war over are only being indirectly addressed through cultural change.

Chicago Tribune, 9/15/08 Section 1, Page 11. Title: "Israel visit could spur changes". 3rd paragraph: "Alusi is the only Iraqi politician in recent years to publicly visit Israel, a country declared an enemy of the state by Iraqi law".

The Iraqi government is considering charges against this representative. We have problems like this during wartime as well, with a solid argument for prosecution for treason. The only problem here is that Israel and the U.S. are allies. Time and time again, within the Muslim world, Islam has proven to be the greater loyalty over any other sovereignty. Turkey is the most secular Islamic government. Turkey aided Iraq when the U.S. invaded, and not just a little bit. True loyality shows up when the shooting starts.

Change like what is occurring in Iraq is slow. The populations impacted are so large that it dwarfs World War II. We are winning, but time is NOT on our side.

Monday, September 15, 2008


I am surprised that Musharraf is still alive. He was never popular. And they wanted him BAD. The elections put the popular views into public policy. Make deals with the Taliban. Talk about hitting the terrorists. They will naturally revoke the permission of U.S. to hit within Pakistani borders.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. Not to the U.S. but enough to wreak havoc. I am not certain that we can win this war without using nukes, but I would rather those nukes going off in Pakistan or Iran. We need missile defense weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and India. We need greater forces within Afghanistan, but we will not win the war there. We must win in the Middle East. Hopefully we can do this without nukes, but I doubt it. The cultural changes required are just too large. Good people will fight to the death for evil. Like the good southerners, Germans and Japanese who fought and died for evil causes. The culture that is spawning repeated suicide attackers is too large not to have a significant number of these good people. And these are the ones who would have been killed off in Iraq had the U.S. withdrawn.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Turkey our ally?

Only a day to two prior to our invasion of Iraq, Turkey withdrew its agreement to allow us to stage troops out of Turkey. This did not allow enough time for our division that was in Turkey to re-deploy into a useful position for the initial phase of the war. Can’t tell me that they did not know this. This act was a material assist for our enemy, and placed our troops at additional risk. It will be a long time before I forgive and forget this.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


In all fairness regarding my post on Monday, I am certain that the number of injured military personnel under President Bush is far greater than President Clinton. My intent was to work against the idea that Republicans are warmongers.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Afghanistan is different from Iraq

Mountains are the worst surface on the planet Earth for the U.S. military to engage in battle on. Line of sight is not only blocked, but it is blocked by solid ground. Solid ground deflects the concussion of explosions, the flight of bullets and shrapnel. Solid ground deflects electronic detection. Within mountain terrain, it is easy to hide weapons and troops. Non-mechanized forces can maneuver better with interdiction far more difficult and less likely. The uneven ground makes heavy weapons less effective. Firepower effectiveness is reduced. Aircraft are far less effective. It is much more difficult to identify the target and the 3rd dimension is restricted. (This is one of aircraft’s largest advantages.) Supply is more difficult and cumbersome. This makes any deployment far more expensive and requires a force multiplier that is much higher than anywhere else.

Afghanistan also has a large difference in culture. Afghanistan has a tradition of resistance, and a more established Islamic way of life. Iraq has Iran and Syria as neighbors to funnel supply and troops to the enemy. Afghanistan has Iran and Pakistan. Compared to Syria, Pakistan is a far more effective base to supply an insurgency from, for a number of reasons.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a much larger military than Syria. Pakistan’s population is much larger than Syria, so they can support a much larger army. This applies to both uniformed and irregular troops. Pakistan’s economy is much larger, so it can function as a larger supply base. Pakistan has a history of helping Islamic causes in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. Syria has been involved in Lebanon, so all parties have two front wars. Pakistan is a far more dangerous neighbor than Syria, both physically and ideologically.

This all adds up to a far more difficult proposition when dealing with Afghanistan.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Republicans are warmongers?

One of my brothers-in-law sent this to me.

Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about thecurrent administration, this report helps dispute a common perception.

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider thefollowing statistics: The annual fatalities of military members whileactively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause.

1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ........... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 ........... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 ........... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 ........... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 ........... 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 ......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 ........... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............. 890 (George W Year)
2002 ........... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007............. 899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

While I do not know what the breakdown on cause of death is, I find it very interesting that President George W. Bush has close to one half the loss of life as President Clinton. This is even more pronounced because we have been engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for most of President Bush’s terms. And we were supposedly losing the war in Iraq, a war that was a disaster!

The clincher for me is the fact that all 5 major wars since the U.S. Civil War have been with liberal Presidents.

The Spanish-American war was the only Republican president, but in 1898 Republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative. (By today’s standards) No matter how you slice it, this was a war of aggression.

World War I and II can’t be blamed upon the Democrat president, but we can hold them responsible for our direct involvement. (We needed to be in both)

Korea was a BIG mistake by Truman. He withdrew all U.S. troops in September 1949. The war began with an invasion of the South on June 20, 1950. He badly underestimated his (Our) enemy.

Vietnam was a screw-up by Kennedy and Johnston. Want to know how? Please let me know.
I can go into considerable detail on how U.S. involvement in all of these wars evolved. Please feel free to ask for more details.

I am guessing that Republicans have the label ‘warmongers’ because they want a strong military so that we are better equipped when we do have to fight. Also, Republicans see strength as a deterrent. Republicans also believe than many wars can be kept much smaller if dealt with sooner rather than later. In other words, dealing with aggression is a lot like dealing with bullies. Better to face them right away. The longer you wait, the worse the fight will be. Stand up today so that you don’t have to fight tomorrow. Well, we all know that does not always work, but it is generally worth the attempt. After all, saving lives is VERY important. You also know the old saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Friday, September 5, 2008

The U.S. legal system is unable to protect us

The Chicago Tribune, 9/5/08 Section 1, page 16.

"Judge:Muslim leader can stay"

"Newark – A New Jersey Muslim leader won his fight to gain permanent U.S. residency Thursday. ""Authorities had sought to deport Mohammad Qatanani on grounds that he failed to disclose a conviction in Israel for being a member of Hamas."

This is why the U.S. legal system should NOT be our first line of defense. Jihad is coming to the U.S. It is only a matter of time. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawing many fighters to those lands. This is buying us time, but unless additional governments that support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are toppled, we will begin to see Islamic related violence within the U.S.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Hezbollah exhibit

The Chicago Tribune, 9/3/08, Section 1. At the bottom of page 13 is an article titled ‘In Hezbollah exhibit, theme is vengeance".

The article discusses an exhibit that is in the Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh. This ‘exhibition’ is an
excellent example of the support that terrorism has in even a mixed community such as the country of Lebanon. The last paragraph is revealing:

"This exhibition teaches us morals about Islamic resistance that we can pass on to our children," said Shawki Makhader, 35 a plasterer attending with his wife, his 3-year old daughter and his 11 month-old son. He said he had not heard of Imad Mughniyeh until he was assassinated. "It’s beautiful".

Yea, I’ll bet! Please read the article for a more complete description of this ‘exhibit’.
This is one reason why we are waging war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The ideology that backs this type of thinking is one of the root causes of warfare throughout the Muslim world. This must change, and people will fight this change with violence EVERY time. If we don’t keep toppling governments and changing the culture of discrimination and hate, the war is going to blow up in our faces. It is only a matter of time.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Reasons U.S. and Iraq are winning

The desert is the 2nd best surface on the planet Earth for the U.S. military to engage in battle on. The desert has been called a quartermaster’s nightmare and a tactician’s dream. This is because in order to support any sizable force in the desert requires heavy mechanization. The desert is hard on equipment. However, no features can block movement or line of sight. Mobile forces are free to maneuver at will. The differences between heat and cold allow thermal imaging and other ‘high tech’ devices an ideal environment to work in. There are very few (If any) places to hide and slip away, avoiding death or capture. A human being can survive for something like 30 days without eating. A human can only last up to 3-4 days without water. If the United States must fight a war, Iraq is one of the best places on Earth for us. This is why the war has moved into the cities. This is the opposite from Vietnam because we controlled the towns and cities where the VC and NVA controlled and contested the countryside. The ‘surge’ plays well in this environment.

The U.S. and Iraq can interdict reinforcement and resupply in the cities. Once the army redeployed in Baghdad, each small chunk of the city could be isolated and cut off. Tactically you would be winning. They can’t fight it out in such small battlefields where they can be cut off so easily. Strategically, Iraq has been able to seize all of the major cities. Greater amounts of combat favor the conventional side in irregular warfare. With greater resources, more manpower and superior firepower, additional combat is generally on the side of the conventional forces. Toss in how we can isolate each individual battlefield and you have much of the reason why we are being successful in Iraq today.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Churches in Saudi Arabia?

Change is possibly coming in Saudi Arabia. I obtained this part of an article from (3/18/08)

"For some years now, the Vatican has made reciprocity the key to its relations with Muslim-majority states. For example, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican equivalent of foreign minister, commented in 2003 that "There are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens" and pushed for reciprocity: "Just as Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well." That sounded good, but does anyone actually expect churches to be built in Saudi Arabia, the country that most severely represses non-Islamic religious expression?
Yes, come the surprise announcements. Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hashem, the papal nuncio to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, says that "Discussions are under way to allow the construction of churches in the kingdom. … There are around three or four million Christians in Saudi Arabia, and we hope they will have churches." Father Federico Lombardi, the pope's spokesman, adds: "If we manage to obtain authorisation for the construction of the first church, it will be an outcome of historic dimensions."

If this becomes fact, this IS a major shift. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam. Change here will resonate throughout the Muslim world. However, cultural change is very slow. It takes a minimum of 3 generations. In other worlds, even if this takes root, it will be decades before commonplace acceptance will be the norm.

Even though this will take a very long time, this is a very encouraging step.

Friday, August 29, 2008

War is nowhere near being over

Even if progress is massive in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq, this war is far from being over. The ideology of our enemy is prevalent throughout the Middle East. The governments of Syria and Iran are symptoms of this view and are going to have to change. The mindset of the Palestinians (As well as the government) will have to change as well. Millions of people in Saudi Arabia support the extreme schools that they have set up. Few things will trigger warfare as quickly as attempted change in the educational systems. Tell me I have to send my children to an Islamic school? I will take up arms myself. For them, this is asking the same thing: I must send my children to a secular school?

Once again, this war is far from being over, even with decisive victories in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that is pushing it, as these places are far from being stabilized.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Muslims have difficulty assimilating

Islam is far more than a religion. It is a way of life. This way of life is very rigid. It presents very few options for people to live within. This makes it difficult for those who are raised in this style of life to accept other ways of living. Islam also has mechanisms to encourage and force expansion upon others. (Jihad is a big part of this) The penalty for leaving is death, so adapting Islam is a one-way street. People do find comfort in having a few, straightforward options. It would be difficult to accept alternatives if you are comfortable with such a limited set of options. In contrast, we have been brought up to look for alternatives and actually have many to choose from. This would seem repulsive to many that are comfortable with a very rigid lifestyle. Take women for example.

I have heard Muslims state that Islamic options for women is one of two:

1) Get married.
2) Become public property.

I don’t know what they mean by ‘public property’ but I would guess that it is to be avoided at all costs. Many Muslim women accept this and feel comfortable with this. I am guessing that many of these are successful in being courted to marry and can be found in privileged positions. I doubt if this is a majority of women, but I really do not know. This option set is totally unacceptable to our society. We wish our women to realize their full potential, and nobody else can say what you are best at except yourself. Additional options are required to enable women to pursue what they view to be their own best interests. Within Islam, men also have a number of limitations.

Although the limits are fewer than those placed upon women, men also have many more restrictions placed upon them than what we in the U.S. would find acceptable. The restrictions upon unmarried people (Both genders) are an additional source of difference between Islam and the ‘West’. In general, Islamic lifestyle is very restricted. An overall problem here is one of mindset. Growing up and living within such a restricted lifestyle would make for a narrow set of views regarding personal interactions. It would be difficult even for a moderate person to accept the openness that is present within Western societies. They would find these options threatening and sometimes even repulsive. This narrowness of mindset could easily penetrate other viewpoints. Political and prejudicial views fall into this category.

Openness is how racism is defeated. When different races can interact with each other and discuss problems, racism becomes far less of a factor. If the very idea of interaction is rejected, then reduction of prejudice will be very difficult, if not impossible. This is a contributing reason as to the prevalence of racism throughout the Muslim world. Much of the problem is that they are not even aware of most, if not all of it. It takes openness and the ability to see beyond a limited set of views to become aware of prejudice and then to decide to reject it. This is an evolution that the Islamic world has difficulty with. Much of this difficulty has its origins within the limited mindset that is present within a culture that lives within such a limited range of options. This would make it difficult to assimilate into ANY other culture. You would see threats everywhere. Seeing everyone breaking all of the rules, it would look like anarchy. This would not only make you uncomfortable, but also encourage you to either move away, or to attempt to bring about change that you would find more acceptable. These efforts could easily advance to violence. Warfare is organized violence taken to its highest level. Islam knows all about warfare already. It would not be a difficult leap to move to this level, even for a moderate person from this culture.

Yet Islam is remarkably lax when compared to the reasons we would wage war over. Many requirements in waging war in Islam are subjective, easily interpreted to your advantage. Personal violence would naturally spring from less discouragement to kill others who are not like you. This is the dark side of Islam that is worth waging war over to eliminate. It is the classic good and evil. And we have lots of Good Muslims that are caught up on the wrong side. A problem here is that life is not fair. The good Germans and good Southerners had to be defeated. And in order for them to lose, a lot of good ones will be killed every time. We cannot avoid it. I am not saying that we wage punitive warfare. Wars of conquest are always more fruitful in the long run. However, nuclear weapons are the most punitive weapon designed by man. It kills everything, no discrimination. We will eventually be forced into this situation. It is only a matter of time. The only way to slow it down or to prevent it is to actively wage aggressive warfare. More governments will need to fall, and they must be Islamic governments who actively support irregular warfare in other countries. I do not believe that this is politically possible until the first nuclear weapons go off.

Monday, August 25, 2008

War issues

The largest, most deadly wars are fought to defend ways of life. This contributes as to why cultural wars are often the most brutal. Islam is far more than just a religion. It is a way of life that has been established for more than a millennium. This has evolved into it’s own culture. This culture (way of life) is being threatened by the modernity of the rest of the world. This threat is a major contributing reason as to why violence is being generated in places where Islam is making contact with so many other cultures. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are only a sample of this wider conflict. Let’s take a closer look at some of the issues within Iraq. We will start with democracy itself.

Democracy is an open political system. The ex-French President himself said that democracy is not a process, but a culture. The very nature of openness is foreign to some cultures. They find it repulsive in some ways. Take the right to vote. Many cultures have difficulty with women having the right to vote. A woman having as much say in things as anyone else? It took the U.S. well over 100 years to allow women the right to vote. What about the issue of homosexuality? Many cultures have a great deal of difficulty accepting them.

The openness of democracy will encourage the gay community to be more accepted than would otherwise be possible. In democracies, this acceptance applies to minorities in general. Acceptance of any minority group within a given culture can be a potential problem. Then we have the issue of loyalty.

Loyalty to clan or other organizations as opposed to the central government is a very real problem. Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. army because his state of Virginia left the Union. He was more loyal to his state than the U.S. federal government. One issue the U.S. Civil war decided is that our loyalty is to the Federal government, not the state. This issue is not uncommon in parts of the world, and loyalty to clan is particularly strong within the Muslim world.

These issues could be deal breakers with any culture attempting to accept democracy. In order to make it more difficult, we need to toss in issues specific to Islam.

1) Penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate) Joining Islam is a one-way street. Once you join, you may NEVER leave. This has the additional complication in that if a basic disagreement exists in a fundamental law of Islam, the different sides may see each other as having left the faith. If the difference became violent, fighting in this struggle qualifies as jihad.

2) Moral obligation to kill occupiers of Muslim lands. Just as leaving Islam is not permitted (The penalty is death) no land that is ever controlled by Islam can revert back. It will ALWAYS be considered to be Muslim land. This ‘law’ is a contributing reason for the continuing Arab-Israeli wars.

3) The concept of Jihad. "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." "The most common interpretation of jihad is armed struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power". (Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, copyright 2003.) Booty was how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state. Naturally, Muslims are not supposed to seize booty for personal gain. However, human nature is not so chaste. The other qualifier for jihad (Besides fighting Apostates) is fighting infidels. Infidels are anyone who is not Muslim. Jihad is a mechanism designed to expand Islamic control and Muslim power. This concept of jihad is an additional contribution to the constant Arab-Israeli wars.

4) "In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. ) This is Muslim tradition. This will not go away without violent conflict. How can you remove the right to wage war upon anyone else who is not like you without a war? Another contribution to the constant Arab-Israeli wars. Jihad can justify just about any war, except upon fellow Muslims. And even then, jihad may be waged if the enemy is Apostate.

5) Honor killings. Although this is not law, this behavior has evolved from the culture that Islam nourishes. Similar to ‘losing face’ in Japan, the loss of honor enables you to kill. The ‘loss of face’ in Japan meant that you had to kill yourself. You took responsibility. In Islamic culture, they kill you. This is much more convenient. You get to blame others and then kill them.

6) Islamic electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man, (men only) one vote, once." Voting for Islam is a one-way street. Once Islam is the law, democracy is out of the picture. It cannot come back. Democracy is not compatible with Islam. This makes Islam and democracy inherently hostile to each other.

Some of these issues are ‘authentic’ Islamic laws that have been upheld by Islamic courts for 1400 years. I have listed only some of the larger issues. Many other ‘authentic’ laws that are hostile to our legal system, our way of life and the way of life for the rest of the world are not listed here.

These are not issues that can be negotiated. It is very unlikely that any of these issues, leave alone all of them, have a political solution. The cultural changes required in accepting change on any or all of these issues are too great and will trigger organized resistance every time. These issues are similar to the issue of slavery in that people will fight with organized warfare to prevent change. On the other side, like slavery, these issues are worth waging war to force change.

In conclusion, it is apparent that warfare within the Islamic world will continue into the indefinite future. At best, this conflict will take the form of irregular war until most, if not all of these issues are resolved. Either the world adopts Islam or Islam changes. Once again, the main problem is one of time and scale. With well over a billion Muslims, this change will take a VERY long time. Time is NOT on our side. Sooner or later a terrorist organization will obtain and deploy an effective weapon of mass destruction. Then the world MUST respond, massively and violently. Otherwise, the use of WMD will become a pattern, just like repeated suicide attack is a pattern today. In either case, the war will become much larger. The only question is how large will it become?