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.