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.