Muslim extremism rising threat

The LA Times (By Sebastian Rotella December 7, 2009)
　
U.S. sees homegrown Muslim extremism as rising threat

This may have been the most dangerous year since 9/11, anti-terrorism experts say.
Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration, grappling with a spate of recent Islamic terrorism cases on U.S. soil, has concluded that the country confronts a rising threat from homegrown extremism. (Please read full article for additional information)

This has been expected. We can expect this trend to continue as the United States continues to shift from a strategic offensive posture to that of the strategic defensive. Complete withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan will allow this trend to accelerate even faster because the net amount of combat with our enemies will be falling. The loss and attrition rate will also fall allowing our enemy the ability to decide where the war will be fought.

Trust me, defensive warfare sucks. Even if you disagreed with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you could not fail to notice how U.S. positions worldwide were not being hit like they had before 9/11. Since then, our military was being hit in the combat areas, but that is what they are designed for. Our enemies did not match up well against our soldiers, as was proven by the black eye our enemy received in Iraq. Now that the net amount of combat against our military is and has been falling, our enemy can devote resources to new endeavors. It only makes sense that they begin to deploy over here.

The foreign threat can more easily target the domestic population for conversion or open assistance than to strike U.S. internal physical targets openly. Prisons are the most natural place to begin. The U.S. government’s open assistance in this area just enables our enemies to advance their schedule and even broaden the scope of operations.

Many argued that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we would not have to fight over here. Many discounted this argument as being false. While many may still consider that the jury is out on this argument, this ‘homegrown Islamic jihad’ will be a good indicator over the next several years as to how our war against political Islam is going. At the same time, we cannot ignore attacks upon allies in Europe and throughout the world. I would expect the trend here in the United States to fall into a similar pattern that we have been seeing in Europe for the past decade or more. In addition, Israel is a good place to watch. This is a flash point between the culture of Islam and the open societies of the ‘west’ and as such is a focal point in the war.

In conclusion, the year 2009 marked an increase in ‘homegrown’ Islamic ‘radical’ arrests and attacks within the continental United States. This is being seen as a rising threat by the U.S. government. Seeing that this was President Obama’s first year in office, we shall get a good idea as to how effective his prosecution of the entire war is proceeding by watching how this trend regarding internal ‘homegrown’ Islamic terrorism goes over the next several years.
　

President Obama and withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

I pulled this from www.mzm.com today

US affirms Iraq withdrawal plan on track
December 11, 2009 by Moreover Technologies - Iraq news - 30 of 10274 returned Filed under Iraq Economic News

BAGHDAD: Delayed elections in Iraq and a bloody attack this week will not derail US troop withdrawal plans, US officials said as Defence Secretary Robert Gates flew into Baghdad to meet Iraqi leaders. Gates did not see one of his main Iraqi counterparts.

Please note how Gates does not need to speak with any of the Iraqi counterparts. President Obama is pulling out no matter what the situation on the ground is in Iraq. I expect him to do the same in Afghanistan in 2011. The fact that he pulled the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan will be politically good for him and the Democratic party during the election cycle of 2012.

I do not believe that politics and warfare mix well. We shall see how well things progress over the next few years.

President Obama and warfare

Judging public figures is difficult at best. I use the O.J. Simpson example because I had thought that he was such a good guy. It was determined that he was innocent of murder, but I still had no idea of what he was really like until the trial made more of his private life public. The President of the United States is probably the best well known of all political figures and even then can be difficult to see what they are really like. In the Presidents that I have been old enough to vote for or against, (Beginning in 1976) I can say that I have been able to pretty well see what we got before he took office. I may have disagreed with them, but at least I pretty well knew where they stood and what they would do. I believe that one of the best compliments that George W. Bush received was that he was pretty much like what you saw on TV. I doubt if most can have ever had that said about them. (For better or worse)

President Obama is pretty much what I have expected. I noted during his interview with David Letterman well before the election, that then Senator Obama spoke eloquently, but what he was saying was not moderate. His comments about the war were not those of someone who was seeking compromise or of a person with flexibility. Yet he was attempting to project that type of image with the way that he spoke. Please note that my area of interest and expertise tends to be in the foreign affairs area. Mainly concerning conflict. President Obama is delivering what he said he would and about what I expected, not that I am in favor of it.

As President Obama stated during the run up to the election, he is attempting to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. This is following up on a decision that he had made prior to finding out many of the complications involved. Despite what he finds out in the process, he will push forward and will have that facility closed well before he is up for re-election in 2012. This is not a moderate course of action. This is the action of someone who does not compromise. This is something that goes against what his image tells us.

President Obama has stated that he will speak with our enemies. He is delivering on this. Not that I am necessarily against this, it is just that much in the way of results cannot have been reasonably expected. The question is: How persistent will he be? A moderate would change tactics within a fair amount of time. I believe that enough time has already elapsed. I expect President Obama to persist for a long time yet. Most likely he will persist because the only decisive alternative is offensive warfare.

Strategic withdrawal from the region that is the most volatile in the world is not a moderate course of action. This is the same area of the world that generated the attackers on 9/11. Severe risk aversion to open conflict is apparent. These issues (Along with a few other things) makes me conclude that President Obama ranks near the most extreme views regarding resistance to open warfare. This will encourage him to seek the strategic defensive. His attention and focus would tend to be inward. This would encourage focus upon domestic enemies and tend to downplay the foreign threat. Republics do not tolerate long wars. This yields long-term political advantage. This helps clarify political strategy. One of President Obama’s better skills is as a politician. As such, he is predictable. This is not a good quality to posses during wartime, even when fighting a defensive war. I expect President Obama to stick to his plan to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan in time for the election cycle of 2012. The surge in Afghanistan along with the timetable for withdrawal is a similar escalation and pull out strategy that JFK attempted to implement beginning in early 1961. It failed miserably for Vietnam, though it can be argued that this was not President Kennedy’s fault.

On a general note, the Democratic Party almost needs a world war before they will risk waging open warfare. Not all Democrats are like this, but a solid percentage. This is a severe aversion for the risk of war that President Obama shares. If President Obama follows through as I believe he will, it will demonstrate not only his risk aversion to war, but also how he is placing politics ahead of the war. He believes that the war is political and can be solved by strategic retreat. This is not a moderate course of action. Strategic retreat is usually a result of a massive defeat of some type, militarily, political or economic.

I do not expect that the U.S. will lose this war. However, we will take far more serious losses than we should because the leadership of our country is so risk adverse. Severe risk aversion actually raises the risk of overt attacks. Balance is crucial in just about everything. President Obama is not balanced when viewing his actions concerning the war that the United States is engaged in today.

Islamic moderates are just as human as anyone else

The vast majority of Muslims worldwide are good people. They just want to live their lives and bring up their children.

I would like to discuss this topic because so many of us are caught up in the idea that we can win this war by appealing to the ‘good’ people in the areas of the world that are so hostile to us.

In 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. Yet despite that fact, they were the enemy and were actively attempting to kill us. Nationalism has been a driving force in loyalty during wartime since the rise of the nation-state a few centuries ago. Most Germans and Japanese did not hold any dislike toward the U.S. or England. However, they were Germans and Japanese first, as we are Americans first.

In 1864, the vast majority of southerners in the Confederate States of America were good people. Many did not own slaves and many were not even favorable toward it, yet they fought and died for the way of life that slavery allowed.

The fact that people are good does not matter regarding the causes of warfare. Nor will it necessarily win or lose any war that they may be engaged in. Appealing to the moderates regarding issues of these types has historically been to no avail. People will side with what they are familiar with. In addition to other issues, Islam is resisting the sovereignty and authority of the modern nation-state. Issues of this type have been around since the dawn of time. History has demonstrated time and again that people will NOT change willingly and will fight openly instead.

Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam: A comparison

With the announcement of President Obama’s Afghan strategy, I am hearing people comparing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today with the war in Vietnam. In this comparison, Afghanistan is more similar to Vietnam than Iraq. In some ways, they are all similar. In others, they are not.

Iraq: Because the desert is such an ideal environment for mechanized forces, the US can and did isolate each battlefield. The enemy could not disengage. This is a MAJOR difference between Iraq and Vietnam. At the time, politically, both the ‘Tet’ offensive and the ‘surge’ in Iraq were defeats for the United States. Militarily, during ‘Tet’ the VC and NVA were hammered, but it was not apparent to those in the United States at the time. In Iraq, the drop in resistance was much more obvious proof of how the war was going. Even those who did not believe the war was winnable could not miss how our enemy was beaten up in Iraq. This was not apparent regarding ‘Tet’ in Vietnam.

Afghanistan – The irregular enemy units can ‘melt away’ into the countryside far more readily in Afghanistan than Iraq. The U.S. is forced to patrol in a way that is more similar to Vietnam than the set piece battles fought in Iraq. The enemy can refuse battle. This was not possible in Iraq. The enemy could only operate within the cities; they were dead meat in the open desert. Each city, town or village could be surrounded and taken one by one.

In Vietnam, the enemy was being supplied across a border with a neighboring country. This is also true in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, the entire country could be isolated simply because the environment is so well suited to our forces. Supply and reinforcement from neighboring countries was limited by our interdiction. The United States controlled the countryside (Desert) in Iraq whereas we could not in Vietnam. We will be unable to control the countryside in anything like the same effectiveness in Afghanistan, even if we toss in 100,000 more soldiers.

The US aggression in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the direct result of 9/11. Even if you see them both as being unjustified, the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were a reaction to 9/11 and the ideology behind it. Vietnam was never able to even threaten to hit us. Even if you believe that Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11, it cannot be denied that the U.S. initiated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because the enemy actually struck the mainland. The minor action in the Gulf of Tonkin was the excuse for large-scale involvement in Vietnam. Not much of a comparison.

The Soviet Union (Which held and supported the ideology of the enemy in Vietnam) was not stupid enough to attack the United States directly. Repeated suicide attack is a major difference. Our current enemies have demonstrated that they possibly can be crazy enough to use weapons of mass destruction. The Soviet Union proved that they were not when they turned their ships around in October 1962.

The strategy in Vietnam was fundamentally altered when President Kennedy took office. (Please read post of evolution of United States involvement in Vietnam 10/20/08 for details) We went from a small scale, tactical approach to a large-scale reorganization of the Vietnamese army. The driving force behind this was the political deadline of January 1, 1964 that was set by President Kennedy one week after he took office. The objective was for the end of all United States military involvement in Vietnam by that date. This move escalated the war.

President Obama has placed a political deadline for our involvement in Afghanistan. He is fundamentally altering the strategies for both Iraq and Afghanistan. A full withdrawal in Iraq will most likely take place, instead of a more drawn out ‘downsizing’. The change is coming after a defeat of our enemies in Iraq, so any enemy recovery will take more time than otherwise would have been the case. In Afghanistan, the strategy change is just a repeat of our ‘surge’ in Iraq with the political deadline of July 2011 as being the date of beginning the withdrawal. I am certain that President Obama intends to be out of both Iraq and Afghanistan before the election cycle of 2012. The end of the war in Vietnam prior to the election of 1964 was President Kennedy’s political objective. Both President Kennedy and President Obama wanted to end the war before the next presidential election cycle. One minor difference is that President Kennedy set his political deadline only a week after taking office. President Obama took 10 months to set his deadline, at least publicly.

The war in Vietnam ended (As far as the United States was concerned) when we withdrew our troops from South Vietnam. I suspect that President Obama (and many others) believes that this will be the case today concerning withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. If you believe that both countries had nothing to do with 9/11, it makes sense that you would believe that they would leave us alone after we leave. I disagree. I believe this is another fundamental difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan-Iraq. Time will tell on this one.

Both in Vietnam and Afghanistan today the major support for our enemy came across a border with a nuclear-armed country. One difference between Pakistan and China is that the United States is launching attacks into Pakistan, whereas we made great efforts to avoid hitting any part of China. Besides, most of the fighting was in South Vietnam, which did NOT share a border with China. In other words, the war was being fought away from the actual border with the nuclear-armed country. In Afghanistan, we are actually driving the enemy forces toward and across the border. Iraq had no such similarity in nuclear-armed neighbors who were directly involved.

As can be seen from this brief overview, many differences are present between Vietnam and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan today. As all wars are unique, this can be expected. This is why it is so dangerous to ‘fight the last war again’ as is so common.

While many do not hold the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq accountable for the attacks on 9/11, this covers the overall problem of no governmental accountability for political Islam. While the idea that the government of Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11 may be accurate, political Islam is alive and well in Iraq as well as throughout the Muslim world. Political Islam is what attacked the United States on 9/11. WMD was a good excuse to hold the government of Iraq responsible for the personal armies that political Islam has been fielding, despite the fact that Iraq had no WMD. A number of other governments meet this qualification as well.

Sadr is coming back

I pulled this from: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/12/iraqi_troops_capture_1.php#ixzz0ZDcqpDPU

"Anti-American Shia leader Muqtada al Sadr during the summer of 2008 formed the Promise Day Brigade after he announced he would disband the Mahdi Army and formed a small, secretive military arm to fight Coalition forces in June."

So the guy who’s personal army that got its butt kicked in Fallujah in 2004 is forming a new army? Oh, first he is disbanding his OTHER army.

Political Islam is alive and well in Iraq.
　
　
* Personal note: The long war journal is one of the best sources I have found.

Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq

I pulled this from: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/12/suicide_attacks_kill.php#ixzz0ZCukORT8

"Al Qaeda in Iraq carried out another coordinated mass-casualty terror attack in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. More than 120 Iraqis were killed and more than 200 were wounded when three suicide bombers and two car bombs were detonated in locations throughout Baghdad. The targets of the attacks were a bank, a police patrol, a court complex, a mosque, and a market neighborhood near the Interior Ministry."

Al Qaeda is known for attacking symbols. On 9/11, the targets were the trade center, an economic target and the Pentagon, a military target. Please note the targets in yesterday’s attacks in Baghdad. A bank is an economic target, the police represent enforcement, the court is the legal system and the market is economic. Political Islam is at war against these very ideas.

Islam specifies an economic policy, which the Iraqi government is NOT following. The attack on the bank is a clear sign on this issue. The police are the enforcement vehicle, which to political Islam, is another enemy. The police in Iraq are NOT enforcing Islamic law. The attack on the mosque is an attack on Apostates. Clearly, any that do not oppose how Iraq is being run has left Islam. The attack on the court complex is an attack on the legal system. Islamic law is much different from the legal system that the United States helped install.

Political Islam is alive and well in Iraq. Even if you had opposed the invasion, it cannot be denied that Al Qaeda and political Islam is present in Iraq. If matters not when they arrived. Our enemies are there and can be engaged. I do not know if Iraq is strong enough to stand by itself at this time. I do know that it is in our best interests to ensure that it does not change to support political Islam.

President Obama's war (political) strategy

Warfare and politics do not mix. President Obama must disagree with me on this one. I wish that I could say that 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan would matter. I don’t believe that we will get anything like the results we got in Iraq with this new ’surge’ in Afghanistan. I find it far more likely that President Obama will withdraw in 2011, right on schedule. What will be going on at the time in Afghanistan at that time will be beside the point. This is a win-win political strategy for him. Combined with the withdrawal from Iraq, he can say that he ended the wars in Afghanistan AND Iraq. Hard not to imagine him believing that this will help him win re-election in 2012. And it does follow what he has been saying since 2001 regarding how the United States should not even be in Afghanistan or Iraq. After all, President Obama (As do many others) believes that we are creating new enemies just by being there.

One minor problem is that the enemy does not have the same political agenda.

Afghan strategy

President Obama is committing 30,000+ new troops to Afghanistan. beginning next spring. Unlike Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan is not concentrated within the cities. Some of the most contested areas tend to be along the Pakistan border. While 30,000 soldiers will give our position in Afghanistan more muscle, the areas involved are much too large to enact a piecemeal strategy that we used in the cities in Iraq. We will be unable to isolate the battlefield in anything like the effectiveness we were able to in Iraq. By necessity, the army will strengthen the patrolling that it projects from the bases we control. This is far different from the idea of "once we take an area, we hold it."

President Obama assured us that Afghanistan is NOT Vietnam. He is correct in this assessment in that the U.S. will withdraw far earlier in the process. (At least from his perspective in that he only became involved in January) However, like Vietnam, we do not have the manpower to ‘occupy’ the countryside of Afghanistan. Our tactics of ‘search and destroy’ will be a necessary use of our superior firepower. The amount of combat will go up as we escalate. I doubt our enemy will allow it to reach the levels of fighting we witnessed in Iraq in 2007. Like Vietnam, we will win the battles. Unlike Iraq, these battles will be indecisive as our enemy disengages and ‘melts away into the countryside’. More like Vietnam than Iraq. I expect the outcome to be the same as Vietnam as well. We will fail to 'hold the ground' and exit in time for the elections of 2012. This way, our Commander-in-Chief can say that he ended BOTH the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Obama's Afghan speech

I did not see his speech, but I read it. Anyone who reads it cannot help but agree in many aspects. And no person can agree with someone on EVERYTHING. That being said, I found a couple of interesting items that I would like to share:

"I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests."

This first quote is in reference to the 3rd choice that he debated. That choice was to have what he considered to be an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan. I think that he is playing politics here. President Obama wants to end the war and be out well before the election in 2012. This is a political deadline and like President Kennedy, he is attempting to place a deadline on our direct involvement in the war.

I would also like to draw attention to President Obama’s rejection to the surge in Iraq. He was against the war in the first place and was decisively against the surge in Iraq. The present strategy he is enacting is at first glance, the same idea. We place 30,000 new troops in Afghanistan beginning next spring. This is different in that the soldiers will be going in as quickly as possible. In Iraq, they were added in very small increments that took 6 months. The surge in Iraq was aimed primarily at gaining control of Baghdad. We already had our enemy surrounded in that great city, we just needed additional forces to chop it into pieces that we could attack one at a time.

This new effort into Afghanistan is aimed at most of the country, with the Afghan Pakistan border being a major focus. We do not have our enemy surrounded and we will be engaging them in the best defensive terrain in the world. Our current aim is to use approximately the same amount of force in about the same amount of time and expecting the same results. Well, I doubt that we will get anything near the same results and I expect that our withdrawal timetable will not be much different that what was specified last night. If memory serves, when then Senator Obama specified a withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, Iraq was at the high point of the combat that our enemy could not sustain. A withdrawal at that point would have allowed our enemies to recover. (They will do so anyway, but it will take them far longer now) Time will tell what our President will do. I expect the withdrawal to take place on schedule. Whatever is going on in Afghanistan will most likely make little to no difference.

"We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power."

This quote scares me. I am a firm believer in having too much force available. Just in case things go wrong. Otherwise, the losses in soldiers and equipment can potentially be much higher. General Eisenhower once said that if he were given a battalion and ordered to take a hill that was held by a company of enemy soldiers, he would take losses, but he could do it. Given a full division, he would not lose a man. Colin Powell called it ‘overwhelming force’. I have been a believer in this philosophy for a long time. It bothers me that our commander-in-chief (During a war) does not believe in this concept.
　

Iraq and Afghanistan created new enemies

ALL wars make new enemies. The United States had millions of new enemies on January 1st, 1942 compared to those we had a month earlier. This is not uncommon. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States have had an additional effect regarding new enemies.

A worldwide obligation to "Kill the occupiers" of Muslim land has been in effect since the beginning of Islam. (610 AD) This ‘authentic’ Islamic law is only one of the reasons why the United states invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have ‘created’ so many enemies. I chose to bring up this ‘law’ because of the clear demonstration of the political, legal and military power of the nation-state of Islam. The people who believe in this concept (Along with the common interpretation of Jihad and a few others) are those who will supply resources and manpower to fight the ‘occupation’. These are the people who will supply and fight to kill to enforce political Islam. This exposes them to be killed by our military. Witness the number of ‘foreign’ troops who entered Iraq to fight the U.S. This also exposes them to the public because one typical side effect of open warfare is that people take sides. This is what ‘creates’ the new enemies.

An argument in favor of this effect is that one of the major problems in fighting terrorism is finding out who they are and who supports them. Just because we can see so many more today does not necessarily indicate that they are ‘new’ terrorists or new supporters. This is at least partly because they are easier to see.

Issues that are worth fighting and dying for or against are of the type that you generally do not change your mind about very easily, or quickly. Slavery prior to the United States Civil War was an issue of this type. Either you were for it or you were not. Either you would fight for it, or you would not. Other issues impact your choice, in that your hand may be forced to chose. For example, Robert E. Lee did not join the south until his state of Virginia left the Union. He was forced to chose. However, the overall point here is that he did not change his mind, nor did he change loyalty. The situation forced him to make a public decision.

The issues of slavery and loyalty to state over federal government were of the type that could not be decided by talking or negotiation. A number of issues regarding political Islam are of this type. Like slavery, these issues are not of the type that you change your mind about. You either fight for or against.

World governments are constantly challenging the sovereignty of Islam. This is why these ‘terror’ groups are constantly attacking. Once again, I will use the U.S. Civil War as an example. The South began the war by attacking Fort Sumter. This was because U.S. naval vessels were attempting to supply the outpost. This move was a violation of the sovereignty of the Confederate States of America. The United States did not ask permission and the ships were moving through CSA waters. The sovereignty of political Islam IS the cause of the existence of Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Millions of Muslims support political Islam in the form of what we call ‘terrorists’ and terrorist organizations. This can be seen much more easily as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The power of the nation state of Islam is expressed in the groups and individuals that act as a nation-state, yet are not the government and those same governments are not being held accountable. The personal army of Muqtada al-Sadr is a common example. As is Bin Laden and the Islamic terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah (Along with many others) This issue alone is of the type that historically, wars have been fought over. As they should be.

Iraq

One of my brothers asked me what the United States got out of invading and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I told him that we had tied down the enemy army. In Afghanistan, that is what we did. In Iraq, the United States did far more to our enemy than that.

In the desert terrain of Iraq, our enemy could not disengage at will. This is the strongest asset of ALL guerrilla forces. Historically, guerrilla forces ‘melt away’ into the countryside to reappear somewhere else. In Iraq, the desert was an ideal shooting ground for our mechanized units. With our thermal imaging systems, our enemy could not retreat in the open desert. The war quickly moved into the cities. We could then surround each city. (Baghdad and the other larger cities being broken into pieces and then surrounded and taken one by one) Our enemy could not reinforce and/or supply. The historical advantage of conventional forces over guerrilla forces regarding firepower, training and numbers made each individual battle a very lopsided affair.

The battle of Fallujha is a case in point. US and Iraqi forces surrounded the city in 2006. The pictures of the city afterwards testified to the amount of munitions expended to do such damage. The vast majority of the damage was to the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr. He certainly could not match the firepower. His ‘army’ could not retreat. It was pounded. Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran.

This powerful Imam had fielded his own personal army, something, which is common in Islamic culture. The defeat of these ‘Islamic Generals’ is all-important because the world cannot tolerate individuals having the power and authority of nation-states, yet are not accountable as one. (Bin Lauden is an example of an individual while Hamas and Hezbollah are examples of the concept applied to groups.)

The use of weapons of mass destruction is far more likely initiated by one of these groups than any government in the world. Seeing that no government can be held accountable, this alone makes waging warfare in Islamic countries imperative. This forces the people who are required to ‘kill the occupiers’ to expose themselves by committing resources to defending this and all of the other ‘laws’ that are so hostile to us. The losses our enemy sustained in Iraq is a major reason why the U.S. has not been hit since 9/11 by an organized Islamic group. Fighting in the desert is only less desirable for us than engaging over the ocean. We chose our war well. However, this does not mean that the war is over.

Stalingrad was a complete victory. The German 6th army was entirely wiped out. You cannot get a more decisive result than that. However, the war went on for more than 2 years. Clearly, Stalingrad was not the end of the war. With this in mind, it can be seen that the war in Iraq is not over. Our enemy is still active in Iraq.
　
　
　
　

Pakistan

Pakistan is in a real bind. A large percentage of the population, maybe even a majority, is siding with the enemy. From all of the suicide attacks, it is obvious that many ‘extremists’ exist within that country. What complicates matters is that Afghanistan is right next door. Pakistan helped set up the Taliban within Afghanistan and is now paying a price, as the ‘extremists’ work on both sides of the border. Pakistan is attempting to drive them out, if not destroy them altogether. If driven out, they will flee into Afghanistan where the U.S. will have to deal with them.

If the U.S. launches an offensive, we will tend to drive ‘extremists’ into Pakistan, something the Pakistanis do not wish to occur. It is a catch-22, unless the two sides agree that in the best interests of both sides, we BOTH should engage the enemy by attacking and destroying them together. They will have nowhere to retreat. This would require both sides to commit additional resources to the current forces and escalate the war to a much higher level of combat. Wars are won by the side that escalates to a level that the other side either cannot or will not match. I may be wrong here, but I am certain that when the Obama administration finally decides what to do, it will NOT be an all out attempt to win the war in this way. He will most likely attempt a ‘smaller footprint’. The result cannot be anything else but less decisive. A major problem here is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. We should not accept anything else but a decisive outcome. Otherwise, our enemies will be able to re-group and re-deploy. As has been shown over and over, this is something that they are very good at.

FBI and police cannot win

The suspect in the Fort Hood shootings (Hasan) has stated that he was "Muslim first" and then an American. Our police and FBI can deal with individuals like this. However, dealing with the source of the ideology of "Muslim first" (Political Islam) is an impossible task for our civilian legal enforcement agencies.

The enemy that we are fighting today are those who support the ideology of political Islam. Within our own country, many place religion above anything else. However, the religions that we are familiar with have generally submitted to governmental legal rulings. For example, even though the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, (A VERY sensitive issue) the church itself does not take organized violent action to enforce its beliefs. Islam is very different in this important regard.

As has been demonstrated worldwide, Islam does take organized, violent action when it’s ‘sovereignty’ is being challenged. This is why organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas flourish when in many cases the organizations actually clash with the host government. An additional problem is that so many will fight to defend this ideology.

This issue is of the type that historically; wars have been fought over. The U.S. Civil War is an excellent example. Many ‘good’ southerners defended the evil of slavery, yet the issues were not so simple. The entire way of life of the south depended upon that ‘peculiar institution’. This is one of the major problems when dealing with political Islam. The ideology of the ‘nation of Islam’ will not end without organized violence in the form of warfare. People just do not change their minds over things like this. History has shown that they wage war instead. The concept that an organization can commit acts of war against the wishes of the host government (And the government is not accountable) has to end.

Personal Islamic armies and Islamic armies that are not controlled by governments yet are adhering to Islamic national ‘laws’ must be defeated. Time is NOT on our side. It can only be a matter of time before one of these Islamic groups obtains an effective WMD. Even massive conventional warfare is preferable over this event. If done properly, it does not have to come down to that. However, governments that support Islamic terrorist organizations must go. The governments of Iran and Syria are the first in line. Our FBI and police are good, but in no way are they capable of defeating Iran or Syria. Nor is the FBI capable of defeating Islamic organizations that enforce the ‘sovereignty’ of the ‘Nation’ of Islam. The only organization that I know of that CAN defeat these enemies is our military.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be tried in civilian court.

These cases should be a good example of how effective our civilian enforcement agencies are against our foreign Islamic enemies. I am against handling these cases in this way, but we should be able to see how well we can deal with ‘fundamental Islamists’. (At least on an individual basis) Of course, this cannot have much effect against Islamic terrorist organizations, which is what these individuals were only a small part of. I consider these Islamic terrorist organizations to be the much greater threat. Unfortunately, I do not see how our civilian legal system can deal with the Islamic terrorist organizations effectively. All it can do is go after the individuals. I find it difficult to believe that civilian courts will be effective enforcing the ‘rule of law’ on Islamic terrorist organizations.

This is why the United States military will eventually become involved, no matter what our current President believes. The principal problem here is that you can only be a policeman, or a soldier. You cannot be both. The civilian police force and the civilian legal system can deal with individuals and small groups. It cannot defeat armies. The military on the other hand, can deal with armed enemy organizations, yet is relatively ineffective if pressed into a police role. I suspect that President Obmama does not fully comprehend this concept. I may be incorrect here, but I believe that President Obama thinks the best role of our armed forces is as a well-armed police force. The restrictions of use of force for a police organization should be applied to the armed forces that we are using in the armed conflicts that we are engaged in. I just cannot see how we can triumph in this way. The war is far too large to be won in this manner.

Governments cannot be defeated in this way, so the governments who are supporters of international Islamic terrorism will be able to continue to operate indefinitely. If the sources cannot be interdicted, then the organizations will be able to continue their work at a pace of their choosing. This is not my idea of how to win a war.

Fort Hood attack: How effective will President Obama’s reaction be?

President Obama will not have a knee jerk reaction on the fort Hood attack. We should expect him to analyze the facts after they are all known. Figure a few weeks for him to decide what he will do. After all, we have a war to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the Health Care bill has passed in the house, President Obama should be able to clear the decks and confront our enemies.

The issues at the heart of the war today are too widespread for this war not to become much larger. I cannot believe that President Obama does not understand this. I do understand that President Obama has no practical, direct recourse to this attack. The attacker will be prosecuted by the justice system. This is about all that can be done to directly react to the person who was responsible for the fort Hood attack.

The problem I have here is that the war is now beginning on our side of the ‘pond’. Defensive warfare sucks. I prefer offensive warfare at ending political Islam. (Syria and Iran are good places to start) Time is NOT on our side. It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic group obtains and deploys an effective WMD. Most likely this event is years from now. However, the potential price we will pay is worth waging war to delay or prevent this event. Wars are won by the side that escalates to a level the other side either cannot or will not match. President Obama does not see the war in this light. We can only hope that this war does not go nuclear (WMD) before he leaves office.

Fort Hood attacker and analysis

I pulled this from FOXnews.com today (11/7/09) (Please note that this is the first time I have EVER quoted from Fox news.)

"He obviously didn’t want to go," said Duane Reasoner, 18, who looked up to Hasan as a sort of religious mentor. "He said he shouldn’t be going to Iraq, and Muslims shouldn’t be in the military — it was an obvious conflict of interest. Muslims shouldn’t be killing Muslims. He told me not to join the military."

Reasoner said he wouldn't condemn Hasan after the shooting spree. "I don’t know his intentions," Reasoner told FoxNews.com. "I don’t know what he was thinking. I won't condemn another Muslim."

Please note the last quote. "I won’t condemn another Muslim." This is a pattern with many throughout the Islamic world. Refusal to condemn the acts of violence of Muslims against just about ANYONE. (Exception: Violence against other Muslims.)

I guess Hasan never heard of Sergeant York. He certainly did not want to go either. (It was far more likely that Sergeant York would have to kill and/or be killed in World War I than Hasan would face in Iraq or Afghanistan.) Although it was against his religion, Sergeant York still obeyed orders and eventually acted as the heroic soldier that he was.

I consider this to be the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Fortunately, this was just one person who’s attack, however tragic, was not nearly as effective as the assault on 9/11. Two points I would like to leave with you.

1) This is precisely why I am so adamantly against placing terrorists into our civilian court system. This is also why I am against placing terrorists into our civilian jail system.

2) The war has really yet to begin. Islam does not distinguish between church and state. As can be seen throughout the world, political Islam is at war against us. Loyalty to Islam is far above ANY government and this alone is a major cause of warfare. This issue is NOT going away until the war reaches the decisive level of ending political Islam.
　

Muslim victim argument

Muslims concerning the Arab-Israeli confrontation had suggested a victim argument. The argument basically says that because Arab losses are higher than Israeli, the Arabs must be the victims of Israeli aggression. This has to be one of the weakest arguments that I have ever heard.

Japan attacked the U.S. in 1941. Over the next 4 years, the U.S. lost around 40,000 men defeating Japan. We killed well over 2 million. (Men in uniform as well as non-combatants) Just because we were better at warfare does not necessarily make us the ‘bad’ guy. Aggression does not necessarily come from strength. In fact, in the form of warfare, many times it can originate from weakness.

In 1860, the southern states knew that once Abraham Lincoln became President, he and others would limit slavery to the areas that already had that ‘peculiar institution’. Slavery would not be allowed to grow in the form of new slave states as states were to be added into the Union. As these new, non-slave states were added, the relative strength of slavery would become weaker. Rising up in rebellion right then was their best chance to prevent a slow, long-term defeat. In other words, the weakness of the southern position helped to initiate the U.S. Civil War. Historically speaking, this is not an uncommon cause of warfare.

The fact those Arab losses are higher than Israeli only tells us that the Arabs are not as good at waging war as Israel. Israel has not always had the best equipment. Israel has not had the larger forces. However, Israel has had better discipline since inception. As important as numbers and equipment are in war, these factors are not always decisive in determining the winner or loser. In many cases, these factors do not play a decisive role in determining the losses each side suffers. In any case, these factors have nothing to do with who started the shooting, nor do they tell us who is the ‘bad’ guy in any particular case.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is an excellent example of the incompatibility of Islam and a democratic society. The lack of progress in any peace agreement and the constant violence that is generally initiated by the Arab side demonstrates Islamic concepts of co-existence. (Or more accurately, the lack of)

I hold political Islam responsible for most, if not all of the warfare and violence that is so common throughout the Muslim world. Many good reasons exist to wage warfare and generally it only takes one or two of these ‘good’ reasons to trigger open conflict. Political Islam contains numerous causes of open warfare*, both to defend and to attack. These reasons are the basic cause of the constant violence throughout the Islamic world and that will not end until political Islam is changed to such a benevolent form that Islam would be unrecognizable. This alone would trigger open warfare, as it should. Human nature demands it.

*I have identified more than 6.

Muslim world double standard

I pulled this from MSNBC.com. The last paragraph in an article titled: "Qaida-linked group claims rocket attack on Israel. Dated 10/29/09.

"Earlier this month, Israel troops cracked down to disperse hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinian protesters in a fresh eruption of violence at the most volatile spot in the Holy Land. The site is known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary.
The Israeli crackdown drew condemnation from throughout the Muslim world."

I would like to bring your attention to the last sentence. The reaction of the Muslim world is following the usual pattern. Throwing rocks begins the violence, yet the reaction to the initiation of violence is condemned. Maybe I am just a little sensitive to this issue, but I do remember the reaction of much of the Muslim world at 9/11 as being pleased. The U.S. reaction to 9/11 by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had also been condemned. This double standard is pretty universal.

Afghan strategy may be a repeat of Vietnam

I pulled this from MSNBC.com today:

"President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability."

One of the reasons the United States lost in Vietnam was because we controlled the cities and villages, yet we did not control the countryside. The enemy was able to ‘melt away’ into the countryside and we could not force continued engagement that would wipe them out. Historically speaking, this is a typical problem of a conventional army facing irregular forces. Iraq was different.

In Iraq, the desert allowed the U.S. to wipe out the enemy. The desert is one of the most ideal environments for mechanized forces to operate within. The enemy could not ‘melt away’ into the countryside. This allowed us to isolate the battlefield and inflict maximum damage upon the enemy without taking much in the way of losses. The enemy could not disengage. The mismatch of conventional forces firepower against an irregular force who could not ‘melt away’ could only end with victory on the battlefield for the conventional forces.

This is a major reason why the ‘surge’ worked. I see that President Obama and his advisers are either not drawing the same lessons from Vietnam and Iraq, or else are unaware of their significance.

Afghanistan and Iraq

One day is not enough to see how the war is going. However, the news today is not good. In Afghanistan, 3 helicopters were destroyed, two in a mid-air collision and the other possibly by hostile fire. Two attacks in Iraq have left at least 155 dead, making this the worse attacks in years.

As a general rule it is unwise to jump to any conclusions. Seeing as the U.S. is scaling back and withdrawing from Iraq, it is clear that the war in Iraq continues. The fighting in Afghanistan has been increasing for the past few months so heavier losses can be expected. The overall concern here is that our strategic posture is shifting to a defensive one and the pressure from our enemies appears to be increasing.

I have been expecting something along these lines. As our emphasis shifts to using the civilian police and FBI for internal defense from the use of our military to wage offensive warfare, we can expect our enemy to regain the initiative by increased activity. This shift of the U.S. to a defensive posture is not completed, so we can expect this trend to continue. In addition, we can expect our enemy to become more active in areas where he has been less active and in new areas where he had not been active before. This process will most likely take at least another year or two before it becomes more obvious.

Internal terrorist threat

MSNBC.com: "A 27-year-old Massachusetts man has been charged with conspiring with others to carry out terror attacks against shoppers in U.S. malls and against U.S. military in Iraq."

NEW YORK - A Queens imam has been indicted on charges that he lied to federal agents about an Afghan immigrant who was later charged with plotting a bomb attack in New York City.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Have you noticed how it appears that we are seeing more internal (United States) terrorist threat arrests in the past few months? It seems that I am seeing terror threat arrests on an almost daily or at least a weekly basis. It can only be a matter of time before one of these threats is successful. Offensive warfare is unpleasant. Defensive warfare is far worse. I expect this trend to continue to accelerate as our national emphasis upon a defensive strategy begins to take effect.

Our police and FBI are doing well. However, they cannot hold the enemy off. Only our military has that capability, and with our shifting to the strategic defensive we can expect to see the war begin to go against us. If you live near a major city, it is a good idea to prepare an emergency kit. The possibility of your needing it is increasing.

Pakistan offensive

Pakistan is conducting an offensive to drive the Taliban out. Historically, irregular troops have always had difficulty standing up to conventional forces in straight up fights. The lack of training, inferior firepower and in most cases, inferior numbers add up to avoiding a stand-up fight and adopting hit and run tactics.

Pakistan is fighting against political Islam. The Taliban wants to run things its way, which is much more in the way of the teachings of the Koran than the way the Pakistani government runs things. I have seen a report that if successful, we will have basically won the war on terror. The war itself will begin to wind down and fade away. NOT!

The number of supporters of political Islam that are spread throughout the world is far too large to not have organized terror groups recover and re-deploy. Many of these Islamic political terror groups are not directly impacted by the war in Pakistan at all. Many are being supported by other governments(such as Syria and Iran) whose bases are not being negatively impacted at all.
A victory in Pakistan will help in our ‘war against terrorism’, but in no way can this war be considered to be over. It will just enter a new phase.

Iran helping in Iraq

I pulled this from www.islamidavet.com; (click on English and scroll down) the article was titled
"Speaker stresses Iran’s support for Iraq." (10/12/09)

Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani assured that Iran will do its best to help resolve problems in the neighboring Iraq.

"The Islamic Iran will spare no efforts to help the Iraqi nation in removing the existing problems," Larijani said at a meeting with Head of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) Ammar al-Hakim here in Tehran Saturday night.

The Iranian parliament speaker further reminded that the Shiite religious leadership plays a significant role in leading Iraq out of the cumbersome conditions dominating the country at present.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The existing problem he wants to ‘remove’ is the U.S. (Western) influence that has been established within Iraq. He wants to help lead Iraq "out of the cumbersome conditions dominating the country at present". You know, the ideology of personal freedom and democracy.
The obligation to remove ‘occupiers’ of Islamic ‘land’ is still in full force. Iran is at war against us, only Iran is smart enough to know that they cannot be overt about it. To ignore this as the United States has done for more than 30 years now is to only put off the eventual day of reckoning. Once again, time is NOT on our side. It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic terrorist group is able to deploy an effective weapon of mass destruction. I do not see any percentage in one of these Islamic groups NOT deploying a WMD if and when they get their hands on one. Once this occurs, then the little wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will become insignificant by comparison.
　

Irans support of Islamic terrorist organizations

Iran supports all sorts of Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizballah and Islamic Jihad.

The moral obligation to kill the 'occupiers' of Muslim land is one of the historically stronger ‘laws’ of Islam. This is only one of the reasons why we are at war. I like to use an example:
A bunch of Muslims seize a Catholic church in Chicago, IL. The Catholic Church owns the land, but they do NOT send an army to kick the 'occupiers' out. The United States government sends in the army.

Clearly, Iran feels that they need to enforce this Islamic law. In addition, Muslim ‘land’ and ‘waters’ are permanent. Another ‘authentic’ Islamic law is that the penalty for leaving Islam is death. Once someone or something becomes Muslim, it cannot revert back.

I am guessing that many who believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a mistake either do not understand or underestimate the importance of these ‘laws’ within the Islamic world.

Afghanistan is low on President Obama’s to do list

The post that I re-posted earlier this week discussed a request by the leading U.S. general in Afghanistan asking for additional troops. Please note that the original post was July 8th. At that time, the request had already been public for at least a few days, if not longer. The President’s attention was focused upon the health care bill that he wanted passed before the August recess.

I am pleased that President Obama is now directing his attention to the war. My concern has always been that he would rank the war a low priority. It has been more than 3 months since our leading general has made his request. Our President is going to focus upon the problem and will decide to either fullfill that request or enact some other option within the next few WEEKS. I guess he is finally getting around to it.

Afghanistan is combat

Afghanistan is one place where the U.S. can militarily engage those who back the ideology of those who attacked us on 9/11. (Political Islam) However, Iraq and the desert are a much more desirable place for us to engage the armed forces of our enemies. Now that we are drawing down U.S. military activity in Iraq, the ONLY place where we are actively engaging the enemy with our armed forces is now Afghanistan. To draw this down would be a major mistake.

The enemy could not support the attrition in Iraq and has shifted back to Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is still going on, but not at a level that will substantially injure our enemies. Our enemy can support more combat than what is combined with the greater level of combat occurring in Afghanistan today and the reduced level in Iraq. I expect greater trouble elsewhere as our enemy adjusts.

Afghanistan is NOT Iraq

I Posted this on 7/8/09. I thought a repeat post is in order.

U.S. commander: More troops are needed. Surprise. Throughout history, just about ALL commanders say that they need more troops. In this case, I believe that he is referring to more Afghan units, although I am certain that he would accept more U.S. soldiers. (Note - General Grant was one of the few exceptions to this general rule as he cut back on the artillery the army of the Potomac brought with it when it engaged the Army of Northern Virginia in 1864. He believed that too much would hinder his movements, as was subsequently shown.)

Even if everything else were the same, just the terrain alone would require far more troops per capita in Afghanistan than Iraq. Everything else is not the same and in many cases aggravates the need for more units, both combat and support. I doubt that we will obtain anywhere near the same level of support from the Afghan population that we obtained in Iraq, although this is yet to be determined.

The ‘surge’ required the better part of a year before it became obvious that we were making positive progress. I expect Afghanistan to take longer, although I am not so certain that the outcome will be as decisive as the result was in Iraq.

Rule of law and the war against Islamic terrorists

The strategy of the United States government fighting terrorists today is that of using the ‘rule of law’ to establish law and order and stability. The front line is shifting to the police and FBI. The military will be downplayed, as our focus will be shifted onto law enforcement. The main problem here is that our enemy has a ‘rule of law’ that is inherently hostile to that of our own. What we are asking of our enemies is to adopt a similar ‘rule of law’ to our own. This is NOT going to happen voluntarily.

As mentioned in my last post, people will defend their way of life through organized violence. (Up to and including organized warfare) The way of life that has been established under Islamic law has to change in order to rid the world of most if not all, of the international Islamic terrorists. It is the Islamic terrorists who are attempting to force this legal system upon the rest of the world. Change of this sort will NOT occur naturally. Even within our own country, it took the most costly war in our history (Not even close) to resolve that the way of life of the slave owner society could no longer be tolerated. History has demonstrated time and again that change of this type will not occur without violence and warfare. So the choice really boils down to this:

Do we adopt the legal ways of our enemies, or do they adopt ours? Please note that they have the same options and we can expect the same answer. I say that they MUST adopt the international definitions of the responsibilities of the nation-state and separation of church and state that this requires. This requires the Islamic ‘rule of law’ to change drastically, and it must change today. To do anything else is not to pursue the war at the root causes. If the root causes of ANY problem are not addressed, the problem will only become larger as time goes on. Dealing with this problem will require offensive, preemptive warfare to enforce. In other words, the government of Syria and Iran will have to change. As shown by their actions, Syria and Iran believe in political Islam as they are directly supporting organizations that are violently fighting for enforcement of the concepts that are so hostile to us. Eventually, many other Islamic governments may have to follow, but this would be an important start. Please note that I find this to be very unlikely. Far more likely will be ineffective action and a continuing slow increase in Islamic terrorist capability.

Who is the enemy?

The United States has numerous enemies. Most are not out to kill us as just to oppose us intentionally. Many are willing to do business even though they are more than just a competitor. Some are willing to outright kill us. Speaking as a citizen of the United States I feel that the most important thing an American can do is identify our enemy that is killing us and desires to kill us by the millions. Who are these people? How can we tell them from those that do not? The suicide bombers are a good place to start tracing back to help find out. Osama has spoken many times and defined why he is at war against us. Those who want to do the United States great harm are those who believe in many of the ‘laws’ that Osama and many like him believe in. The enemy are those who want and believe in political Islam.
　
Political Islam posted (5/6/09)

Islam is not just a religion. Islamic legal rulings have been issued for 1400 years. Islamic legal scholars have issued binding legal rules based upon the Koran in a way that is vaguely similar to our legal system ruling upon the U.S. Constitution. The Koran specifies a foreign policy such as when to wage war and when to make and break treaties. The Koran also specifies economic policy such as the prohibition on charging interest on loans. These issues are clear violations of the responsibilities and authority of nation-states.

One of the major problems that I have with this ‘political’ Islam is that no group can be held responsible for any acts committed, as in the example of a nation-state declaring war. The enemies are then known and the international community understands the situation. Islam makes a mockery of this concept. Take the group of Islamic leaders that met last March in Istanbul for an example. They issued the following declaration: "The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways."

One problem I have here is who is held accountable for this? These leaders are speaking about waging warfare, yet no nation on the planet Earth can be held accountable, nor can they be attacked in this war. How can you have a war without two sides fighting? Is this not the same problem that we face when dealing with terrorism? This is also the same problem we are facing when dealing with the piracy issue in the waters off of Somalia. What nation can be held accountable for the acts of war that is taking place? It is not surprising to me that in all three cases, political Islam is at the heart of the issue. The following summary is only a few of the major issues at hand. I am sorry for repeating myself, but as history has demonstrated time and again, these issues are NOT going away without organized violence in the form of warfare.
As a historian, I have read numerous publications favoring Islam, such as some written by Karen Armstrong. I have noticed that in all of these cases, the issues that I have listed below (Plus some others I have left out) are either not covered at all, or are dismissed as not being relevant. They stress the personal behavior of Mohammed and his values. They do not discuss the legal system nor do they discuss the political structure that he built with the Koran. The "Nation of Islam" has REAL political power. This political power is in clear violation of separation of church and state and in ALL cases override the authority of the government. The following list specifies some of the ‘political’ issues that are at the cause of the constant warfare that is so common throughout the Muslim world:

1) Tribute – Payment by infidels living in Islamic controlled land to Muslim authorities. I begin with this one because of the undeclared war that the U.S. initiated in 1804 as a result of this issue. The payment of the ‘jizya’ (poll tax) exempts them from military service. This is a clear violation of a sovereign government’s right to conscript people into the military. Not to mention the clear discriminatory nature of the concept in general. In addition, taxation is a function of a government, not a religion.

2) Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. Execution of people and the ability to declare war are two of the most important rights of a sovereign government. This is another clear violation of a modern government’s sovereign responsibilities. Islam has no ‘land’ nor ‘waters’ to defend. Governments do.

3) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This is a primary cause for all of the internal warfare common within the Islamic world. The Sunni/Shiite confrontation or ‘sectarian’ violence between them is a direct result of the fact that the two sides see each other as having left Islam.

4) The act of stoning people to death has to end. This is a punishment that is suitable in a mob mentality. It is a pre-medieval concept that has no place in the modern world. As has been proven in Nigeria in 2006, just attempting to rid Islam of this will trigger violence. Clearly a large number of people will violently resist any effort to eliminate just this single ‘law’.

5) Jihad is also a medieval concept. The payment of booty was how armies were commonly paid prior to the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. No wonder the Islamic world is so sensitive about mention of the crusades. Jihad has been and is today the Islamic version of crusade. Jihad must change. Jihad must be converted into a crusade that is SOLELY internal to the individual. History has demonstrated that within Islam, this is far from being the case, even today. This issue may be fading, but it is doing so violently. To expect anything else is not to understand how important this issue is in relation to historical and political Islam.

6) Islamic electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man, (men only) one vote, once." If this is not political Islam, I don’t know what is.

These issues are clearly hostile concepts to our culture, our governmental system and our way of life. Historically, warfare is commonly the result of these types of differences. One example is the Israeli-Palestinian problem. No permanent peace has been possible nor can real peace be obtained with these types of differences. Organized violence will continue until these issues are resolved. This is a far larger problem than many believe.

It is commonly believed that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide only endorse a few, if any of these ‘laws’. This is an erroneous view. It may be that the majority of Muslims don’t believe in political Islam as represented by these ‘laws’, but at a minimum, a significant minority must. Just look at the worldwide support that imams enjoy. And the authority they wield is unlike any religious authority in the western world. Imams can field personal armies. Just look at Iraq. The authority comes from some of the issues I have discussed above. This ability to deploy a personal army is not uncommon within the Islamic world. Just look at the trouble that Imams cause in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, just to name two. People are more loyal to the Imam and Islam than they are to the government. The U.S. Civil War was needed to resolve this issue within the United States. (Slavery was the other main issue.) Then we have the ‘good’ southerners.

Most southerners that fought for slavery did not do so because they owned slaves. Many did not even like the concept. (Robert E. Lee is an excellent example) They fought for their way of life. In other words, the entire way of life of the South in 1860 was based upon that ‘peculiar institution’. These people were not bad people. Yet they had to be killed. Their way of life had to be completely turned upside down. History has shown time and again that ‘good’ people will fight violently to prevent this. Many in the United States and the rest of the world today do not appear to understand this.

As Islam is spreading, the problems with political Islam are also spreading. Just look at the problems that Imams are causing in Western Europe and other parts of the world. Unless these issues are addressed forcefully, they will continue to simmer. This can only lead to large explosions from time to time. Unless a systematic change that eliminates 'political Islam' is consistently implemented, ultimately, a large confrontation (War) can be expected. It can only be a matter of time.
　

He who defends nothing

The Obama administration is considering prosecuting CIA Operatives for potential illegal activities during the Bush administration. The Obama administration is pulling back the missile defense program and re-directing it. The U.S. is also reconsidering selling more advanced missile interception technology to Israel. At the same time, our current government is going to begin reducing our military in multiple ways. Not only the general size, but also weapons procurement. All of this at a time when we are switching our strategic posture to defensive as opposed to an offensive strategy pursued by the Bush administration.

There is an old military saying: "He who defends everything defends nothing."

If you spread your defensive forces around evenly, then you are not strong anywhere. When fighting defensive war, you are attempting to preserve your forces as much as possible. You must develop and maintain something of a reserve in order to take advantage of temporary openings your enemy might let occur. It is not wise to forsake battle entirely because you remove your ability to dictate events at all. As a result, it is a very sound strategy to decide where and under what conditions you will engage enemy forces.

No wonder the Obama administration is having such difficulty developing a new strategy for Afghanistan. It is very difficult to wage war effectively while withdrawing at the same time. While retreat is an important part of preserving your forces, no part of the United States military is being threatened with destruction. Retreat under these conditions is not only unnecessary, it is unwise. On top of this, I do not see any clear strategic places where we WILL engage our enemy’s forces. (Except within our own cities.) I really doubt that the Obama administration would back up (With military force) any of our allies that are attacked, particularly Israel. You find out whom your REAL friends are when the bullets are flying. It looks more to me as if the United States is attempting to defend nothing.

Hybrid strategy

I pulled the following two paragraphs from CNN.com today.

"According to the senior U.S. official, one alternative being discussed inside the administration is to continue current military operations for the next year, but also to accelerate reconciliation with Taliban leaders and warlords. In addition, it would involve getting an agreement to base a significant U.S. military intelligence-gathering operation inside Afghanistan to keep watch for any re-emergence of al Qaeda."

"The official described this proposal as a "hybrid" strategy. It would be somewhat short of the pure counterinsurgency that would involve a large number of troops focused on fighting the Taliban, plus efforts to rebuild the country and its economic system. But it would have more capability than a counterterrorism strategy, in which a limited number of troops would target only al Qaeda."

It looks as if the Obama administration is struggling to devise a 'new' strategy. I am guessing that he expected to devise an effective one quickly and is beginning to find out that the problem is a little more than he expected.

Throughout history, weapons have been designed with multiple functional capability. In many cases, these weapons failed in that they could not do either function really well. A classic example is the hybrid battleship/carrier ISE that Japan built in World War II. A major problem with compromise on this level is that the two considerations can cancel each other out to a large degree. This can be true of strategy as well. If the major components are not very compatible, the effort to merge them into one will degrade the effectiveness of both to a point where it is probably better to just make a different effort. I find it difficult to believe that our intelligence-gathering effectiveness will be enhanced by less direct involvement of our fighting men at the side of our allies in the area. This appears at first glance to resemble the ‘pacification’ strategy that the U.S. adopted when we began to re-think our troop commitments in Vietnam in the early 1970’s.

Not that I am in favor of massive troop reinforcements in Afghanistan. As I have stated in the past, the U.S. will not win, nor will we lose the war against terrorism by our winning or losing in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is part of the overall symptom, but it is NOT the basic cause of the war.

No strategy

I heard a clip yesterday of President Obama answering a question about sending more troops to Afghanistan. He said that troop levels would be looked into, but that before a decision can be made, a strategy must be designed. Makes sense, first devise a strategy prior to deciding upon the level of war that you wish to wage. The only problem that I see here is that President Obama has been our Commander-in-Chief for almost 8 months and he still does NOT have a strategy yet. This is not a good beginning.

After his speech last week, it occurred to me that President Obama is devoting far more energy and time into designing a new health care system that will replace the most productive health care system in the world. This is a very large and demanding task, so it makes sense that the development of a new war winning strategy must wait. In the meantime, the war goes on with us killing people and our enemies keep on killing us. I guess our President ranks the priority of waging war well below that of our many domestic challenges. Well, he will get around to it.

Health care

This blog is devoted to armed conflict. Although the issue of Heath care is not ARMED conflict, the ideological conflict that is demonstrated by this issue is of a nature that is similar to many issues that have resulted in open warfare in the past.

I am going off my topic of warfare on this post because we are being bombarded with information on health care reform. President Obama’s speech last week had NO mention of the current war and was entirely devoted to the topic of health care. As I have stated in the past, the news media is outstanding regarding political issues, political events and political analysis. This debate about health care reform is no exception. In war, (As with most other things) it is generally best to stick to your strengths.

Throughout our history, the United States has given many gifts to mankind. The many inventions our people have made that have enabled the people of the world to enjoy a more advanced lifestyle. Another gift to the world has been our system of governance and economics, which encourage these inventions to occur. (Capitalism) Over the past 4 decades, our ability to lead the world in so many ways has been diminished greatly. One of the little strengths that the United States still has is our health care system. We still lead the entire world with our breakthroughs in medical technology and techniques.

My question is: WHY the hell do we wish to drastically change this? So that it is cheaper? You know the old saying: YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. So if health care becomes free, how will this make it better?

Obama's speech

Last night, I watched most of President Obama’s speech. I have my own opinion about health care, but I noticed that he did not attempt to speak about any other subject. Maybe this is just me, but I consider the act of killing people to be THE most important subject that our President should be dealing with. I understand that he must deal with a host of other issues, but to address a joint session of Congress without discussing the war at hand seems like misplaced priority. Maybe he will address this issue at some future point. Once again, I can be wrong, but I suspect that his idea is that the war will gradually slow down (Now that we are disengaging in Iraq) to some acceptable level where it can then be just a back burner issue.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan?

A worldwide obligation exists for all Muslims to "Kill the occupiers" of ‘Muslim lands’. The nation-state of Islam is alive and well in Iraq and Afghanistan (And a bunch of other Islamic countries) as is being seen today. If memory serves, then senator Obama was NEVER in favor of invading Iraq and has been in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq ever since. Three years ago he described the war in Iraq as being the ‘wrong war’ and later that the ‘surge’ was a failure. Now that we are faced with a similar situation, will President Obama favor a withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is NOT the same as Iraq. All wars are different. One indicator is that the level of violence is rising in Afghanistan and many people interpret this as losing the war. This is a very mistaken interpretation. Even when winning, it is possible to be on the defensive, even for extended periods of time. Rising levels of violence in warfare is common as war progress. Wars are won by raising the level of violence to a point where your enemy either cannot or will not match or exceed. The point is, rising levels of violence is NOT an accurate indicator of one side winning or losing. If this is the case, what will we do now?

Many Americans favor withdrawal from Afghanistan. The belief is that the war will then wind down, we will then be out of the war directly. I am guessing that we Americans believe that we will then be left alone, like the Vietnamese left us alone after our withdrawal from Vietnam. (And after the fall of South Vietnam) I am very interested in seeing how President Obama reacts to all of this. After all, the war in Afghanistan was the ‘right’ war. I imagine that he will persist for at least the next year or two. If he remains true to his convictions (that this war will NOT be won by the military, but instead won by police and the rule of law) then we can probably expect a wind down of military operations in Afghanistan followed by a withdrawal of military personnel.

Need to know

I am going to discuss this with some close friends and thought it was important enough to post.

The war has yet to begin. The issues at the root cause of the terrorist (irregular) warfare of today are so large and commonly backed by such large populations that a large-scale war is inevitable. Issues that are as critical and important as slavery and loyalty to state over Federal government (Islam AS a government) are so numerous that it can only be a matter of time. What is missing on our side is the all-important fact of knowing who our enemy is.

One problem we face is our news source. The news media has strengths and weakness like any other human endeavor.

Media strengths:

I) political issues, news and analysis (World-class)
II) Warfare facts(Our side more accurate than information on enemy)

Media weakness: warfare analysis (4th grade level understanding of basic concepts)

Five helicopters shot down yesterday. (Yes) This is seen as a setback or defeat. (No)

A single battle or campaign usually is not enough to decide a war. Even though the war in Iraq is not over, why did surge work?

Best surface on planet Earth for mechanized forces are: (In order)
1) Water
2) Desert
3) Open land, Great plains of North America – Steppes of Russia and Ukraine. Only natural obstacles are rivers.

Worst (In order)
1) Mountains
2) Swamps
3) Cities and forests

The war in Iraq moved into the cities because our enemy was wiped out in the open desert. We could then isolate each battlefield. We isolated each town and/or city neighborhood. Munitions and supplies are heavy. Our enemy could not supply and reinforce. Once we took it, we had enough force to occupy properly.

The United States is now on the strategic defensive. Our front-line troops are now the police. Our soldiers will now be expected to act the part. (Except Afghanistan until we can withdraw and even then restraint will be exercised far more than in a more strategic offensive posture) We will prosecute enemy ‘detainees’ with legal process similar if not exactly like within civilian courts. The result cannot be anything else but the war coming to us.

Think I am kidding? A few years ago, I told some close friends that we were winning the war and they laughed. I might be wrong about many things, but this is my area of expertise. In 1970 or 1971 I read in the Chicago Tribune that the U.S. could not win in Vietnam because the VC and NVA controlled the countryside. Was not Iraq the opposite in this case? Yet we could still not win? (Actually, the original plan and execution in Vietnam WAS working until it was changed in 1961) I was 12 or 13 years old at the time I read that article. I have been studying this subject a long time.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS WORK:

Be prepared. Have an emergency kit. Canned food, water, first aid and medical supplies. A plan if the EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) disables all transportation and electrial systems. Which way is the wind literally blowing? First decision: Stay and hunker down or flee? Where to go if your car is out of action? If car is OK, what route to take to what destination?
　
　

Iran cracks down on protesters

This quote is from today’s ACB news web site: "Tuesday's session was the fourth in the trial of more than 100 opposition activists and protesters, Iran's biggest political trial in decades. The defendants — who include some of the country's biggest pro-reform politicians — are accused of trying to topple the Islamic clerical leadership through a "velvet revolution" of mass protests that erupted after the disputed June 12 presidential election."

This is no surprise, although the public trial of so many is. I expected many to be interrogated, (And eventually, executed) although I admit that I expected not to hear much, if anything about it. Like many of the executions that occurred after the fall of the Iranian government in 1979, I did not think that news of these events would reach us for decades. Maybe the Iranian government will allow us to know that they have been sentenced to jail. I still expect most to find unmarked graves without any public press release. After all, these are the very same people who dare to defy the Islamic government. They are considered to be Apostates. The penalty is ‘authentic’, clear and has been enforced for centuries.

Lockerbie bomber released

CNN:
"The man convicted of murdering 270 people by blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, two decades ago received a boisterous welcome when his plane landed in his native Libya on Thursday."

The release surprises me, although his "boisterous" welcome does not. Two things I would like to point out:

1) I am not surprised because so many throughout the Islamic world (Including Libya) believe that he did the right thing. Or else are convinced that he is innocent and was wrongly convicted by the ‘western’ justice system. The west is decadent and prejudiced against anything Muslim or Islamic. (In one way of looking at it, this is correct) The same line of thinking and belief thinks that Israel was behind 9/11 and that the Holocaust did not occur. Once again, the problem here is sheer numbers. So many are defending that way of life.

2) I would have thought that the Obama administration would have been a little more effective in preventing this. Although the U.S. can’t (And should not) interfere with any other country’s judicial system, I would have expected an extradition fight or some other legal moves to stall and prevent this from happening.

In the larger picture, this release will probably not impact much. The man is dying and I doubt he will have enough time to attempt anything directly again. Where we lose is that this man is seen as a hero and doubtless will be listened to and followed in anything that he says.

Afghanistan

Today, three quarters of Democrats oppose the war in Afghanistan. The big argument against the war in Iraq was that we had ‘dropped the ball’ by taking our focus off of the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was where the REAL war was. It was where we would get the bad guys like Osama Bin Laden. It now appears that most Democrats just want to end the war. You know, just pack up and leave like we did in Vietnam.

This war is NOT going away. This war will not end if we leave Afghanistan. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan as a direct result of 9/11. Vietnam did not begin with a direct upon U.S. soil. On top of this, the attacks on 9/11 were just the latest in a pattern of attacks upon U.S. target. Our waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq forced our enemy to engage our army with poor results for them. If the U.S. does leave Afghanistan, the losses our enemy has been enduring in terms of manpower lost and weapons and material lost will fall dramatically. Our enemy is already adapting to the lower level of attrition as a result of the lower amount of combat that is taking place within Iraq. With an U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan the war will accelerate even faster once our enemy re-deploys.

Islam and human nature

One reply to my Islam comment (How Islam is political and the Koran is poorly written) stated how I tell a good tale. This is not a tale, it is human nature.

I have studied warfare for more than 40 years. Warfare is conflict taken to the most violent, decisive level. Conflict is as much a part of us as arguing with our spouse. We cannot get rid of conflict; it is a part of us. All human beings are unique. All wars are unique.

I have studied hundreds, probably thousands of soldiers. ALL of them originally became soldiers to protect their way of life. They risk and many lost their lives in order to protect that way of living. This is why so many good southerners died defending slavery even though they themselves did not own any slaves, nor did many even like the concept. Many call this concept nationalism, which can also be considered protection of way of life, as the nation-state is responsible for the legal system under which we live. As I have stated in the past, Islam was designed as a nation-state and this concept of political Islam is being defended with violence.

(The following statement as declared by Imams that met in Istanbul is a classic example: "The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.") Please note the use of the terms "Islamic Nation" and "Muslim waters" and "Sovereignty of the nation". These concepts are common throughout the Islamic world and contribute greatly to the warfare that is common where Islam is in contact with the nation-states of the world. This can be expected if one studies the fundamental reasons which cause organized warfare throughout the history of the world. Many other reasons exist for waging war but historically, this is one of the most common and consistent. It is only human to defend one’s beliefs and way of life. Even the parts that are evil.

Somali piracy reaction

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to put armed teams on U.S.-flagged ships passing through high-risk waters, specifically around the Horn of Africa. The amendment now goes to the Senate.

This is a revival of the 'Q' ship idea. Actually, armed merchantmen have been with us since prior to the Romans. 'Q' ships were armed with guns that they could use to defend themselves against subs when they approached on the surface. This worked well in World War I when international law required merchant ships to be searched prior to being sunk. (The law was ignored in World War II, by all sides)

In the case of Somali, very little in the way of defense will be necessary. If the pirates upgrade their weapondry, a few well trained and well placed riflemen may not be enough, but today this would probably be plenty.

Islam

Islam has a number of structural problems that are the source of open conflict and warfare. A large part of the problem is that Islam IS political. Islam has an economic system. Islam IS a legal system complete with jurisprudence that goes back 1400 years. Islam has a foreign policy. Islam was designed as a nation-state long before they become common. This alone causes all kinds of problems as loyalty to Islam over ANY government is one of the issues that wars are fought over. (One of the two main issues that triggered the U.S. Civil war was loyalty to the state over the Federal government.)

Please note the number of medieval concepts. Such as the reward for jihad being booty. (Which was how armies were paid) Or stoning people to death. In fact, death is a common penalty which demonstrates another fact of the ancient world. Life was cheap. Islam has great difficulty evolving because it is GOD's word. It can't be changed as it is already perfect. Modern times has placed great strain upon many of it's fundamental concepts. Political Islam has to go and it is fighting organized warfare to prevent this. (I compare this to the good southerners who fought for slavery, or the good Japanese or good Germans who fought for the axis powers in World War II. They are good people who will fight for their way of life.)

Personally, I see the Koran as having been very poorly written. It is organized by the size of the phrases, which is a very simple and disorganized way to group ideas. If God had really supplied this information to us, I think that he would have presented it a hell of a lot better. Not to mention a little more compassionate.

Apostates in Islam

This post is a reply that I made on the infidelsarecool web site. The article was "Incredible testimony of Muslim Convert To Christianity Threatened With Death By Her Own Father".

The penalty for leaving Islam is death. This is considered to be an 'authentic' law. This means that Islamic scholars have ruled that the prophet declared this law. This 'law' has also been enforced for something like 1400 years. Islam has some serious structural problems. This is one of them. A major part of the reason why Shiite and Sunni can't resolve their differences (Since 690AD) is because each side believes the other to have left Islam. This contributes greatly to the conflict and violence between the two. It also helps understand why reconciliation has not been possible. You can't interpret this law any other way. You can only enforce or not enforce. This is another of Islam's structural problems, in that the 'laws' are specific and can only be ignored or enforced. As with many midieval systems, the laws are authoritarian and harsh.

Nigeria

Keep an eye on Nigeria. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. Many of the issues that I have brought up concerning Islam that are present in the Arab-Israeli confrontation are also present in Nigeria as well. In addition, other issues are exposed because of Nigeria’s unique situation. Example: The riots for the refusal to stone the convicted adulteress to death in 2006. (It was not carried out)

The war in Iraq is not over

Ten different bomb attacks struck Iraq killing more than 90 and wounding more than 400.
"No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it bore the hallmarks of al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni insurgents who remain active in Mosul and surrounding areas." As the pressure (And combat losses) on our enemy declines, we can expect their strength and capabilities to grow. The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a starting point to observe how they are progressing.

As the U.S. involvement in Iraq winds down, I suspect that the current administration will leave the Iraqi’s to their own devices. This policy would be similar to that of the public attitude after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. We wash our hands of it. And this is not all.

With respect to Israel, I suspect that our current administration will leave them in the lurch if any fighting broke out. I also suspect that President Obama would take the Arab side in any deals or negotiations regarding Israel. Not much of a friend.

My final observation here is that I would not want to be an ally of the United States in any shooting conflict while the current President is in office. This war is far from being over. You find out who your real friends and allies are when the shooting begins.

Al Qaeda offers truce to Obama if US pulls out of Afghanistan

Please note how the offer is for a truce. Islam allows for truces against enemies. This in no way means that the war is over. I would think that President Obama knows this. However, from many of the statements that he has made in the past, I doubt it.Our President has 'changed' our strategic posture to defensive. Making a truce would suit this well. Politically, he may not be able to do it. I am certain that he personally favors it.

Homegrown terrorism

The recent arrest of 7 men in North Carolina is good news in that our police forces are doing their jobs well. The bad news is that this event is a portent of things to come.

As can be expected, these men were planning to wage jihad. Many ‘homegrown’ terrorists (such as Timothy McViegh) have taken violent action in the past. However, in general these ‘homegrown’ terrorists act individually or in very small groups with no coordination with others and no ideological links with any larger groups. The arrest this week in North Carolina demonstrates that violent jihad is alive and well within the United States.

Worldwide, the most obvious violent terrorist threats are from those groups that have Islam as its base ideology. Islam is the fastest growing ‘religion’. This combination can only lead to increased terrorist activity. With increased activity with come improving effectiveness. What is of concern to me is the solid base that Islam already has established within the United States.

This war has yet to really begin. For many of the reasons that I have stated in the past, plus a few that I have yet to identify, the war will continue to grow. The way that wars are won is by escalation of violence to a level that the enemy either cannot or will not match. The government of the United States has adopted a defensive posture with a much lower tolerance for open warfare and the casualties that all larger armed conflicts inflict. (On both sides) This combination can only result in a growth of our enemies’ strength. As our enemy’s capabilities grows, we can only expect to see more frequent and effective attacks.

The very fact that so many in this group are U.S. citizens is of even greater concern. The 9/11 attackers were not citizens of this country. It would be much more difficult to repeat this attack today for this reason. With this arrest however, we can expect to see Islamic terrorist attacks within our own country by citizens of the United States. This can be considered to be treason and treason is a capital offense. This alone is a major concern, and this is on top of everything else.

President Obama worries me

I am somewhat naive. I attempt to believe the best in people. Particularly when regarding our Presidents. I am a Republican and I still believe that President Carter was a good man with his heart in the right place. I disagreed with him across the board, but I still think that he wanted what was best for our country. The same applies with President Clinton, although I was worried that he was out for himself more than what I would have liked.

President Obama scares me. If he really believes what he says (I like to think that Presidents believe what they say) we are in BIG trouble. He wants change. But the change he wants is not anything like what our country has stood for since our inception.

In a speech at Arizona State University, he stated that new graduates should work for non-profit organizations. This in and of itself is an admirable statement, but taken in context with other things that he has said, it is apparent to me that he believes that profit is evil. That profit is taking advantage of people. The path he is taking is one of someone who believes that our system of economics is and has caused us to be greedy and corrupt. He wants to change this.

He has begun by attempting to nationalize our financial system and our automotive industry. The health care system is on the front burner today. Will the energy industry be next? I think that he believes that by taking profit out of these systems, we will become more passionate, fair and efficient. This concept is the opposite from the economic ideas that our country was founded upon. And this is nowhere near a complete picture.

President Obama has traveled over the world telling the world how bad we have been in the past. Not that we have not made mistakes, or even been bad (Evil) at times, but our country has been a beacon of freedom and progress in the world since our inception. His focus upon our weaknesses and negative parts of our past is not doing our country any service. I don’t know what his view about our past concerning slavery is, but I consider us to have paid in full for that evil part of our past. The Civil War was the price we paid and that should be enough for anyone. I am not certain that he believes this. Yet our system of justice was set up so that we should NOT be held accountable for the sins of our fathers or grandfathers. From what he has said and is saying, he does not believe this. President Obama also wants to change how we defend ourselves.

"Millions for defense, not a cent for Tribute!" was a battle cry. He must not believe this. In addition, President Obama does not believe in talking softly and carrying a big stick either. The cuts to our military that he is proposing are not just a ‘peace dividend’. The halting of ALL new weapons procurement including missile defense is a fundamental change from our past of having at least a slowly modernizing military. I agree that military spending is wasteful and inefficient. The equipment is useless except for destroying and killing. The only problem is that it is priceless when war is upon us. Wars will not go away, and big wars will occur despite our best efforts. Being ill prepared for war is one of the most irresponsible things any President can allow. Doing it intentionally makes me VERY worried. Particularly when we are in an active, shooting war already.