Sunday, November 29, 2009

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.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


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.

Saturday, November 21, 2009


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.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

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.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

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.

Monday, November 9, 2009

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.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Fort Hood attacker and analysis

I pulled this from 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 "I don’t know what he was thinking. I won't condemn another Muslim."

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Muslim victim argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

*I have identified more than 6.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Muslim world double standard

I pulled this from 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.