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.