Modern warfare and conflict

Muslim extremism rising threat

2009-12-27T05:39:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-21T09:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-20T05:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-17T07:13:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-11T09:04:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-10T10:02:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-09T08:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-07T07:06:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-04T04:44:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-02T07:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-29T06:03:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-25T15:51:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-21T05:14:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-18T06:14:00.001-08:00

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.

2009-11-14T04:20:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-11-09T06:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-07T05:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T05:05:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-01T06:42:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-28T04:43:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-26T07:25:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-19T08:11:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-13T10:09:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-11T06:17:00.000-07:00

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.