Iraq war and Cold War

Few parallels can be drawn between the Cold War and today’s war in Iraq.

Ways they are Similar:

1-2) “Insidious and violent ideological wars” (Philip Gordon)

3) Long term multidimensional struggles against insidious and violent ideologies. (Philip Gordon)

Differences:

1) Suicide attackers

2) Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has no parallel with today.

Number 2 is a key reason the Cold War did not become more 'Hot'. MAD will not work with an enemy who uses repeated suicide attack as a weapon.

Reasons favoring war in Iraq:

1) Strategic initiative: Bin Lauden must attack the U.S. Army in Iraq. He knows that if the U.S. is successful, the ‘cancer’ of freedom will spread. He must react to our move. Forcing your enemy to react to your moves is desirable in warfare of any type.

2) Better to have enemies who are willing to risk their lives and kill others to attack our army. It is much more difficult to kill someone who is holding a machine gun and has artillery support than a family walking through a shopping mall.

3) The war in Iraq is drawing extremists into Iraq. This stretches the ‘terrorist’ army more than ours. After all, they do not have the numbers we do. Not to mention the match-up. Seems like a good way to get killed, attacking our army. The ‘terrorist’ army does not have the resources that we do. It is expensive to wage war. They can’t match our resources: Weapons, munitions, financial resources. Conventional forces engaged in irregular combat want to force more combat. This allows the conventional side to gain more advantage regarding weapons and firepower, greater numbers, and greater resources. This is the theory behind the ‘surge’. Other wars that Islamic ‘extremists’ would support can’t be supported nearly as well. Sudan and Lebanon come to mind. This viewpoint would expect terrorist activity to fall in other places besides Iraq and Afghanistan. The Palestinian attempt at democracy can proceed with far less outside interference. The Arabs themselves will tell us that the Palestinian-Israeli problem is a key part of the war against terrorism. If the Palestinians can build a true democracy, the Arabs will ultimately win the war against terrorism.

4) The war in Iraq makes ‘terrorists’ and supporters stand out. Many people believe that the war is creating new ‘terrorists’. The other side of the coin is that the war is making them take a public stand. Just because we can see so many more now does not necessarily mean that all of them are new ones. Is this not one of the major problems with fighting terrorism? Knowing who they are and who supports them?

5) Places the war on terror into Arab hands with our support. The worst enemies of the French resistance during the occupation (1940-1944) were not the Germans. The worst enemies were French who were helping the Germans. In Vietnam, the Vietnamese who fought on our side knew the enemy better than we did. In the war in Iraq, the Arabs know who the ‘terrorists’ and their supporters are better than we do. The war is enabling friendly Arabs to identify them more readily and is giving them the ability to deal with them in a more forceful fashion.

6) War in Iraq is a Civil War that is taking place throughout Islam. Many of the people who are fighting us in Iraq and elsewhere believe in the ‘authentic’ laws in the Koran that are so hostile to the rest of the world. Many of the ‘Laws’ of Islam have to change. This is our fight because of the issues involved. The concept of Jihad has to go. No way will Islam ignore this without violence. The world cannot allow a large population like Islam to kill others and seize their property because they are not Muslim. The world cannot allow the belief that you can kill ‘occupiers’ just because they conquered a country that has the same ‘religion’ as you. The law that states the penalty for leaving Islam is death must change. The payment of Tribute because someone is not a Muslim must end. Stoning anyone to death must end. These are some of the issues that are worth risking your life for. The United States government agrees. We have already fought wars over many of these types of issues in the past.

Pakistan: Friend or Foe?

The military government of Pakistan is under tremendous pressure today. This is important because Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons but also has missile systems to deliver them. Many people believe that the military government is causing many of the problems. One argument is that if democracy can be installed, many of the problems will disappear. After all, is this not what we are doing in Iraq?

The danger is in the election of Islamic representatives. "Islamic electoral policy has been classically summarized as ‘One man (Men only) one vote, once.’" "Once Islam is selected, there is no going back." (Bernard Lewis) No more voting can take place. The penalty for leaving Islam is death, so they can’t go back.

This is why the election of HAMAS is so important. I am worried about trying this experiment on a country with nuclear weapons and the method to deliver.

Islamic ruling in Saudi Arabia

In the issue of the Chicago Tribune dated 11/16/07, on page 15, an article appeared titled ‘Rape victim’s sentence: 200 lashes’. The article dealt with a recent Saudi court ruling. The court had sentenced a woman who had been convicted of being in the same car as an unrelated man. "The young woman’s offense was in meeting a former boyfriend, whom she had asked to return pictures he had of her because she was about to marry another man. The couple were sitting in a car when a group of seven men kidnapped them and raped them both." "Lashing is a common sentence under the Saudi penal code. Usually, lashes are meted out in increments because offenders could not survive hundreds of lashes at once."

We must be careful. After all, our legal system can be considered barbaric because we do have the death penalty. I do find it hard to believe that in the 21st century, a country as advanced as Saudi Arabia hands out punishments so backward as whipping. And this is not even the worst of it. The woman is by our standards, the victim. The man she was with was convicted as well, and he received the same sentence as she did. He was a victim as well. True, the attackers received sentences ranging from 10 months to 5 years in prison and 80 to 1000 lashes each.

The violence that results from conviction is designed to make people fearful. It certainly would make us all think carefully before we tried anything of the sort. One of the arguments supportive of Islamic law is that criminal behavior tends to be lower in areas where Islamic law is the law of the land. I can see why. The argument is that this is good because it discourages illegal behavior. I would expect to find this is the case in most police states. Also, this sounds like the end justifies the means.

Islamic legal system is hostile to U.S.

The Islamic legal system is inherently hostile to that of the United States. So many of the ‘authentic’ laws have to be ignored in order to be compatible with our legal system as to make it a sure thing that violence will result from any attempt like the experiment in Iraq. A political solution is not available for those who follow the ‘authentic’ law that a married, convicted adulteress is to be stoned to death. You either enforce it, or you do not. No gray area to work with. Islamic law has this problem as a general rule. If you decide not to enforce, you are an Apostate. Islamic law is so precise that it requires a great deal of ignoring laws in order to be compatible with the rest of the world. This places anyone who agrees with this, extreme liberal ‘version’ of Islam in the category of Apostate. No wonder a civil war is going on in Iraq and the rest of the Islamic world.

Islamic terrorism must change.

The moral obligation to kill ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land has to end. This ‘authentic’ law is closely tied to another ‘authentic’ law: The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Islam is a one way street. Once you become Muslim, you cannot go back. Once land is controlled by Islam, it can never become non-Muslim. (In the eyes of Islam.) Once another entity ‘occupies’ it, then a moral obligation to kill the ‘occupiers’ is triggered. This is closely tied in with Jihad. As Bernard Lewis points out: "For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." If the means for open warfare is not available, irregular warfare is the natural result. It is not a far step to take to become what we consider to be a ‘terrorist’.
These issues can be seen to be important influencing factors in the many Arab-Israeli wars. Unless Islam is expanding, wars will be common. On top of this, once enough people disagree in a significant way about the interpretation of an ‘authentic’ law, the rest of Islam sees them as having left the faith. They have become Apostates. The penalty is death, along with the loss of property (booty) that is the reward for the warriors who enforce the law. No wonder warfare is so common in the areas where Islam is influential.
These issues not only trigger violence and warfare, but also can been seen to be impossible to eliminate without violence and warfare. These issues are combining with the general repressive nature of Islamic law and contributing as to why so much of the Muslim world has such anger management problems.

Jihad = Terrorism?

I can understand ‘Just’ war. Even self-defense allows for attacking. However, Jihad appears to justify warfare against anything, including itself. Obtaining booty from Jihad rewards those who survive. This concept alone is just cause to fight a war against ANY Jihad. The concept of Jihad has got to go. Getting a large population to agree with ignoring Jihad will take a long time. This is an ‘authentic’ Islamic law. Any real, effective method of changing the Muslim attitude against Jihad will be a strong incentive to fight that type of change through open warfare. Changes like this causes wars. And this is only one of a number of issues Islam needs to address.