The conflict in Iraq is heating up again. While many people seem to think that this is a good indication of our side losing, the ‘Fog of war’ can be leading them to jump to conclusions long before we know what the real situation is. I find it interesting that a professor of international politics and Shiite politics at Tufts University has said "The only thing it proved (the new violence in Basra) is that we are a long way from stability in southern Iraq." We have a war underway in Iraq and this guy is looking for stability? How can anyone be looking for stability in a war zone?
It continues to amaze me how small this war is. Considering the population that is being impacted by the issues at stake here, it dwarfs World War II by a magnitude of five. Yet the fighting and loss of life is miniscule by comparison.
It is way to early to be drawing any real conclusions about what is happening in Basra right now. What can be seen are some of the issues involved. One example is Sadr’s militia. Here we have a guy who is a religious leader who is also the commander of an army. The ‘soldiers’ in his army are all more loyal to him and his ideology than they are to the government of Iraq. They are risking their very lives for him. This sounds similar to one of the basic issues decided by the U.S. Civil War. Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. army to fight against the U.S. government. Not because of slavery, but because his state of Virginia left the government. He was more loyal to a lower level of government that the Federal government. Many people are more loyal to their ‘clans’ and other organizations than the government of Iraq. This problem is prevalent throughout the Middle East.
I have already discussed many of the issues that are at stake in the war in Iraq. Many of these issues demonstrate the struggle between Islam and modern government. As I have posted before, Islam is far more than just a religion. The parts of Islam that step outside of our concept of ‘religion’ and into the political, governmental and legal arenas are at the basic cause of resistance to our presence in Iraq today. These parts of Islam must be brought into line with modern thinking. People will resist this type of change with warfare EVERY time.
In a way that is similar to the U.S. Civil War, we MUST fight today. To postpone the war will only make the final confrontation much more expensive in terms of lives lost.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Losing the war in Iraq? (Again)
The Chicago Tribune reported on the additional violence that is going on in Iraq. The articles tend to assume that the increased level of violence is proof that the U.S. effort in Iraq is undergoing a setback. I have studied hundreds, maybe thousands of wars. I can’t think of ANY wars in which the violence went down as the war progressed. The tendency is for an increase in violence. The violence level in wars is by no means constant. Many periods of relative ‘quiet’ can be observed followed by intense levels of combat. Surprise is sought after by both sides in any war, so it is reasonable to guess that by keeping the level of combat low in one area may be an effort to lull the enemy to sleep. Then all hell breaks loose. The point is that just because violence is going up or down is NOT an indicator of who is winning or losing. All it tells you is that the violence is going up or down.
Winston Churchill once said that wars are not won by evacuations. The evuaction of Dunkirk had just been completed, saving a third of a million men. This allowed the manpower to be re-equipped and re-deployed to other areas of importance. This in no way can be considered a victory. It was a BIG defeat where the losses were minimized. This is of significance because of the debate over withdrawal from Iraq.
Retreat/withdrawal is one of the most difficult maneuvers to conduct during wartime. Usually, it is performed under tremendous pressure with the threat of total destruction hanging over that unfortunate enough to be caught up in one. Sometimes, it is a necessary move to save the units in an exposed position. In all cases, withdrawal is a defensive move. A counterattack may be planned, with additional units freed up by the withdrawal. In any case, it is basically a defensive move. The current debate in Iraq is basically over the strategic necessity of being on the offensive or defensive.
People who believe that the war against terrorism should basically be a defensive war favor a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This line of thought is that no military solution is available, and that the first line of defense should be civil force, such as the police. The solution is political, so the primary offensive effort should be in the political arena. A Cold War strategy with the main effort in keeping the violence level down will allow for moderation to gain ground and bring the extremists to heel. Treat them like the criminals that they are.
I can’t think of any war that was won by playing defense. Many wars were lost because the side that ultimately lost could not assume the offensive. Basically through lack of strength they were forced into a final defensive position and could not attack to get themselves out. Most of the wars that ended with one side victorious over the other ended with the winning side launching major, successful attacks. The major point here is that in war, the winning side is generally the side that is attacking. Retreats and withdrawals can become necessary, but generally should be avoided. If you occupy an important position that your enemy is attacking to get you out of, then it generally is in your best interest to hold that position if possible without prohibitive losses. The U.S. is not undergoing anything like prohibitive losses in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is not a large war. By comparison to other major wars the U.S. has been involved in, Iraq is not on the list. It will take more than 50 years at the current rate in Iraq to equal the casualties that we have lost in just a few years in other conflicts. (We have lost these many in a day, several times in our history) The U.S. has the strategic initiative in Iraq. We chose the battleground. The desert is one of the best environments on earth for a conventional force like our military to do battle in. The enemy may be able to attack us, but they are not capable of wiping us out. The best they can do is pin-prick. Classic guerrilla warfare. In guerrilla warfare, it is generally to the conventional army’s advantage to have additional combat, not less.
Moral in the armed forces is surprisingly high. Re-enlistment is a major indicator of moral and this important figure is relatively high, particularly considering that we are involved in a shooting war. I do not blame anyone who is not interested in a military career when an active war is being fought. Particularly a war against irregular forces. Conventional forces tend to have low moral when fighting these types of wars, for a number of reasons.
Once again, this is not the case with the U.S. armed forces and our involvement in the war in Iraq.
Once again, wartime news reporting misses out on many of the fundamentals of warfare. Looking at warfare through a political lens can handicap even the most informed person.
Winston Churchill once said that wars are not won by evacuations. The evuaction of Dunkirk had just been completed, saving a third of a million men. This allowed the manpower to be re-equipped and re-deployed to other areas of importance. This in no way can be considered a victory. It was a BIG defeat where the losses were minimized. This is of significance because of the debate over withdrawal from Iraq.
Retreat/withdrawal is one of the most difficult maneuvers to conduct during wartime. Usually, it is performed under tremendous pressure with the threat of total destruction hanging over that unfortunate enough to be caught up in one. Sometimes, it is a necessary move to save the units in an exposed position. In all cases, withdrawal is a defensive move. A counterattack may be planned, with additional units freed up by the withdrawal. In any case, it is basically a defensive move. The current debate in Iraq is basically over the strategic necessity of being on the offensive or defensive.
People who believe that the war against terrorism should basically be a defensive war favor a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This line of thought is that no military solution is available, and that the first line of defense should be civil force, such as the police. The solution is political, so the primary offensive effort should be in the political arena. A Cold War strategy with the main effort in keeping the violence level down will allow for moderation to gain ground and bring the extremists to heel. Treat them like the criminals that they are.
I can’t think of any war that was won by playing defense. Many wars were lost because the side that ultimately lost could not assume the offensive. Basically through lack of strength they were forced into a final defensive position and could not attack to get themselves out. Most of the wars that ended with one side victorious over the other ended with the winning side launching major, successful attacks. The major point here is that in war, the winning side is generally the side that is attacking. Retreats and withdrawals can become necessary, but generally should be avoided. If you occupy an important position that your enemy is attacking to get you out of, then it generally is in your best interest to hold that position if possible without prohibitive losses. The U.S. is not undergoing anything like prohibitive losses in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is not a large war. By comparison to other major wars the U.S. has been involved in, Iraq is not on the list. It will take more than 50 years at the current rate in Iraq to equal the casualties that we have lost in just a few years in other conflicts. (We have lost these many in a day, several times in our history) The U.S. has the strategic initiative in Iraq. We chose the battleground. The desert is one of the best environments on earth for a conventional force like our military to do battle in. The enemy may be able to attack us, but they are not capable of wiping us out. The best they can do is pin-prick. Classic guerrilla warfare. In guerrilla warfare, it is generally to the conventional army’s advantage to have additional combat, not less.
Moral in the armed forces is surprisingly high. Re-enlistment is a major indicator of moral and this important figure is relatively high, particularly considering that we are involved in a shooting war. I do not blame anyone who is not interested in a military career when an active war is being fought. Particularly a war against irregular forces. Conventional forces tend to have low moral when fighting these types of wars, for a number of reasons.
Once again, this is not the case with the U.S. armed forces and our involvement in the war in Iraq.
Once again, wartime news reporting misses out on many of the fundamentals of warfare. Looking at warfare through a political lens can handicap even the most informed person.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Koran
The Koran is basically a group of phrases. The Koran is organized from the smallest phrases to the largest. The Prophet Mohammed lived from around 570 AD until 632 AD and spoke most of the content of the Koran. Since that time, Islamic legal rulings (jurisprudence) has grown around the Koran, in a similar way that U.S. law has grown around the Constitution. Islamic law has been the basis for law in many parts of the Middle East for 1400 years. Islamic scholars have argued over the centuries over which laws are ‘authentic’ and which have been added since 632 AD. ‘Authentic’ means that Mohammed actually spoke the words.
Some of the phrases are considered ‘authentic’ but still can be interpreted in multiple ways. A big part of this problem is because the meaning of words in Arabic is somewhat dependent upon pronunciation. In this way, it is similar to how Chinese words are also dependent upon how the word is spoken. This is the problem with the phrase that describes under what conditions that you may beat your wife. How some of the critical words were spoken can determine if you are to turn away, or actually strike a blow.
Islamic Jurisprudence has helped clarify many of these issues. As desirable as this may seem, we still face many serious problems. As you can tell from this discussion, Islam is not just a religion. Islam is a legal system on top of religion, which is on top of a governmental system. Many of the laws specified in the Koran deal with subjects that involve foreign policy. When to wage war and enter treaties, for example. It also has built in systems to ensure that Islam grows. The Koran has situations where taxes are to be imposed upon infidels.
Many of the problems that we face in Iraq and the Middle East have origins in the Koran and Islamic law. The current U.S. government realizes that many of the laws in ‘authentic’ Islam are hostile to our laws and those of the West. Many of the issues are worth fighting and risking your life for. (Or against) This is why I keep bringing them up. Please note that my efforts are not complete. The # 1 rule of warfare is to know thy enemy. The suicide attackers are all Muslim. It will only help to know what motivates and inspires them.
Some of the phrases are considered ‘authentic’ but still can be interpreted in multiple ways. A big part of this problem is because the meaning of words in Arabic is somewhat dependent upon pronunciation. In this way, it is similar to how Chinese words are also dependent upon how the word is spoken. This is the problem with the phrase that describes under what conditions that you may beat your wife. How some of the critical words were spoken can determine if you are to turn away, or actually strike a blow.
Islamic Jurisprudence has helped clarify many of these issues. As desirable as this may seem, we still face many serious problems. As you can tell from this discussion, Islam is not just a religion. Islam is a legal system on top of religion, which is on top of a governmental system. Many of the laws specified in the Koran deal with subjects that involve foreign policy. When to wage war and enter treaties, for example. It also has built in systems to ensure that Islam grows. The Koran has situations where taxes are to be imposed upon infidels.
Many of the problems that we face in Iraq and the Middle East have origins in the Koran and Islamic law. The current U.S. government realizes that many of the laws in ‘authentic’ Islam are hostile to our laws and those of the West. Many of the issues are worth fighting and risking your life for. (Or against) This is why I keep bringing them up. Please note that my efforts are not complete. The # 1 rule of warfare is to know thy enemy. The suicide attackers are all Muslim. It will only help to know what motivates and inspires them.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Iraq government not being pressured enough
One view is that the Iraqi government is not meeting enough political consensus to survive. That lack of progress is enough to be the final straw for U.S. staying in Iraq. The pressure of our withdrawing will enable the Iraqi government to get past it’s bickering and solve it’s most pressing political problems.
Yea, like the Iraqi government is not being pressured enough already? None of the leaders in the U.S. is risking their life in any way, shape or form like the leaders in Iraq. If we leave, they know what their fate is. They are hoping to protect their families, an unlikely prospect in many cases.
Yea, like the Iraqi government is not being pressured enough already? None of the leaders in the U.S. is risking their life in any way, shape or form like the leaders in Iraq. If we leave, they know what their fate is. They are hoping to protect their families, an unlikely prospect in many cases.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Islam and paganism
‘True’ Islam views the world as having begun in 610 AD when Mohammed began speaking God’s word. Anything before this period was pagan, barbaric and idolatrous. This is why the Tailban destroyed those Buddhist statues. This is why in the eyes of some Islamic followers; the Egyptian pyramids should be destroyed. Anything from early Rome or Greece should likewise be eliminated. Christianity and Judaism are pagan religions because they are too early. The Koran is the final word of God. It supersedes all before and after. This is on top of the issues in the last post as being worthy of risking your life over.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Some of the root causes for war in Iraq
Studying warfare for a long time has helped me to realize that some things are worth fighting and dying for. Many times the excuses used to start wars hide the real reasons and not all the time for the worse. FDR definitely antagonized Japan into getting the United States directly involved in WW II. The manipulation for U.S. entry into WW I was less obvious, but we also needed to be directly involved on the allied side. The U.S. Civil War was worth fighting. Getting rid of slavery was worth it. Today we can find a number of issues that are on this level.
The political solution for issues like ending slavery is open warfare. Many times, this is the ONLY solution. People will kill and fight to the death for and against issues like slavery. The injustice in slavery alone is worth the risk of losing your life in fighting it. Many of these types of issues are present within Islam. Like slavery within the South prior to the U.S. civil war, these issues have been embedded into the very culture.
For the past 1400 years, married women who were convicted of adultery have been stoned to death. Riots occurred in Nigeria in the summer of 2006 because this was not enforced. (Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 50% non-Muslim – the non-Muslim side refusing to enforce.)
Leaving Islam being punished by death has been strictly enforced over the centuries. This is one of the original reasons the Shiite and Sunni are at odds with each other. They differed around the year 690AD over who was the true leader of Islam. Naturally, as time went on, they differed in whom were the leaders who followed him. This disagreement makes the other side Apostates. They must have left Islam to believe this. The hate comes after generations of disagreement, prejudice and discrimination. This is part of the civil war that we are participating in with our presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The civil war is between those who want to follow true Islam and those who do not. The rules listed here are for the most part, considered to be ‘authentic’ by Muslim scholars. They must be followed to be an observant Muslim. Modern thinking makes the choice to ignore them really obvious, but the cultural change of thinking requires too much change at once. People will fight this type of change, particularly on this scale, with violence every time. Organized violence.
We keep hearing about the crusades. (1100 AD to 1300 AD – Nine ‘official’ in all. The last four were not with the support of the church in Rome.) What is not discussed is that the crusades were a brief, ineffective response to Jihad in the first place. Islam began in the Saudi peninsula. The Muslim presence in the Holy Land began with the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. Once land becomes Muslim controlled; it can rarely if ever, revert back to being non-Muslim. (Attempting to do so triggers a worldwide obligation to kill ‘occupiers’.)
The concept of Jihad has got to change, significantly. "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight is the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis)
Islam can wage war against Infidels, Apostates, Rebels and bandits. This means to kill. The first two qualify for Jihad. In the case of Jihad, you may seize property. (Until the rise of the nation-state in the past few hundred years, it had been common practice to pay your army by allowing them to seize booty.) Muslims are not supposed to do this for personal gain. Muslims will tell us that this is upheld. (Being strict, they probably obtain better results than what we would) However, they are no more able to stop human nature than we are. History is overflowing with examples of seizing property for personal gain. You can’t tell me Muslims are any less human that the rest of us. Jihad can be seen as a contributing factor in the constant Arab-Israeli wars. Along with war with the rest of the world for the past 1400 years. (The house of war)
" In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. )
Another view that must change.
Islamic electoral policy of ‘One man (Men only) one vote, once’. One Islam is selected; there is no going back. No more voting. Islam is a one-way street. The penalty for leaving is death. This is an ‘authentic’ law and has been strictly enforced for more than 1400 years. This must also change.
I read a supporter of Islam saying that women have the choice of becoming married, or becoming public property. He says the limits are in place to ‘protect the modesty of women’. I have avoided talking about the gender inequalities within Islam, because my focus is warfare. However, the slavery issue can be compared somewhat to the gender inequalities present within Islam.
Two women testimony equals one man. The next step is no amount of women testimony equals a single man’s. It is insulting for many men in this culture to be treated as or thought of as an equal with any woman. Much in the same way that ex-slaves were thought of in the United States during the 2nd half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. (Unfortunately, many people still do)
Beat your wife. OK, this is being debated because the phrase can be read multiple ways. The fact that this argument is so widespread indicates that millions of men do believe that this is the correct way to interpret this law. If this is a person who you care about, what about all those who you do not? I would expect improper treatment, as a general rule. It is your right, your destiny. Sounds like the Romans.
Honor killings. Makes sense that if you can kill infidels, Apostates, Rebels, and Bandits that you can kill family members who are ‘disloyal’. Women are treated much like property. It is necessary to sell or kill one of them from time to time. This is why I compare it to slavery so often. In the culture of Japan, honor is VERY important. In Japan, you had to kill yourself if you were dishonored. In Honor killings, they kill you when they consider you to have brought them dishonor. Very convenient.
These ‘authentic’ laws must not be enforced from this date forward. To do otherwise is just putting the issue off until it comes after you. It is generally better to face the music earlier rather than later. Besides, we have a vested interest in who wins the civil war. The issue for us as outsiders is, will these ‘authentic’ Islamic laws continue to be enforced? It is worth risking your life to resolve these issues in a way that the rest of the world can accept. When I say ‘the rest of the world’, I am referring to the house of war.
" In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. ) Another view that must change.
We also have 1400 years of Islamic law that states that occupation of Muslim land by infidels triggers a worldwide obligation to kill the occupiers. What triggered the ‘occupation’ in the first place is immaterial. This must change.
It sill surprises me that the war itself is this small. No wonder a Civil war is going on in Iraq and throughout the Islamic world. It is worth the loss of life we are experiencing in Iraq to see that the side that agrees with us on most of these issues wins the war.
Part of Islam is peaceful. Much of Islam is the most hostile religion that I have ever studied. Islam must be stripped of 75% of its ‘authentic’ law in order to be acceptable with anyone who shares the values that we hold in the ‘West’. This places anyone who agrees with our extreme liberal version of Islam in the category of apostate. (Punishable by death.) Fighting this qualifies as Jihad. As Bernard Lewis points out, "For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. " (P. 31)
1804, the Barbary pirates seized at least one United States ship, demanding Tribute. What was the issue? The question from our point of view was freedom of the seas. The cry went out, "Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!". The pirates issue was infidel ships passing through Muslim waters. We owed them payment. The poll tax, or Tribute. We fought a war to resolve only this one issue. The Civil War in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world is all about these issues. At least in our own American civil war, the culture of the North and South did not differ as much as the culture of Islam and the rest of the world. This is one of the reasons that help to make this war so large.
The political solution for issues like ending slavery is open warfare. Many times, this is the ONLY solution. People will kill and fight to the death for and against issues like slavery. The injustice in slavery alone is worth the risk of losing your life in fighting it. Many of these types of issues are present within Islam. Like slavery within the South prior to the U.S. civil war, these issues have been embedded into the very culture.
For the past 1400 years, married women who were convicted of adultery have been stoned to death. Riots occurred in Nigeria in the summer of 2006 because this was not enforced. (Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 50% non-Muslim – the non-Muslim side refusing to enforce.)
Leaving Islam being punished by death has been strictly enforced over the centuries. This is one of the original reasons the Shiite and Sunni are at odds with each other. They differed around the year 690AD over who was the true leader of Islam. Naturally, as time went on, they differed in whom were the leaders who followed him. This disagreement makes the other side Apostates. They must have left Islam to believe this. The hate comes after generations of disagreement, prejudice and discrimination. This is part of the civil war that we are participating in with our presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The civil war is between those who want to follow true Islam and those who do not. The rules listed here are for the most part, considered to be ‘authentic’ by Muslim scholars. They must be followed to be an observant Muslim. Modern thinking makes the choice to ignore them really obvious, but the cultural change of thinking requires too much change at once. People will fight this type of change, particularly on this scale, with violence every time. Organized violence.
We keep hearing about the crusades. (1100 AD to 1300 AD – Nine ‘official’ in all. The last four were not with the support of the church in Rome.) What is not discussed is that the crusades were a brief, ineffective response to Jihad in the first place. Islam began in the Saudi peninsula. The Muslim presence in the Holy Land began with the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. Once land becomes Muslim controlled; it can rarely if ever, revert back to being non-Muslim. (Attempting to do so triggers a worldwide obligation to kill ‘occupiers’.)
The concept of Jihad has got to change, significantly. "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight is the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis)
Islam can wage war against Infidels, Apostates, Rebels and bandits. This means to kill. The first two qualify for Jihad. In the case of Jihad, you may seize property. (Until the rise of the nation-state in the past few hundred years, it had been common practice to pay your army by allowing them to seize booty.) Muslims are not supposed to do this for personal gain. Muslims will tell us that this is upheld. (Being strict, they probably obtain better results than what we would) However, they are no more able to stop human nature than we are. History is overflowing with examples of seizing property for personal gain. You can’t tell me Muslims are any less human that the rest of us. Jihad can be seen as a contributing factor in the constant Arab-Israeli wars. Along with war with the rest of the world for the past 1400 years. (The house of war)
" In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. )
Another view that must change.
Islamic electoral policy of ‘One man (Men only) one vote, once’. One Islam is selected; there is no going back. No more voting. Islam is a one-way street. The penalty for leaving is death. This is an ‘authentic’ law and has been strictly enforced for more than 1400 years. This must also change.
I read a supporter of Islam saying that women have the choice of becoming married, or becoming public property. He says the limits are in place to ‘protect the modesty of women’. I have avoided talking about the gender inequalities within Islam, because my focus is warfare. However, the slavery issue can be compared somewhat to the gender inequalities present within Islam.
Two women testimony equals one man. The next step is no amount of women testimony equals a single man’s. It is insulting for many men in this culture to be treated as or thought of as an equal with any woman. Much in the same way that ex-slaves were thought of in the United States during the 2nd half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. (Unfortunately, many people still do)
Beat your wife. OK, this is being debated because the phrase can be read multiple ways. The fact that this argument is so widespread indicates that millions of men do believe that this is the correct way to interpret this law. If this is a person who you care about, what about all those who you do not? I would expect improper treatment, as a general rule. It is your right, your destiny. Sounds like the Romans.
Honor killings. Makes sense that if you can kill infidels, Apostates, Rebels, and Bandits that you can kill family members who are ‘disloyal’. Women are treated much like property. It is necessary to sell or kill one of them from time to time. This is why I compare it to slavery so often. In the culture of Japan, honor is VERY important. In Japan, you had to kill yourself if you were dishonored. In Honor killings, they kill you when they consider you to have brought them dishonor. Very convenient.
These ‘authentic’ laws must not be enforced from this date forward. To do otherwise is just putting the issue off until it comes after you. It is generally better to face the music earlier rather than later. Besides, we have a vested interest in who wins the civil war. The issue for us as outsiders is, will these ‘authentic’ Islamic laws continue to be enforced? It is worth risking your life to resolve these issues in a way that the rest of the world can accept. When I say ‘the rest of the world’, I am referring to the house of war.
" In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. ) Another view that must change.
We also have 1400 years of Islamic law that states that occupation of Muslim land by infidels triggers a worldwide obligation to kill the occupiers. What triggered the ‘occupation’ in the first place is immaterial. This must change.
It sill surprises me that the war itself is this small. No wonder a Civil war is going on in Iraq and throughout the Islamic world. It is worth the loss of life we are experiencing in Iraq to see that the side that agrees with us on most of these issues wins the war.
Part of Islam is peaceful. Much of Islam is the most hostile religion that I have ever studied. Islam must be stripped of 75% of its ‘authentic’ law in order to be acceptable with anyone who shares the values that we hold in the ‘West’. This places anyone who agrees with our extreme liberal version of Islam in the category of apostate. (Punishable by death.) Fighting this qualifies as Jihad. As Bernard Lewis points out, "For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. " (P. 31)
1804, the Barbary pirates seized at least one United States ship, demanding Tribute. What was the issue? The question from our point of view was freedom of the seas. The cry went out, "Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!". The pirates issue was infidel ships passing through Muslim waters. We owed them payment. The poll tax, or Tribute. We fought a war to resolve only this one issue. The Civil War in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world is all about these issues. At least in our own American civil war, the culture of the North and South did not differ as much as the culture of Islam and the rest of the world. This is one of the reasons that help to make this war so large.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
War on terror
Japan resorted to the organized suicide attack once the U.S. penetrated its inner defense zone. This gave the Japanese military a huge boost in effectiveness. They were able to hit our ships again, when masses of conventional aircraft launching conventional attacks had been slaughtered and failed. Many Japanese believed that this would tip the war back in Japan's favor. It can be easily argued that nuclear weapons put an end to it.
The formation of Israel and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq has broken into the inner ring of Islam. This land is among the most important land in Muslim control. Conventional warfare has been unable to defeat Israel. A worldwide obligation to kill the occupiers has been in effect for a long time now. Unable to stop the infidel advance, Islam has adopted the same response that Japan had turned to. Repeated suicide attack is one of Islam’s last, greatest weapons.
Changing the culture that Islam is married to will be a long-term process. Surprisingly, war tends to speed up these types of changes. Many of the issues involved are worth risking your life over, so maybe this is a necessary evil. Time is not on our side. Sooner or later a terrorist organization will obtain and deploy an effective weapon of mass destruction.
This war is far from being over, with or without a full withdrawal from Iraq.
The formation of Israel and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq has broken into the inner ring of Islam. This land is among the most important land in Muslim control. Conventional warfare has been unable to defeat Israel. A worldwide obligation to kill the occupiers has been in effect for a long time now. Unable to stop the infidel advance, Islam has adopted the same response that Japan had turned to. Repeated suicide attack is one of Islam’s last, greatest weapons.
Changing the culture that Islam is married to will be a long-term process. Surprisingly, war tends to speed up these types of changes. Many of the issues involved are worth risking your life over, so maybe this is a necessary evil. Time is not on our side. Sooner or later a terrorist organization will obtain and deploy an effective weapon of mass destruction.
This war is far from being over, with or without a full withdrawal from Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
