Category Archives: Iraq

Refusing To Live With Radical Islam

From the Creeping Sharia sector:

FAREED ZAKARIAH IS AT IT AGAIN. Remember him? The Muslim editor of Newsweek who wrote a book entitled The Post-American World. The same book Barack Obama was reading during the U.S. presidential election, which has a chapter entitled “A Non-Western World”, and mentions Obama on page 255. The same Fareed Zakaria who declared the USA #2 in a separate Newsweek story.

We surmised Obama might be modeling some of his foreign policy strategies on Zakaria’s writings, particularly his approach to Iran—see our previous post Obama planning post American world to compare Zakaria’s words on Iran to Obama’s. With the closing of Gitmo, the failure to address the kidnapping of a U.S. U.N. worker in Pakistan, and the chumminess towards soon-to-be nuclear power Iran, and Hamas may bear that out.

In Fareed Zakaria’s latest, Learning to Live With Radical Islam, he subtitles his article: “We don’t have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it’s time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists.”

If Zakaria means that all Muslims are Islamists, he should first prove that all Islamists (i.e., Muslims) are treated as potential terrorists, then we can talk. If he means that all “radical” Muslims are Islamists, then why wouldn’t “we” treat all “Islamists” as potential terrorists? Furthermore, if Zakaria could conclusively define radical Islam that would be extremely helpful. Is radical Islam based on a different version of the Quran or other Islamic texts? A different Mohammid? A different Allah? A different jihad than Mohammad waged?

Any article detailing how “we” should learn to live with radical Islam, rather than defeat it, that begins with an opening paragraph describing how a region of Pakistan is quiet once again because the Taliban took over and implemented sharia law simply doesn’t bode well for anyone. He fails to mention that the Taliban waged a war for the Swat valley and “beheaded opponents, torched girls schools and terrorized the police to gain control of much of the one-time tourist haven”.

Keep in mind however that Fareed Zakaria routinely minimizes the Islamic terrorism threat, al-Qaeda, the odds of being a victim of terrorism, and he does it here again claiming that the Taliban aren’t so bad after all because Fareed says most “Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally.” Got that? “Not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world—in fact, most do not.” See world, nothing to worry about here, just a tiny minority of Islamists want to kill us.

Fareed overlooks many a significant point in his article. One, even if it is true that only a small group of Muslims have global jihadist ambitions like al Qaeda, that’s all it takes. Just one group. Just one nuke. Look what 19 Muslims did on 9/11. Maybe Muslims should learn to live with the fact that as long as ANY Islamists (defined any way you want) have global jihadist ambitions that there will be significant consequences. Two, Fareed, given the resources and the opportunity, how quickly would the local jihadis that behead folks, burn girls schools, and adhere to the strictest of sharia law, take their local jihad global? Three, wasn’t Muhammid’s ambition to create a global khillafah or caliphate? Isn’t that the ultimate goal of Islam? For all to submit to Allah’s will?

There are interesting points made in the article but most are glossy at best. He writes about Iraq and claims that General Petraeus’ squelching of a massive insurgency is an example of accepting Islamism. What he fails to mention is the presence, and increase in, U.S. troops that executed the counter-insurgency strategy and made it work.

Zakaria does state that “Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas.” If that’s all he meant, why the cover story in Arabic and the statement ‘how to live with it’? Later in the same paragraph Zakaria takes it on his own to wildly distort reality, reminiscent of Obama’s air raiding villages comment, he states dumping resources (i.e., cash) on the problem rather than, “simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle.” He also fails to mention that it was Islamism that brought the struggle to the U.S., not the other way around.

He concludes:

We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried…people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That’s the most powerful weapon of all.

Fair enough. Yet once people are enslaved to sharia law, weary or not, they are not permitted to “find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license.” Hence, we should not be giving Islamists hope and proposing how we should learn to live with their “radical Islam”, rather we should be proposing how to end it and prevent it from infiltrating our institutions and way of life.

We did not choose to live with Nazism, communism, or fascism, nor should we surrender to and live with Islamism.

Read it all at Newsweek.

Keeping Strong On Defense

islamist101208171IN THOSE FOGGY BOTTOM DAYS OF 2006, among other things, the US Senate debated an amendment—Vote 177—that commended the government of Iraq for affirming its position of not granting amnesty to terrorists who attack U.S. armed forces.

This occurred at a time when the situation in Iraq was bleak and terrorist activity high, in the year prior to the onset of the “surge” and the new counterinsurgency strategy successfully executed by General Petraeus. For the Iraqi government, during this time, to affirm its position that terrorists who attack U.S. armed forces should not be granted amnesty, was a commendable act of courage by Iraqi leaders. This courage deserved our support. John McCain voted FOR this amendment. Barack Obama voted AGAINST this amendment, as did his running mate, Joe Biden.

I know this territory has been covered, but here is another fine conundrum of this election cycle. Obama’s entire campaign is based upon Americans trusting him to do things he has never in his life done.

Lower taxes—never done it, but he says he will;

Reform government—never done it, but he says he will;

Work in a bipartisan manner—never done it, but he says he will;

Keep money out of politics—never done it, but he says he will;

Display better judgement—never done it, but he says he will; and the phat-ass kicker of all campaign promises Obama has made—transcend race—absolutely never done it, but he says he will. Maybe someone should ask if this is what is meant by keeping strong on national defense.

Baghdad Walls Coming Down

American Soldiers

BAGHDAD—Market by market, square by square, the walls are beginning to come down. The miles of hulking blast walls, ugly but effective, were installed as a central feature of the surge of American troops to stop neighbors from killing one another. “They protected against car bombs and drive-by attacks,” said Adnan, 39, a vegetable seller in the once violent neighborhood of Dora, who argues that the walls now block the markets and the commerce that Baghdad needs to thrive. “Now it is safe.” The slow dismantling of the concrete walls is the most visible sign of a fundamental change here in the Iraqi capital. The American surge strategy, which increased the number of United States troops and contributed to stability here, is drawing to a close. And a transition is under way to the almost inevitable American drawdown in 2009.

There are now more than 148,000 United States troops in Iraq, down from the peak of around 170,000 a year ago, and President Bush has already accepted the military’s recommendation to remove 8,000 more by February.

How long will this peace last? And when will Barack Obama and his crew of Islamic appeasers (which includes most of the current Western leadership) accept a few facts? Not long and only when the jihadists pull back the mask, but that's not news either.

Read the entire New York Times piece HERE, if you like your global politics served up like fairy dust on ritz crackers. Can anyone notice Iran is still watching, waiting, and priming their pumps? But that's okay. This war will get much larger before it gets smaller. That much we know, we who do not suck wind in the Great Halls of Political Correctness...

Remembering The Battlefield Agenda

Battlefield Agenda
Battlefield Agenda of Politicians
"Some of us are wearing combat boots in a flip flop world..."

IT SEEMS TO ME that since the United States, with at least one hand tied behind its back in politically correct restraints, is fighting an agitating people that lives and thinks in 7th century terms, US leadership needs to come to a reckoning that its forces need and should fight like it is still the 7th century. Or perhaps they might ask themselves how the Roman Empire would have handled this strategic flummoxing that Afghanistan and Iraq have been? Perhaps someone in high command should ponder the question of how might the Babylonians have handled these invasions, retaliatory or otherwise? These ancient powers would have broken the countries up into little manageable pieces. They would have wiped out any town that had insurgency problems.

Until the West is willing to take the extreme measures that are required to reach the objective—defeating unconditionally the terrorist mindset—it must either leave or embrace what the military situation requires. Of course, the West will not wipe out villages. The PR would cause pandemonium within our own cultures, peacelovers that we are. And the West would certainly lose access to oil imports from unsympathetic nations and their allies.

So since the West can't win under these terms, it should get the hell out. Forget this nation-building agenda. Other Muslim countries don't give a damn about Muslims killing Muslims, only about the infidels killing Muslims. Set up a bloody puppet regime in Afghanistan and Iraq to restore temporary order, and leave, saving our own people much valuable human resources and treasure, leaving these impossibly backward tribes to hash out their own fates the only way they seem prepared to accept—under the brutality of increasingly radicalizing Islamic despots.

When a military entity enters into war it enters to win, not play political games or try to assuage the enemy's hurt feelings or those of the spineless here at home. WWII was the last war the United States has entered where we were in it to win it. Since then every skirmish American troops have been put on the line has been a political endeavor. Primarily, this strategy has been the result of the liberal agenda which maintains the fantasy that all ideologies and cultural policies are equal, except when America itself can be blamed.

There hasn't been much discussion, almost nothing in fact, concerning the details of the what and the why of this whole war crisis America finds itself funding way beyond its means. The candidates speak of some nebulous threat without putting the pigment and the masterful stroke into the line drawing. In fact, this same understatement of facts and passions seems to be the same sorry course of much of the political and battlefield agenda being batted back and forth by the two major candidates, much to the chagrin of the American people. Don't We The People deserve better?

Qadaffi Warns Iran

Libyan Dictator Muammar el-Qadaffi

JUST WHEN I'd begun to think the whole world had gone flipping mad with regard to realities on the ground, here's a splash of fresh water across the face from a former wild child on the world stage. It's about time.

It has been reported this week that the somewhat reformed Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has suggested that Iran risks the same fate as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its protracted confrontation with the West over its nuclear program and is too weak to meet the challenges it faces alone.

“What Iran is doing is pure vanity,” Colonel Qaddafi said during a visit to Tunisia. “If a decision is taken against Iran, it will suffer the same fate as Iraq. Iran is no stronger than Iraq and will be unable to resist.”

He was referring to the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, which the Bush administration said was intended to rid Iraq of illicit weapons. Colonel Qaddafi, whose relations with the West improved when Libya scrapped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, said countries that chose isolation were doomed to fail.

Note that this former wild child is not rushing to join forces with Iran, either.

Parsing Obamaspeak On Middle East

PMK is the nom de guerre. And here are a few comments he posted recently at Jihad Watch concerning candidate Barack Obama's most recent offerings with regard to the Iraqi situation (in italics):

President Barack Obama

NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY so many people swoon in Obama's presence. It IS his language! Pure Obamaspeak. He goes around and around in circles and he just makes people dizzy.

But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.

How do we "engage" people who believe it is their divine right to rule over us? You can't have "bottom up economic growth" without foreigners in the country. Muslims don't welcome you into their lands. You are always an outsider, an infidel, a sinner. Your very presence offends them because you don't acknowledge their supremacy or their god. So who's vilifying whom? A tiny fraction of the Islamic world is still a lot of people.

How come the Asian downturn didn't turn the Japanese into terrorists? What about China?

And it is very hard, given the history of that region and the sense of grievance on both sides, to step back and say, let's be practical and figure out what works. But I think that's what the people of Israel and the people in the West Bank and Gaza are desperate for, is just some practical, commonsense approaches that would result in them feeling safe, secure and able to live their lives and educate their children.

That's a little hard to believe given that, even before Hamas was elected, the Palestinians followed Yasser Arafat and gladly responded to a genuine peace process with nothing but an intifada. Peace scares them.

Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.

So what is Obama's definition of "entirely"? You either leave the field entirely or you maintain bases in Iraq, don't you?

I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we're making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces.

A residual force—for how long? How do you do that without bases from which to operate?

I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century’s conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal—replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America and conquering the world.Mitt Romney

No Break On Fuel Costs For Military

Woman In Burqa

NASHINGTON—Military units fighting in Iraq and elsewhere will see another hike in fuel costs next week. The cost increase will be the second time the Defense Department has had to raise rates in the middle of the budget year because of soaring oil prices. On July 1, the cost for refined fuel will jump from $127.68 a barrel to $170.94. That is an astounding 34 percent jump in just six months and more than double what was being paid on behalf of the troops three years ago. The new costs translate to about $4.07 a gallon for jet fuel and $4.70 a gallon for diesel. A Pentagon spokesman said the price increase is needed to cover an anticipated $1.2 billion rise in fuel costs in the next three months. He said it will not affect ongoing military operations, but could affect daily support activities

This is simply outrageous, lacking what left of Western military intelligence. The US needs to leave Iraq, bill the Saudis for protection and the Iraqis for reconstruction, or both. This continued "white hat" approach is nothing less than a pernicious failure. Why does the US continue to waste blood and treasure on the Great White Way. Forget about it, already. Let them play out their roles, but spend all that energy and muscle here bolstering up the UNited States. Then we could lick anyone, as the old saying goes...teach 'em a few things afterward, too.