Happy Independence Day Israel

Sixty-three years ago today, Israel was brought to fruition by the Zionist movement when David Ben-Gurion, acting on behalf of the Jewish Agency, declared Israel's independence. The following day, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq attacked the nascent, tiny country - its very existence a spike in the heart of Islamic triumphalism. It is amazing to me that Israel still stands today. It does so as the ancestral homeland of Judaism, as the only successful democracy in the Middle East, and as a bulwark against the craven, genocidal animals who embrace Wahhabi/Salafi and Khomeinist Islam. It does so despite the fact that Jews were stateless and persecuted throughout the world for virtually all of the prior two millennia.

And despite this history, Jews have not merely survived, they have thrived, much to the benefit of the world. Members of the Jewish faith have made contributions to bettering humanity on a scale vastly outweighing their numbers.

I would recommend that you visit Seraphic Secret to see his post on Israel's Independence Day. He relies on the Elder of Ziyon to celebrate this day by explaining Zionism in anecdotal form.

Happy Independence Day, Israel. May you be celebrating this day until the end of time.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World

The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. . . .

President Barack Obama, Cairo Address, 4 June 2009

What we needed from the leader of the free world was honesty with both the Muslim world and with us. What we were treated to instead were apologetics and dissimulation about the existential problems facing the Muslim world. One, Obama needed to honestly identify the source of violence arising out of Islam. He did not. Two, there is a war raging for the heart and soul of Islam. It is a war between those who would see their religion evolve and those who wish to see it stay static in the tribal dogma of 7th century Arabia and the 12th century philosophy of ibn Tamiyah. Obama needed to acknowledge this war of ideas and he needed to show support for the reformers. He did neither.

Obama claimed that "violent extremists" from a "small minority" of Muslims are at the heart of violence arising out of the Islamic world. That is a gross distortion of the truth and an incredibly dangerous one - if one cannot identify the source of violence, then one cannot act to stop it.

The engines of Muslim violence are the dogma of Wahhabi/Salafi Islam and its variants, including Khomeinist Shia'ism:

Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, [has been] exported from Saudi Arabia to all four corners of the world with billions in petrodollars to become the dominant form of Islam in the West, [and is vying to replace all other forms of Sunni Islam in the Muslim world]. According to Dr. Tawfiq Hamid, a former Salafi terrorist and member of Ayman al Zawahiri’s Jamaah Islamiyah, their faith in the medieval dogma of Wahhabi / Salafi / Deobandi Islam is what drives their violence:

The goal of Salafi Islam is "complete Islamic dominance." Salafi dogma holds that the duty of every Muslim is to wage "jihad against non-Muslims and subdue them to Shari'a - the duty of every true Muslim . . . [It is] to engage in war against the infidels, the enemies of Allah.

And as Zuhdi Jasser explains, terrorism is far more than a mere anomaly as . . . [some are] suggesting:

[Citizens] need to understand that this is not a conflict against a tactic but rather a common ideology which utilizes a radical interpretation of Islam and is a natural off-shoot from political Islam.

NRO Interview of M. Zhudi Jasser

And then there is this warning from Tawfiq Hamdid, explaining why it is so important to identify the source of this evil, not just for the protection of the West, but equally for the protecton of Muslims:

The civilized world ought to recognize the immense danger that Salafi Islam poses; it must become informed, courageous and united if it is to protect both a generation of young Muslims and the rest of humanity from the disastrous consequences of this militant ideology.

Tawfiq Hamid. See also my posts here, here and here. Obama's refusal to face this issue head on and speak the truth to the Muslim world has a three fold effect. One, it gives cover to Wahhabism to continue its growing march free from criticism of its vile tenets, among which include that is morally permissible, if not required, to slaughter non-Muslims and to appropriate their property. Two, it demonstrates a complete lack of support for those who fight against this scourge in the Muslim world. And three, it allows Muslims to deny responsiblity for their plight and their failure to reform their religion.

As to the war of ideas raging in Islam today, it is a war being waged by the extremely powerful and well funded Salafi/Wahhabi sects and the Khomeinist variant of Shia'ism against the other sects of Islam and against individuals committed to reform of their religion. Among their number are Zuhdi Jasser, Tawfiq Hamid, Ibn Warraq, Dr. Taj Hargey and the Center for Islamic Pluralism. They war for the heart and soul of Islam. It is a war whose outcome will be every bit as important for the future of the world as was the outcome of World War II. And to remain neutral in this war would be no different than if the U.S. had remained neutral in the European theatre of World War II, allowing Hitler to conquer all of Europe. Yet Obama, with his refusal to even acknowledge this issue in his Cairo address, has chosen precisely that path.

One of the most recent salvos in that war of ideas came from inside the United Nations. Wahhabists and Khomeinists have been agitating for years to impose blasphemey laws on the West. The result of such laws would be to make it inevitable that Salafi and Khomeinist Islam would triumph in the war of ideas. It would mean that these deeply dangerous ideologies would be able to spread through the West hidden from criticism by West's own criminal laws. In August, 2008, the "Human Rights Council at the United Nations . . . banned any criticism regarding Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World." And now, the OIC is pushing U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," through the U.N. that would, if effectuated, have the West in fact adopt such blasphemy laws.

This challenge to freedom of speech world wide could not be any more insidious nor dangerous, both to us and the entire Muslim world. Yet Obama did not so much as mention it in his speech.

Obama, instead of addressing any of these issues head on in his Cairo address, did nothing more than restate the Wahhabi and Khomeinist propaganda - that Western modernity is at odds with Islam and that a good portion of Islam's problems arise out of the "colonialism" of "the West."

What Obama did was a a trick out of Psychology 101. It is a technique that he uses often. He articulates the complaints of his audience without judgment. This is effective because it leaves the audience with the belief that Obama understands their complaint and empathizes with it. But the downside of that technique is that, if it is not followed by some clearly articulated honesty, it simply reinforces in the audience that their complaints are valid. It is a superb technique for psychologists, mediators, and politicians campaigning for office. It is a dangerous tool indeed for a person charged with the responsibilities of leadership.

And instead of following his restatement with honesty, Obama followed with a recounting of Islamic achievements. They were many, and they were invaluable. They also occurred a millenium ago. What Obama needed to drive home was the honest and brutal truth - something akin to the following:

There was a time when Europeans, seeking enlightenment and learning, studied at the feet of Islamic scholars. It is a time long past but not forgotten, at least by those who seek to restore their lost Empire at any and all costs. Since its Golden Age during the Moorish Empire a millennium ago, Islamic history has been in an steady tailspin that has led to a culture of victimhood and death fueled by religious hatred, sectarian violence, centuries of isolation from Western enlightenment, and an overwhelming almost mystical desire to restore past glories. Today, the Arab world is constituted by a series of twenty-two failed states bereft, for the most part, of progressive leaders and unable to produce one single manufactured product that can compete on world markets. Far from being an enlightened civilization, it has become a cultural backwater replete with massive poverty, repressive governments, vast illiteracy, medieval laws, rising Islamist anger and a Gross Domestic Product less than that of . . . Spain. [It should not be that way. It need not be that way.]

Read the entire article.

The problem could not be any clearer. Nor could the solution. I wrote precisely on this topic on March 31, 2007 in response to the OIC's initial attack on Western freedom of speech. I repost that essay here:
____________________________________________________________

The reason we face the problem of radical Islam today is that, in its entire history, Islam has seen no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Period of Enlightenment. These titanic events in Western history led to the development of secular values that came out of, but were separate from, the Judeo-Christian religion that birthed them. And these events gradually took religion from the sphere of a government imposition and moved it into the realm of the individual and local community.

The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment were each developed through the process of critical thought - the questioning and challenging of religious ideals and dogma. It was this critical thought that allowed the West to seperate the wheat -- the belief in God and universal concepts of moral behavior -- from the chaff of religion – dogma that restricted development in all aspects of society: political, artistic, scientific, philosophical. Thus, today do our universities turn out the finest scientists, the finest writers, the finest mathematicians and astronomers, while the universities in Saudi Arabia primarily turn out Wahhabi clerics. And it is why the West leads the world in science and the arts while the morals police in Saudi Arabia hunt down sorcerers and the Saudi courts apply Wahhabi Sharia law to order the flogging of victims of gang rape.

There are seeds from which a Muslim Enlightenment could yet occur. They would require criticism and debate to take root. Yet these seeds are under mortal threat today from the growth of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam.

The seeds which would allow for an Enlightenment lie in Islam's earliest history. Year 1 to Muslims begins with Hijra, Mohammed’s emigration to Medina in 622 A.D. When Mohammed died, Islam was still largely confined to Arabia. It is important to note that, before Mohammed died, he left his followers with a concept most clearly stated in a hadith - an authenticated saying of Mohammed. That hadith provides that the ummah – the community of Muslims – can “never agree on an error.” Complimenting this in the Koran, it says “People, you order what is right, forbid what is wrong, and you believe in God.” (3:110)

These concepts, taken together, allow for the evolution of Islam. And in another critical development following Mohammed’s death, as Islam progressed, there came the concept of ijtihad (see here and here). Ijtihad is the practice of reasoning from the texts, the hadiths, the sunna and the works of scholars to determine what Islam should mean, what it should approve and disapprove. If there will ever be a moderation of Islam, it will come from those concepts of the hadith and the Koran mentioned above, and from the practice of ijtihad.

The remainder of Islam's history tells us why these seeds of an Enlightenment never took root. Following Mohammed’s death, Islam spread at a pace never before or since duplicated. Its rapid expansion – by the sword – continued almost unchecked for the next several hundred years. Actually, in this regard, for any Muslim to criticize the West as imperialistic is irony of the highest order. The West are pikers compared to the Islamic caliphates. Within 130 years following the Hijra, Arabic Muslims had conquered the Middle East, Turkey, all of North Africa, and the better part of Spain, and they were fighting battles inside France.

Through about 1100 A.D., Islamic society, led by the Arabs, far outshone the West in learning and technology. It was a far more enlightened society than what was to be found in Europe at the time. Indeed, at the turn of the first millenium, the premier city in the world was not London, Paris or Rome, but Baghdad. But, along with this vast expansion powered by the belief in Islamic destiny came the desire to control the precise nature of Islam by the Caliphs. At the end of the tenth century, the “gates of ijtihad” were ordered closed by the Caliphs and the Muslim philosophers cooperated. The concept of free reasoning fell from grace in Islam. This closing of the gates of ijtihad is credited by many scholars as the cause of the stagnation of Islam in succeeding centuries.

But there was much worse on the horizon. In the late 12th century came invasion by the Turks, followed closely by Ghengis Khan and the Mongol horde in the thirteenth century. For the Arabs, this was a catastrophe of titanic proportions. They were overrun, and it was the Turks, practitioners of Sufi Islam, not the Arabs, who emerged as the leadership of Islam. And into this time of turmoil was born Ibn Taymiya, the man whose philosophy and writings would be the foundation for Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Islam.

Taymiya started from the proposition that Islam was from God, and it was God’s intent that Islam should spread to the four corners of the earth. In this light, Taymiya saw the success of the Turk and Mongol conquers as a punishment from God because Arab Muslims had allowed Islam to be corrupted. His answer was to return to what he believed animated Islam at the time of Mohammed. He was puritanical and a literalist. The Islam he envisioned was one of absolute tenets – dogmatic and beyond questioning.

Fast forward to eighteenth century Arabia, where Ibn Wahhab was born. Wahhab embraced embraced the teachings of Taymiya and built upon them, arguing that any deviation therefrom was heretical and that the offender should be put to death. Wahhab promoted a triumphalist and imperialistic religion that saw anyone not in its membership as an enemy to be converted, conquered or killed. There has been little if any deviation from Wahhab's original dogma through to the modern day. Indeed, for example, one aspect of Wahhabi doctrine, taught in Saudi schools at least as recently as 2003, is that it is permissible to enslave “polytheists.” That comes from a Saudi textbook. If you are a Christian, by the way, you are a polytheist. Wahhabism is the soul of radical Islam. To go against any tenet of Wahhabi Islam is to conduct impermissible innovation and thus, to be labeled takfir, an unbeliever, – and subject to losing your head.

To continue with the chronology, Wahhab found his way to Najd, a backwater of Arabia controlled by tribe of the Sauds. Wahhab partnered with the Sauds and what followed, over the next two centuries, was an incredibly savage conquest of the Arabian peninsula by the House of Saud. And in each place they conquered, they imposed Wahhabi Islam.

Fast forward now to the 20th century. Two events of note occur. Turkey, home of Sufi Islam and the caliphate presiding over the majority of the Islamic world, came into World War I on the side of Germany and was ultimately defeated. Its Middle Eastern empire was divided up among the European counties. Attaturk took power in Turkey and divested Islam from politics, secularizing the country. This was, in essence, the first step towards a revolution in the Islamic world – the divorcing of religion from the nation state and limiting it to the private lives of Turkish citizens. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, Wahhabism has infected Turkey, and today we see the creep of Islamism into the state apparatus. Turkey has withdrawn from the precipice of a revolution to moderate and modernize Islam that its combination of secular government and classical Sufi Islam may have led.

The second event of note was the triumph of Wahhabi Islam with the conquest of Arabia by the House of Saud. Indeed, even before the final conquest, Wahhabi Islam had already influenced – or infected, if you like – many of the other schools of Islam. Two prime examples are the Pakistani Deobandi school that today is the basis for the Taliban, as well Islam in Egypt, from whence arose the first truly modern radical Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.

But Wahhabi Islam only truly became an engine of conquest with the growth of the oil industry and the influx of billions of petrodollars into Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is spending these billions to spread its brand of Islam to the four corners of the world and to supplant the other schools of Islam. Other than oil, Saudi Arabia’s main exports are Wahhabi clerics, Wahhabi mosques, and Wahhabi schools to every corner of the world. Further, the petrodollars are used to fund the Middle East studies program at most major colleges in the Western World – whose teaching invariably cover, cover for, and cover up Wahhabi Islam – and to fund Wahhabi organizations such as CAIR that perform much the same function in Western society at large.

I do not know that Wahhabi Islam also influenced and radicalized Ayatollah Khoemeni. But, given that he took Iranian Shia Islam out of its historically nonpolitical role in Iran and thrust Shiaism, for the first time in history, into the political realm with the creation of Iran’s theocracy, I would suspect that it did. I would be absolutely amazed if some scholar did not eventually catalogue such an influence. (Update: See this from Francis Fukuyama in the WSJ making this connection)

To sum up, the whole of the Islamic world is endangered by the growth of Wahhabi Islam. And Wahhabi Islam holds it dogma to be beyond question – upon pain of censure or even death. If there is to be a moderation and modernization of Islam – a Reformation and Period of Enlightenment if you will – it will not will arise out of Wahhabi Islam without tremendous bloodshed.

Ultimately, in the world of ideas, it is only through questioning and critical reasoning that advancements occur. To put an Islamic face on that, it is only through the embrace of ijtihad and the concepts of Islam discussed earlier that there is any chance that Islam will finally see a great historical change to moderate and modernize from Wahhab’s vision of 7th century Islam into a form of Islam that can coexist with the rest of the world in the 21st century. And Western society has an obligation not to be coerced into silence, but to openly criticize what we find dangerous and wrong in Islam. If our voice is cowed, how can we expect the voice of would be moderates in the world of Islam to stand up - and withstand the inevitable Wahhabi onslaught to their existence. The cost to humanity and the world if Islam does not have its Reformation and Enlightenment will almost assuredly be apocalyptic.

Which brings us to today, and the United Nations Human Rights Organization. I have already posted that I believe the UN exists in an alternate Islamic universe. It finds fault with illegal acts or human rights violations only in Israel. See here and here. But we have now reached the final Islamic straw.

Friday, March 30, 2007, Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council demanding a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion. Lest there be any doubt about which religion they are concerned with, the only religion mentioned in the resolution is Islam. As stated in the minutes from the UN Human Rights Council meeting:

The Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; . . .

The UN is only doing the work of radical Wahhabi Islamists at this point. If there is ever to be a peaceful coexistence with Muslims, the West cannot gag itself as CAIR and the Islamists at UN would have us do. We can coexist with Muslims as long as they are not trying to kill us and impose their religion by coercion or by working fundamental changes to our Western secular values with ridiculous charges of Islamaphobia. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Thus, it is their religion that needs to change. It needs to go through its Reformation, and there needs to be a period of Enlightenment. The clearest way to stop this transformation from ever occurring is to outlaw criticism of Islam. This would be putting a nail into the coffin of Western civilization, in addition to insuring the ultimate domination of the Wahhabi philosophy in Islam.

If this is what we can expect from UN as reformed, it needs to be defunded by the U.S. In the Senate hearings for his confirmation as the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad has argued against defunding the UN but has also stated that the UN faces a “mortal threat" if it fails to reform. There are no reforms on the horizon. It is time to allow the UN to subsist on Rials until it does.
_____________________________________________________

A truly brave man would have spoken honestly and would tried to use the bully pulpit to support reforms in Islam. Obama is not that person, and we are less safe for it.

Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

Read More...

Summary only...

Bang That Drum, Dr. Pipes

Step one to defeating an enemy - identify it. This is a drum I've been beating in this "war on terror" for years. Indeed, as I wrote six months ago, "Western governments are failing in their duty to define 'radical Islam.'" It is in the ideological battlefield that we will ultimately defeat radical Islam - or face the prospect of being ever threatened by it. There are a lot of individual Muslims and small groups who have joined that fight and are today in an existential contest for the heart and soul of their religion. Arrayed against them are the Salafists, Deobandis and Khomeinists - the radical Islamists - funded with near unlimited oil wealth. By failing to acknowledge this struggle and identify our enemy, we have yet to even join the fight - one equally as important to our security as Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Daniel Pipes weighs in on precisely the same topic.
____________________________________________________

This from Dr. Pipes:

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the "global war on terror," the "long war," the "global struggle against violent extremism," or even the "global struggle for security and progress."

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing "an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms." In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, "the defeat of the global terror network" – whatever that undefined network might be.

"Defeating terrorism" has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that "We actually misnamed the war on terror." Instead, he called the war a "struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam." Soon after, Bush himself used the terms "Islamic radicalism," "militant Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism." But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

. . . In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari‘a).

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism's depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy's objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

Read the entire article. To see the ideological struggle for the heart of Islam in stark relief, I suggest that you watch Parts II and III (at least) of Dr. Zhudi Jasser's debate with a Salafi Imam that I have posted here. Step one for our government to insure Dr. Jasser wins is for the U.S. to join the ideological battle. We fail to do so at our peril.

Read More...

Summary only...

Walid Phares Warns On Al Qaeda, Iran & The War Of Ideas

I posted here that, while we are having great success militarily against al Qaeda and other related radical organizations, we have barely even begun to engage Islamic radicalism in the even more important ideological battlefield. While our soldiers and national security organizations are doing their part against the physical threat of al Qaeda, Iran, etc., our government is far behind the power curve in instituting any sort of challenge to the Koranic interpretations and dogma that gave rise to al Qaeda and Khomeinist Iran. So long as their interpretations and dogma go unchallenged, they will continue to generate new threats. As I say in the linked post, we fail to fully engage in the ideological battle at our own peril. Author and terrorism expert Prof. Walid Phares makes the same points in an essay today in Front Page Magazine, adding an important warning that if we withdraw precipitously from the war in Iraq and if we do not engage in the ideological battle, radicalism will regain strength and that this is a war we can still easily lose - in Iraq, the Middle East, and worldwide.
___________________________________________________________

This from Prof. Phares:

. . . Is the US-led campaign designed to go after the membership of al Qaeda, go after its ideology or to support democracy movements to finish the job? Everything depends on the answers.

Geopolitically and at this stage, al Qaeda has been contained in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Somalia. But al Qaeda has potential, through allies, to thrust through Pakistan and the entire sub Sahara plateau. It was contained in Saudi Arabia but its cells (and off shoots) are omnipresent in Western Europe, Latin America, Indonesia, the Balkans, Russia and India, let alone North America. Objectively one would admit that the organization is being pushed back in some spots but is still gaining ground in other locations. Although geopolitical results are crucial, a final blow against al Qaeda has to be mainly ideological.

How can we measure al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq, if that is true?

There are three ways to measure defeat or victory: Operational, Control and Recruitment. First, is al Qaeda waging the same number of operations? Second, does it control enclaves? Third, is it recruiting high numbers? By these parameters al Qaeda was certainly "contained" in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni triangle. This was a combined result of the US surge operations and of a rise by local tribes, backed by American military and funding. But this scoring against al Qaeda would diminish and probably collapse if the US quit Iraq abruptly, or without leaving a strong ally behind. So, technically it is a conditioned containment of al Qaeda in Iraq.

How about Saudi Arabia?

The Saudis have contained many of al Qaeda's active cells in the Kingdom. But authorities haven't shrunk the ideological pool from which al Qaeda recruits, i.e. the hard core Wahabi circles. The regime has been using its own clerics to isolate the more radical indoctrination chains. It has been successful in creating a new status quo, but just that. If Iraq crumbles, that is if an abrupt withdrawal takes place in the absence of a strong and democratic Iraqi Government, al Qaeda will surge in the Triangle and thus will begin to impact Saudi Arabia. Therefore the current containment in the Kingdom is hinging on the success of the US led efforts in Iraq, not on inherent ideological efforts in Saudi Arabia.

How about Pakistan-Afghanistan?

In Afghanistan, both the Taliban and al Qaeda weren't able to create exclusive zones of control despite their frequent Terror attacks for the last seven years. But there again, the support to operations inside Afghanistan is coming mainly from the Jihadi enclaves inside Pakistan: Which conditions the victory over al Qaeda by the Kabul Government to the defeat of the combat Jihadi forces within the borders of Pakistan by Islamabad's authorities. Do we expect President Musharref and his cabinet to wage a massive campaign soon into Waziristan and beyond? Unlikely for the moment believe most experts. Hence, the containment of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is hinging on the Pakistan's politics. While it is true that the Bin Laden initial leadership network has been depleted, the movement continues to survive, fed by an unchallenged ideology, so far.

The war of ideas: Is al Qaeda losing it?

Geopolitically, al Qaeda is contained on the main battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan and somewhat in Somalia. It is suppressed in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. But it is roaming freely in many other spots. It is not winning in face of the Western world's premier military machine, but it is still breathing, and more importantly it is making babies. All what it would take to see it leaping back in all battlefields and more is a powerful change of direction in Washington D.C:

As simple as that: if the United States decides to end the War on Terror. or as its bureaucracy has been inclined to do lately, end the War of Ideas against Jihadism, the hydra will rise again and change the course of the conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabia and the African Sahara. All depends on how Americans and other democracies are going to wage their campaign against al Qaeda's ideology. If they choose to ignore it and embark on a fantasy trip to nowhere, as the "Lexicon" business shows, al Qaeda -- or its successors -- will win eventually.

But if the next Administration would focus on a real ideological defeat of Bin Laden's movement, then, the advances made on the battlefields will hold firmly and expand.

Lately, some in the counter terrorism community are postulating that Bin Laden is being criticized by his own supporters, . . . [D]oes that mean that we in liberal democracies are winning that war of ideas? Less likely.

A thorough review of the substance of what the Jihadi critics are complaining about . . . is not exactly what the free world would be looking forward to. But in short, al Qaeda is now contained in the very battlefield it chose to fend off the Infidels in: Iraq. But this is just one moment in space and time, during which we will have to fight hard to keep the situation as is. Our favorable situation is a product of the US military surge and of a massive investment in dollars. It is up to this Congress, and probably to the next President to maintain that moment, weaken it or expand it.

Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime know exactly the essence of this strategic equation. I am not sure, though, that a majority of Americans are aware of the gravity of the situation. In other words, the public is told that we have won this round against al Qaeda but it should be informed of what it would take to reach final victory in this global conflict.

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Much Lizardly Ado About . . . A Little Something (Updated)

Our Watcher’s Council alum, Dafydd at Big Lizards, has tossed down the gauntlet on an issue of supreme importance – our efforts at countering radical Islam in the ideological plane. He wrote a pair of scathing, well reasoned posts taking to task Bret Stephens and Thomas Joscelyn, among others, for criticizing efforts at changing the way our government talks about "radical Islam" and "jihadis." Joscelyn responded in an article at the Weekly Standard, opening thusly:

DAFYDD AT BIG LIZARDS has all sorts of bad things to say about my review of Andrew McCarthy's excellent new book, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. I will avoid addressing the snarky insults in Dafydd's post and stick to his attempts at substantive criticism.

Wow. After breaking out the popcorn and ordering a pizza, I sat down to read it all with an expectation of some quality entertainment. But after thoroughly reviewing the arguments and the documents, it became apparent that everyone seems to be missing the forest through the trees. It's not much ado about nothing, but it certainly misses the real issue.
___________________________________________________________

The DHS, several weeks ago, decided to alter the semantics of how they refer to Islamic terrorists. That was a decision that has been much derided by many commentators, including me, perhaps unduly harshly. Dafydd is strongly of the school of thought that supports the DHS approach "in order to open . . . an ideological counterinsurgency." This approach involves using alternatives to the terms such as "jihadi" and "Islamofacism." "Jihadi" means a "holy warrior," which is precisely the status to which those motivated by Islam to commit terror aspire. Calling them "jihadis" elevates them to that status in their eyes and the eyes of the world. Calling them something else would stop that. Dafydd sees such efforts as a nascent step towards engaging in the ideological battlefield. He sees this semantic effort as a way of discrediting the terrorists and driving a stake in between them and Muslims who do not support terrorism.

People in the second school of thought, which includes Mr. Stephens and Mr. Jocelyn, have been highly critical of that approach. They see it as obfuscation and a wholly useless effort in semantics. For those who want to break out the popcorn and enjoy this blog version of the UFC, here are the relevant posts, documents and articles.

January 8 DHS Memo – Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations From American Muslims

March 14 Memo from the Counter Terrorism Communications Center – Words that Work and Words That Don’t: A Guide For Counterterrorism Comunication

Bret Stephen’s WSJ Article – Homeland Security Newspeak

Jocelyn’s book review at the Weekly Standard of Andrew McCarthy’s book, Willful Blindness

Dafyyd’s first post – criticizing Brit Stephens over the DHS memo

Dafyyd’s second post – criticizing Thomas Jocelyn

Jocelyn’s Response in the Weekly Standard

The problem with the topic of this argument is it misses the real issue. We are facing, in radical Islam, an ideology that sees terrorism and the murder of others as supported in the Koran and thus as legitimate tactics to advance their Islamic faith. Dafydd is right, we absolutely need an ideological counterinsurgency. Defeating al Qaeda physically and stopping Iran’s deadly meddling throughout the Middle East are only treating the symptoms. Both could go away tomorrow, yet our nation will still not be safe from terrorism in the long run at the hands of radical Islamists. That is because the ideology underlying "radical Islam" is what has to be countered. And on that issue, we have failed utterly because have never defined "radical Islam."

Zhudi Jasser, former U.S. naval officer, physician and President of American Islamic Forum For Democracy (AIFD) is possibly the most eloquent speaker on this precise topic. He engaged in a debate a month ago with a Saudi cleric that was largely on this issue. I have the entire debate here. If you have not seen it, you need to sit through it. I cannot emphasize that strongly enough. Watch it. It is a crash course in radical Islam and what must be done to counter it. It also gives the Wahhabi view on such issues as wiping out Israel and the death sentence for apostacy.

As Dr. Jasser states, the starting point of an ideological challenge must be with identifying the problem – which in the case of radical Islam are the Wahhabi, Salafi and Khomeinist interpretations – and then attack the theoretical underpinnings. Here is an except from that debate that I have transcribed:

<

The bottom line is that if we do not address the theological underpinnings of the koranic derivation, of the koranic interpretation of bin Laden, of Zarkawi, of Zawahiri and others, we will get nowhere.

There are serious, serious legal underpinnings of Islamic jurisprudence that say in the Salafi tradition . . . that says that if someone leaves the faith, you kill them. . . . We need to address [such interpretations as this] as Muslims. It empowers radicals to kill people. . . . The bottom line is, this is not just psychotic people. . . The reality of the fact is that the Islamic jurisprudence, the Imams that are teaching jurisprudence in . . . Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many of the mosques around the world are spreading a doctrine that teaches that the end justifies the means . . . that occupied people in Israel have a right to kill innocents, that’s not terrorism. That is not Islam. That is radicalism. That is barbarism, and its being done in the name of Islam, but it certainly is corruption.

There is a legal tradition that we have to own up to, we have to reform. . . . Many of us are reformed by the way we practice, . . . but [it is not reformed] in the educational system. So let’s step away from the nice stories of platitudes . . . let’s start . . . separating our spiritual path, separating the moral code and the clarity of our faith from a political movement that uses the name of Islam, uses certain scriptures to [justify their crimes and barbarism]

The only way to [change this] is by us taking them on in their interpretations and spreading literature around the world that contradicts Wahhabism, that contradicts Salafism, and to starts to say that the example of the Prophet had value for his behavior, had value for his morality, but no longer has is it relevant for statecraft and for Islam to have a role in government. . . .

I could not agree more with Dr. Jasser. My problem with Dafydd’s approach is that it goes around the first hurdle – i.e., identifying the sources of radical Islam and their interpretations that allow them to conduct murder and mayhem, and instead engage in semantic denunciations alone. As Marcus Aurelius famously asked:

This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?

From The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Unless we can answer Marcus Aurelius’s questions within the context of radical Islam, it is impossible to engage in a war of ideas, or as Dafydd puts it, an ideological counterinsurgency.

Understand that among those who favor Dafydd’s approach are all of the Wahhabi / Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. Those organizations have spared no expense and no effort to get the U.S. to stop making a connection between Islam, terrorism and jihadism. I fully realize this is not what Dafydd is advocating, but the danger of only going forward on the semantics is that you obfuscate the true nature of the problem and allow the Wahhabists and Salafists off the hook. Their goal is simple – they want to metasticize in the West without challenge. Without the first step of utter and absolute clarity about the Wahhabi / Salafi / Khomeini sources of Islamic terrorism and the specifics of their dogma, mere semantic changes will only further obfuscate the issues – with a net gain to the Salafists.

That said, my criticism of Mr. Jocelyn is no less deep. While he in his article takes Dafydd’s approach to task as useless – with which I now disagree – he, like DHS and the rest of our government, equally does not identify the first hurdle as something that must be done.

If you wonder why that has not happened, rest assured it is not because there are clueless people in our government. Many, if not most, are well aware of the precise problem. It is not hard to surmise that the deliberate obfuscation by the government is because Wahhabi / Salafi Islam is the bloody cult that controls Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has us by the oily short hairs. All the more reason to start drilling in ANWR and start engaging radical Islam in a true war of ideas.

The war is already joined by the Wahhabits and Khomeinists and people like Dr. Jasser. It is an existential war for the soul of Islam. We have every bit as much at stake here as do the world's Muslims, yet we are doing nothing as a nation to help Dr. Jasser win. The single greatest strength of a democratic nation is the critical eye of an informed and concerned populace. Dafydd's belief in changing semantics is fully justified if we join the battle and enlist the populace. It is many years past time that we did.

Update 1: Apparently, this topic has also been the raised over the past few days at the NYT, Hot Air (see here and here) and Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.

Update 2: Dafydd responded to the above Jihad Watch post here and then was kind enough to do a dual response both to Mr. Jocelyn's article at the Weekly Standard and to this post.

In his response, Dafydd clarifies his thoughts - though the mistake upon rereading his posts was wholly mine. At any rate, Dafydd makes plain that he believes that we need a robust ideological counterinsurgency that challenges the interprative underpinnings of radical Islam.

Dafydd makes several critical points as to what is needed in such an ideological counterinsurgency:

1. We -- by we, I mean everybody who opposes the radical militant Islamists -- must clearly identify the schools, both physical facilities and schools of thought, that teach/preach the radical interpretations of Islam that theologically underpin the Islamic death cults;

2. We must counter those schools and their arguments with alternative interpretations that are just as theologically sound... which means, I am convinced, working with Islamic scholars and clerics who have already been doing this for many years, including (a non-exhaustive list):

The "Quietist" school of Shiism, whose spiritual leader at the moment is Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf;

The Indonesian Sunni organization Nahdlatul Ulama -- the largest Moslem organization in the world with perhaps as many as 40 million members -- which is headed by Abdurrahman Wahid, a.k.a. Gus Dur;

And the Turks, who are currently opening schools around the world that are teaching a non-violent (or at least much less violent) sect of Islam to counter the influence of the Salafist/Wahhabist schools financed and run by radical Saudi clerics.

They have far more credibilty than we; but we must be careful not to buddy up to them too closely, lest we create an obvious line of attack against them by our enemies. Nobody trusts a sock puppet (except maybe Glenn Greenwald).

3. And most important, we must get both State and Defense on board with the program... and also Congress. I'm afraid this will be the hardest task, but it's vital if we're to present a unified front against the enemy. About the only hope would be if the Senate would confirm a "John Bolton"-like nominee as Secretary of State, one who could actually clean house in that wretched, out of control bureaucracy, whose Statethink has swallowed up my second favorite gal, Condoleezza Rice.

I could not agree more with all of the above points. I would expound upon his mention of Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the quietist school of Shia Islam. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the most critical reason for remaining in Iraq and insuring the sovereignty of that nation from the predatory acts of Iran. As I wrote in an earlier post:

The greatest threat to Iran today comes from a democratic Iraq on its border that honors the traditional Shia practice of quietism - i.e., maintaining a wall between mosque and state, to put it in American terms. Iran is a deeply troubled country of 60 million people held under the rule of a medieval theocracy by ever increasing repression. The theocracy itself is illegitimate when looked at in terms of a millenium of apolitical Shia tradition - a tradition shredded in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini and his velyat-e-faqi, a new philosophy justifying and requiring theocratic rule. And indeed, the most popular religious figure in both Iraq and Iran is now Grand Ayatolah Ali Sistani, an adherent to the quietist school. This is deeply problematic for Iran.

. . . Since 2003, Iran has won tactical victories in both Gaza and, just days ago, Lebanon. But in Iraq, the theocracy of Iran is facing a mortal threat to its legitimacy and an enticing example of democracy to its deeply troubled populace that, not a decade ago, appeared on the edge of a counter-revolution. . . . Indeed, unless the U.S. leaves Iraq and allows the Iranians to resume their Lebanization of Iraq - something that would happen if troops are withdrawn too soon, as General Petraeus noted days ago in written testimony to the Senate - Iran's theocracy is far more threatened by their peaceful neighbor than by Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. . .

Read the entire post. I have no doubt that if Iran dominates Iraq, you will see the quietist school extinguished following the death of the 80 year old Grand Ayaollah Ali Sistani. Following the 1979 revolution, Iran executed, jailed or placed under house arrest all clerics who still honored the quietist school and who spoke out against the velyat e faqi. Indeed, when Khomeini died, none of the Grand Ayatollah's in Iran were deemed sufficiently wedded to the velyat e faqi philosophy (or in the case of Khomeini's original designated successor, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, he was deemed too highly critical of how it was being imposed). The current Supreme Guide, Khamenei, was chosen for his position even though he was only a mid-level cleric. This shows both the extent to which Iran will go to impose its system and it shows just how bastardized the system is.

Dafydd also notes the efforts being made by Turkey. As an aside, the BBC ran an excellent article on efforts by Turkey to reinterpret the Hadiths (see here). We will have to see how that pans out, but if it is extensive, it could mark a major step towards an Islamic Enlightenment.

Dafydd sums up precisely what we need to be working towards:

The only remaining question is whether we have the will -- the stomach -- to inaugurate an all-out propaganda campaign to win whatever hearts and minds we can, hoping they will form the nucleus of the only real, long-term solution to our problem: an Islamic Enlightenment, similar to what Christianity went through in the eighteenth century.

As best I can tell, we have yet to engage seriously in any sort of propaganda campaign. Given that it is the most critical aspect of the war on terror, I think we are very far behind the power curve. Lastly, I would just add that a little over a year ago, I wrote a lengthy essay, positing that what Islam most needed was to go through its period of Enlightenment. I explained in that essay why it had not yet happened but how the tools for such a revolution in Islam exist within the religion itself - in the Koran, in the Hadiths, and in the accepted practice of ijtihad. I agree completely with Dafydd - such a revolution is the only true and lasting solution. We need to be doing all we can to support it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Speechless

We are in an existential struggle against salafi and khomeinist Islamists. We rely on our government to defend us. Yet today, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff has instituted an insane policy change based on advice that could only come from radical Islamists organizations in America. Their goal is to allow radical Islam to metasticize in the dark while the West is kept clueless, and they have spent billions of dollars in America and the West towards that end. Chertoff has just handed these enemies of Western civilization a major victory. He is ordering that we no longer tie Islam and jihadism to terrorism. At the bottom of this post is the contact information for Rep. Sue Myrick, head of the Anti-Jihad caucus in Congress. E-mails should be sent to her demanding the head of the incredibly misguided Sec. Chertoff.

____________________________________________________

No problem is solved by pretending it does not exist. And it is suicidal to hide the nature of an existential problem. Yet that today is what our Sec. of Homeland Security has embraced. I have posted on this issue extensively in the past, warning that the first duty of our government is to fully educate the populace about the nature, goals and tenets of the jihadists and their origins. We need to know what constitutes radical Islam as the very first step in combating it as a nation. And indeed, the strongest power our nation has is a population that is knowledgable and motivated. For example, see:

What You Don't Know About Salafi Islam Could Kill You

Another UN Obscenity

Orwell's Britain is Halal Toast

From an autobiographical sketch by former terrorist Tawfiq Hamid, "The civilized world ought to recognized the immense danger Salafi Islam poses"

Fjordman's Essay On The Muslim Brotherhood

And there are others. The report of Chertoff's actions comes from Steven Emerson, writing at the Investigative Project on Terrorism":

DHS and the State Department's Counterterrorism Communications Center each issued reports urging government employees to avoid words like "jihad," "mujahedeen" or any reference to Islam or Muslims, especially in relation to Al Qaeda. The Investigative Project on Terrorism is making the documents available for the first time here and here.

As we reported last week, the memos say a change in language from the U.S. government is needed to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims and avoid glamorizing terrorists motivated by religious ideology. "Moderate" is also frowned upon in the memos, though, with "mainstream" or "traditional" suggested as replacements.

Among the recommendations not reported previously:

- "The experts we consulted debated the word ‘liberty,' but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony."

- "The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible – in fact, they can make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasize that fact."

- The USG [U.S. government] should draw the conflict lines not between Islam and the West, but between a dangerous, cult-like network of terrorists and everyone who is in support of global security and progress.

So America, after serving for more than two centuries the sanctuary for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, is being asked to minimize liberty against fanatics bent on a global religious state. The memo doesn't offer examples to show where Islam and secular democracy have reinforced each other, or explain how Shariah law, the imposition of religion into state affairs, is "fully compatible" with secular democracy.

Read the entire article. It is hard to underestimate both the significance and jaw-dropping stupidity of Sec. Chertoff's decision. It is a decision that we fail to contest at our own peril. I recommend you e-mail the head of the Anti-Jihad Caucus, Rep. Sue Myrick at sue@suemyrick.com and ask that she do whatever is possible to have this horrendous decision overturned. A copy of my e-mail is below if you would like a template:

Subject: DHS Action Adversely Effecting the War On Terror

Dear Representative Myrick:

Thank you for your work in the Anti-Jihad Caucus. I am writing to you because of my concern over a recent decision of DHS Sec. Chertoff and the State Dept. ordering government employees to avoid words like "jihad," "mujahedeen" or any reference to Islam or Muslims, especially in relation to Al Qaeda. See here and here. This is an incredibly counterproductive decision that appears to have been taken upon the advice of jihadi facilitating organizations in the U.S.

We cannot mobilize as a nation against the existential threat posed by the jihadists and by their facilitating organizations in the West if our government deliberately hides the identity, nature, origins and goals of those organizations from the public. This allows these enemies of civilization to metastasize in the West while true champions of moderate Islam, such as Zhudi Jasser and AIFD, are wholly undercut in their efforts to win against this scourge in the battlefield of ideas.

I would ask that you do what you can to have this utterly insane policy either changed or be made subject to public hearings if that is within your power. This truly represents a major step backwards in our war on terror and a major victory for the enemies of civilization.

Thank you for your consideration.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iranian Intelligence Supporting a Coup in Azerbaijan?

The radical Khomeinist theocracy - which has been at war with the US since 1979 - has been the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East since its inception. As Sec of Defense Gates said recently:

Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . . There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.

More proof of that today from this report at Fox News:

A court in Azerbaijan on Monday convicted 15 people accused of ties with Iranian intelligence of crimes including treason and plotting to seize power, and handed down lengthy prison sentences.

The convictions, which a lawyer for the alleged ringleader said were unfounded, highlighted concern in the secular ex-Soviet republic over the influence of neighboring Iran.

The defendants were arrested in January on suspicion of crimes including plotting to forcefully seize power, treason, organizing a criminal group, possession of weapons and drugs, and counterfeiting. Authorities who announced the arrests did not mention Iran. The suspects had been on trial behind closed doors for two months.

The alleged leader, Said Dadashbeyli, and two others were sentenced to 14 years in prison, while the rest received sentences ranging from two years to 13, the Court for Grave Crimes said.

Dadashbeyli's lawyer, Elchin Gambarov, denied the defendants were connected with Iranian intelligence, saying they opposed Iranian influence.

He also denied media reports that portrayed the defendants as Islamic extremists, saying they adhered to "an Islam that is close to democratic values."

. . . The oil-rich Caspian Sea nation has increasingly been caught in a tug-of-war for influence between the secular, democratic West and Iran, its large southern neighbor. Rumblings of Shiite political Islam have been particularly noticeable in the more conservative regions that border Iran. . . .

Read the entire article. Somehow, all of this seems to have passed by the drafters of the NIE, who have suggested that if we only allow Iran to realize its aspirations for "regional influence," they may not build an atomic weapon. It would seem that Iran’s goals for regional influence are defined by their desire to export their Khomeinist revolution.

Read More...

Summary only...

Meeting the Existential Threat of Iran

Frontpage Magazine has assembled a wide ranging group of experts to discuss the threat posed by Iran's Khomeinist theocracy and our rapidly dwindly options. This from one of the participants, retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, USAF:

. . . On the 26th of Oct 2005, President Ahmadinejad said "God willing, soon there will be a world without the Americans and the Zionists”. Several months later his favorite Imam said that Iran was authorized to use nuclear weapons against its enemies even though they don’t have them (we think).

Now it is very clear to me that this is an entirely different threat than we have ever faced before and must act accordingly. His belief that the 12th Imam will come out of the well in Quom will encourage him to aid proxies to plant nuclear weapons in US and European cities once he has them. Old fashion deterrence does not work with terrorists.

Today with Western economic and covert assistance, the Iranian people can remove the current leadership and take their country back. It won’t be nice but they will be out of the WMD business like Iraq is today. If we continue to let Russia and China be enablers, we will have to kick off the covert action by a very short (48 hours) massive (2500 aim points) air campaign aimed at their nuclear facilities, Air Defense, Navy, Air Force, Shahab 3s and Command and Control. The Iranian people would be told that the military was the target and not the people who we would assist in helping them take their country back. We must have a massive Information Operations campaign to support this action. Now I can lay out the details of this air campaign later but suffice it to say that the IAF recently conducted a very successful air strike in Syria without Stealth aircraft and the numbers we possess. I would rather not do it but it may be our last ditch maneuver.

I am not worried about the Iranian retaliation because their leadership and military will be in a survival mode with chaos around them. Just as the Arab Street did not rise up when we did OEF and OIF, they will not during this action because it will be dominated by the Iranian people’s desires for freedom. Tyrants understand when we go for the juggler. If Syria and Hezbollah carry out offensive operations they will be crushed even though there may be a lot of causalities on both sides like TET. This fight is a better solution than nuclear weapons in our cities. We are either in denial or hope nothing will happen and neither is a strategy. This is an existential threat and appeasement like WWII will only get us 200 million killed versus the 60 million in WWII.

Read the entire article here. The problem arises from our left, with people like Joe Biden who has threatened impeachment if we attack Iran. He and his ilk have there heads in the sand and think freedom can be maintained at no cost, regardless of the threat. WWII and Chamberlin show just how wrong-headed that belief is.

Read More...

Summary only...