Obama’s “Bush Did It” Narrative

by Jamie Glazov

November 4, 2009

FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I’d like to talk to you today about radical Islam and the Obama administration’s ability and inclination, or lack thereof, to confront it.

What’s the best way to begin this discussion?

Hanson: Thanks Jamie.

The paradigm of discussing radical Islam is entirely different after January 20. Jihad has been institutionalized now as a benign personal odyssey rather than explicatory of the sort of murderous attacks we have seen since 1979 directed at the West, most recently with the four Islamic plots to kill Americans by radical Islamists since Obama has taken office.

Obama’s interview with al Arabiya and his Cairo speech had two clear themes: his own personal heritage makes him uniquely qualified to undo the Bush damage; and we in the West have been equally culpable for the strained relations.

This sort of moral equivalence is little concerned with any redress of pathologies that in fact led to 9/11: Western appeasement of, or indifference to, radical Islam, whose extremism was the natural dividend of a region torn by enormous oil wealth, and age old statism, tribalism, gender intolerance, and dictatorship. In the era of Obama, radical Islam and the West merely have different narratives, rather than a fascistic creed trying to destroy the notion of Western freedom and tolerance.

Abroad as both sides refocus on the Afghanistan theater, somehow Obama is more demoralized by our victory in Iraq than the Islamists are by their defeat; and we have forgotten in the Bush ‘reset’ button rhetoric that support for bin Laden and suicide bombing–given the terrible dividends they earned–had plummeted in polls in the Middle East. In addition, in the “Bush did it” Obama narrative there was no mention of the arrest of Dr. Khan, the Syrian exit from Lebanon,  the surrender of the Libyan WMD stockpiles, or the absence of another 9/11.

The result is that many in the radical Islamic world–especially after Obama’s serial trashing of the Bush-era security protocols like retaps, intercepts, and Guantanamo– may well be emboldened to think that either America questions its successful efforts at thwarting another attack since 9/11, or in some strange way sympathizes with some of the writs against itself.

FP: What explains the Obama administration’s behaviour and viewpoint in this context?

Hanson: a) Obama is a product of his education and early life, in which America being culpable for  a variety of sins was the gospel , as we see from his associates like Ayers, to his minister like Wright, to the general force of his community organizing in Chicago, to his most partisan voting record in the Senate;

b) Obama, like many elites on the left who thrived in the academic and organizing/grant-giving world, understood that his exotic name, his mixed heritage, his father’s Muslim roots could all be combined to present some sort of revolutionary aura within the confines of the university that would pay career dividends, and then among the general public, if packaged with a charismatic and conciliatory persona, could make one feel comfortable and good about one’s supposed liberality; he thrived on being a ‘revolutionary’ lite figure in a non-threatening manner, and it’s hard to give up a winning hand at this late stage;

c) Obama has almost no real experience with an America outside the victim politics of Chicago and the melodramas of the university. He has never run a business, never worked hard with his hands, never had to meet a budget, never understood how money is made, but instead essentially pleaded his cause to win fellowships and grants, dispensed someone else’s money as a board member, made claims against government (”organizing”), and written his autobiographies at a young age.

Life, in other words, was pretty easy, as the path from Harvard Review to Nobel Prize Winner was characterized by smoothing rhetoric and a host of people who, for a host of psychological reasons of their own, wished to give him something for something he didn’t earn. Now he oddly seems surprised that not all those abroad are as wowed as the 2008 American electorate.

FP: What is at stake if Obama continues along this path?

Hanson: We have an eerie resemblance to Carterism circa 1977: the sermons, the apologies, the trashing of predecessors, the moralizing, the transnational utopianism—all manifested in naiveté about Khomeini, the selling out of the Shah, the downplaying of a communist threat, which, in 1-2 year’s time (it takes a while for others to size up an American president), earned communist expansion in Central America, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the hostage taking in Teheran, uncertainty in Korea, the rise of radical Islam and a weakened US military.

In Obama’s terms that would mean earning a nuclear Iran, a Russia convinced that we will not object to corrections in its regional map, a China eyeing opportunities everywhere, South America reverting back to a sixties credo, Europe oddly remorseful that it got what it wanted (a soft-power, Europeanized America), Israel without an ally, and many in the Mideast convinced that America is now sympathetic to its expansive and non-ending grievances. We may well see a new era of nuclear proliferation as never before.

FP: How would you compare Obama to Clinton and Carter in terms of damaging American and Western security?

Hanson: It is still early, but the two are instructive. Carter’s self-righteousness ended in disaster and was corrected by Reagan. Clinton, for all his appeasement of radical Islam, the defense cuts, Mogadishu, Haiti, and dithering in the Balkans, at the end became finally somewhat Trumanesque: he removed Milosevic without a lot of bipartisan support, he enforced the no-fly-zones and called for regime change in Iraq, and he tried to project a centrist bipartisan foreign policy, albeit replete with the normal apologies and liberal flourishes. But he was not Jimmy Carter.

Obama? He has a choice; he can correct as Clinton did domestically in 1995 and save his presidency, or he can go the finger-wagging, sanctimonious route blaming the public and the “right” for not appreciating his moral genius. That will lead to political oblivion in 2012. It’s his choice at this point, and predicated on how large the midterm correction and what will be his attitude to political rebuke.

FP: And the American people stand where?

Hanson: Us in the meantime? The people will have to go through a period of national uncertainty and hope that the prior strength of the United States still offers a deterrent to would-be aggressors. I omit the foreign policy effects of borrowing $2 trillion per year to dispense on constituents, but when we hit $20 trillion in aggregate debt at a 8-10% service fee, the US then will have very few options at home or abroad. So, let us hope that either Obama or the voters, get wisdom in the meantime.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

The Joys of Muslim Women

by Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as one year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by nine.

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry.  The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have four wives and a temporary wife for an hour, a prostitute, at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World (America), Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her.  It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Ripping the West in Two

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza  before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel.  He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual.  Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with

God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petrodollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the  U.S.  to elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA. Dearborn Michigan is one... and there are others.

It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion.

While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America.

Michael Harrington michael@harrington.com

Islam in Ottawa III

October 10, 2009

Dear Mr. Porter,
Let me open by restating what I said in one of my earlier responses, which I'm afraid I allowed to become muddled in the discussion. I do not, "harbour a great deal of animosity towards the West" per se. As I explained before, these concepts, "West" and "the Muslim World" are relatively recent inventions - in the 1940s, nobody was worried about a threat facing "the West," and they are not real things, but concepts used to simplify and interpret events in a complex world.

As I said before, a "Clash of Civilizations" only exists insofar as people are reacting to the perception of one being extant. Otherwise, there is no intellectually sound reason why it is inevitable for "the West" (which I would still like you to define) or "the Muslim World" to be involved in some sweeping clash with one another. Indeed, such a clash only exists in the minds of delusional xenophobes and cultural supremacists (who exist in most cultures). I like Canada. If you read my blog, you will find that I'm quite attached to this country.

Consequently, you need to explain to me on what basis you gathered that I harboured animosity towards the West. I harbour animosity towards injustice, some of which is perpetrated by Muslims, and some of which is not.

I also think that considerable confusion is likely to enter this discussion if we don't clarify what you mean by "Islam." To me, "Islam" denotes a set of claims about the universe and and about how humans should relate to God, to Creation, and to one another. Consequently, "Islam" does not "do" anything, and nobody is living "under Islam," any more than Buddhism "does" anything, or than anyone lives "under" Buddhism.

As the previous discussion seems to have presented you with too many complexities for your narrow worldview to accommodate, it seems that you have decided to collapse the discussion into a single question, which is:

"Given your druthers, under which system of governance would you rather live: Sharia, as would be the case under Islamic dominance, or the rule of law as it is practiced in the West?" That you would create a dichotomy between "Sharia" and the "rule of law" proves that you understand neither.

The "rule of law" means only that a set of rules is used to arbitrate conflicts in society, without reference to the fiat of a monarch and without consideration of the social standing of the individuals involved. Consequently, there is no conflict between "Sharia" and "the rule of law" - indeed, Islam can easily be credited with introducing the concept of the rule of law to the tribes of Arabia, who before it relied on patronage and vendetta to arbitrate their conflicts. (Incidentally, this change pre-dates Magna Carta).

As for Sharia itself, it is a man-made concept that was invented after the passing of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in order to reconcile the lofty, but general, principles of Islam with the sundry details of Muslim life, which varied from place to place. Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan has an excellent chapter in "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam" in which he explains the concept more fully, and addresses the silliness of the question you posed.

Without reproducing it here (although I recommend you read the book), I'll tell you that the question is a bit like asking "Do you prefer to eat peanuts or watch baseball?" There is no reason why you can't do both, and in some circumstances, they even go well together.

Fi Aman Illah,
The Proud Islamist

 

October 25, 2009

Dear Mr. Proud, I am heartened to learn that you harbor no animosity towards the West and that you are quite attached to Canada. Unfortunately, there are several million Muslims around the world who do not share your goodwill, and who are working diligently to end Canada as it is currently configured. Needless to say, they have caught our attention in very specific ways.

It matters little when the sparks began to fly in the 20^th century between Islam and the West. Suffice to say that jihad is now in high gear and is making its presence felt in all quarters. I simply don’t believe that you are unaware of the host of organizations that work diligently to shut the West down.

You mention the rule of law as “only a set of rules used to arbitrate conflicts in society, without reference to ... monarch ... or social standing.” You make it sound like a list of rules scribbled on a pad of paper by a group of children for their private club.

When I write about the rule of law, I refer to the legal structures that evolved in Europe during the centuries following the Reformation. It was a long, arduous, and bloody process from which English Common Law and the American Constitution arose. The legal and justice systems of virtually all European (France being the exception), Commonwealth, American, and a few non-Muslim Asian nations are not fundamentally different from English Common Law. These systems set forth the fundamental rights afforded to citizens and the limits on executive power exercised by the state. These legal and judicial systems underwrite the man-made Rule of Law to which I refer. There is nothing in Western jurisprudence that requires citizens to obey laws based on religious dogma. Each citizen is free to believe in any god or not, or worship any religion or not.

As we have learned to our grief, it is these very qualities that enrage not just Muslim extremists, but many Western-based Imams as well. To these men, our man-made laws are an abomination and must be replaced with sharia - Allah’s word.

Your statement that sharia is man-made is not entirely accurate. Sharia may be ‘man-made’ in the sense that men wrote it down, but Muslims are taught from childhood to believe that it is derived from Allah and that Allah hovers over every decision made in accordance with it. This is not rule by man-made laws; this is de facto rule by god. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Persian Gulf Emirates, Yemen, Oman, Sudan, Iran et al are governed by sharia. As you point out, sharia varies from region to region, but all versions, to varying degrees, preclude religious freedom, blasphemy, free speech and press, democracy, and apostasy. Such is the system that, according to you, deals with “... the sundry details of Muslim life...”. In fact, there are precious few details of Muslims’ lives in these jurisdictions that are not governed by sharia and interpreted by men.

In defining Islam, you state that “ ‘Islam’ denotes a set of claims about the universe and about how humans should relate to God, to Creation, and to one another. Consequently, "Islam" does not "do" anything, and nobody is living "under Islam," any more than Buddhism "does" anything, or than anyone lives "under" Buddhism”.

While it can be plausibly claimed that Islam is a benign religion based on the words of Allah as revealed in the Koran, the same cannot be said of the men who interpret those words. You are quite right to say that ‘Islam’ does not ‘do’ anything, but it is naïve to ignore the acts of men who slaughter in the name of Islam. If the public face of ‘Islam’ were as benign as your homily suggests, we would not be having this discussion; you and I might be having coffee and discussing interesting things. But the definition of ‘Islam’ etched in our brains is implanted by those slaughtering in the name of Islam. When we browse the news most mornings, we learn that yet another Muslim youth has blown himself to smithereens in the forlorn belief that he is destined to spend eternity in paradise. Westerners do not arbitrarily define the face of Islam; hatred, death, and destruction are carved on the face of Islam that Muslims create for us year after year after year.

We can thus be forgiven if we tend to draw little distinction between Muslims who bring death and destruction to infidels and the religion in whose cause they do so.

Mr. Proud, I have sketched a brief but clear distinction between sharia law as it is practiced in Islamic countries and the rule of law as it is practiced in Western countries. My question to you is simple: under which of these legal systems would you rather spend the rest of your days?  That you choose to live in a Western nation tells me that you have, in fact, tacitly answered the question.

Gerry Porter

Ottawa

Obama’s Muslim advisor says Western view of Sharia “over simplified”

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/obama-first-female-veiled-islamist-appointee-dalia-mogahed-promotes-sharia-says-its-misunderstood.html

President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world. Said she:

"I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Miss Mogahed was “downplaying” Sharia Law.

“There is a reason sharia has a bad name and it is how it has been exercised. Regrettably, in the U.S. there have been acts of injustice perpetrated against women that are driven by the Sharia mindset that women are objects - not human beings,” she said.

She cited the example of Muzzammil Hassan, a Buffalo man who ran a cable channel aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes and was charged earlier this year with beheading his wife after she filed for divorce.

“Americans understand by example, it’s not as if we are an ignorant mass of people. Just as we don’t broad brush all Muslims, so should Dalia not downplay the serious nature of sharia law.”

UPDATE: Here is today's call to kill Jews from Dalia's spiritual soul mate, Yusuf Al Qaradawi. The leading Muslim voice is is urging Egyptians to turn this Friday into a nationwide day of anger against the "Israeli practices at the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem."

The Qatar-based cleric flew to Egypt from Doha on Monday to deliver a speech at the Egyptian Journalists' Syndicate in Cairo, where he condemned the Arab governments' silence towards the "violation of Al Aqsa's holiness" by Israeli settlers and occupation forces.

“Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home”

Jim Sauer is a retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major and combat veteran with over thirty years of service. Since retiring he has worked in support of U.S. Government efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel.

He had this to say about the Marines, the Viet Nam war, the Middle East, and the war in Afghanistan.

There have been some phony arguments put forth for another “surge” in Afghanistan. We need not a surge of troops, we merely need to let our forces there do what needs to be done – kill the enemy.

There is this misconception of Afghanistan in particular (and Islam in general) that somehow we can bring Central Asia (and the rest of the Islamic world) kicking and screaming into the 21st Century through good will. This is simply not the case. There is no amount of money to spend, infrastructure to build, schools to provide, hospitals to heal, or good will that Americans can display toward the Afghan people that will produce a lasting effect. I was once told by an accomplished Afghan intelligence analyst that, “you can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him.”

The hard fact is that the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan “people” are not for sale! The descendants of “The Great Khan” and their tribal cousins have no interest in being Westernized in any way. And, the human sewers that serve as their political leadership can only be rented. Americans are interlopers in a land where interlopers generally have their heads lopped off.

Nobody read their Kipling. (I know, “who or what was Kipling?” Look it up.) Americans do not know their OWN history (except the spun trash that passes for “social studies” in our heavily socialistic high schools) much less the history of Afghanistan. And, this includes our political leadership! Ask an American on the street – or a congressman in the House – to point to Afghanistan on a map, and they will probably start with their finger cautiously orbiting somewhere over Rhode Island.

This writer spent thirty years listening to and deciphering military acronyms and idiotic jargon. The catch phrase today is “COIN” – Counterinsurgency doctrine. Our political and military leadership act like this is some sort of secret knowledge – Gnostic esoteric knowledge – that is now coming to light. That is crap. There is nothing new here.

Counterinsurgency predates Rome. In modern times, the first COIN doctrine called Small Wars Manual was written by the U.S. Marine Corps in 1935 with the final edition being published in 1940. The first few decades of the 20th Century saw Marines intervening as “State Department Troops” from Central America and Hispaniola to China and the Philippines.

The Small Wars Manual is a compilation of information describing nation building, establishing “constabularies”, civil affairs, infrastructure repair, election management, donkey packing and inspiration, river crossing, intelligence gathering, psychology and ethnicity of native peoples, disarmament of the populace, force composition, supply and logistics chains, public image (both in the target nation and in the United States), and everything else it takes to drag a Third-World backwash into the current day and age. There is even a section on inspecting the feet of native troops for bunions, corns, and severe trichophytosis (athlete’s foot).

The manual is also full of contradictions. If one were to summarize in a sentence or two the center of conflicting mass, one might say, “Try to be nice, but if they don’t go along with the program manipulate them. If that doesn’t’ work, kill them – every one of them.” It reminds one of a quip from Vietnam that went, “Let us win your hearts and minds or we’ll burn your damn huts down.”

It seems our current crop of political and military geniuses think that COIN can be conducted in a sanitary manner. This belief is insane. The “small wars” of the 20th Century were every bit as dirty and brutal as any conventional war ever fought.

Legendary Marine Corps hero and two time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler wrote of his “COIN” experience a short tome titled “War is a Racket”. It spelled out the misuse of American forces and the waste of American lives during the first three decades of the 20th Century. General Butler was an unlikely critic of the use of military force – the more reason to heed his caveats.

Though published in 1940, the intervening years of conventional war (World War II and Korea) saw the Small Wars Manual fade into disuse.
The formation of the U.S. Army Special Forces in the 1960s led to an attempt to bring COIN doctrine to Vietnam. While this effort met with some success against the Viet Cong, the introduction of North Vietnamese Army (NVA) forces diminished the strategic effectiveness of the Special Forces effort.

Further, as the NVA entered the fray and the war progressed, the Viet Cong themselves, although diminished by the Special Forces effort, became more sophisticated with regard to their remaining cell structures, logistics, and weapons employment.

There are several things to consider:
1. With the exception of Malaysia, there have historically been very few – if any – real, long lasting counterinsurgency success stories.
2. Wars are like fingerprints and snowflakes – no two are alike
3. The sophistication of the insurgency with respect to tactics, weapons, as well as ethnic loyalties to and from the populace, can negate COIN efforts.
4. The subtleties and grace of Tae Kwon Do are nice, but there’s nothing like a good punch in the mouth.

COIN may be a legitimate strategy in a limited sense when the “insurgents” are seen as outsiders – or at least trouble makers with a foreign ideology – by the native population in a fixed geographic region. However, the insurgency we face is not limited to Afghanistan. It is a global movement. Civilian casualties must be avoided whenever possible – not at all costs.

There is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents. However, if a COIN strategy is to succeed, our political and military leadership must demonstrate the willingness to adjust the tactics used in the battle space in order to allow our troops to kill the enemy.

When The Great Khan rode through Central Asia in the early 13th Century, he did not take into consideration public opinion. He had lands to conquer, people to rule, and resources to exploit. He spread fear and misery across Persia and into Europe. Whether an Afghan is Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, or Turkmen, some – the real Afghan warriors – still have the spirit of the Mongol Horde in their blood.

That having been said, their blood has been thinned by time and centuries of misery. The current crop of Afghanistan’s “Warriors” is almost exclusive to the opposition. The true believers are fighters – cowards too, but fighters nonetheless.

By contrast, the bulk of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are not fighters, nor are they “true believers”. They are simply cowards – frauds – corrupt to the core by any standard and an apostate to their own faith. They are slovenly, drug-addicted, dimwitted, and totally unreliable at any level.

Like the Taliban, they are brutal to their own countrymen. They thrive on their petty powers and refuse to shoulder any burden or responsibility. Does this sound too harsh? Not for the Marines and Soldiers who have been killed by the treachery of ANA and ANP who have purposely led them into ambush.

According to the great military minds of our time, these ANA/ANP forces can be trained and formed to fight their own war. At what cost? How many American lives? How many taxpayer dollars? It would take decades if it were simply a matter of sophistication and military training.

However, the obstacle is the philosophy and way of life in the Islamic world. Iraq is a case study in deception. You have been told by the media and our politicians that the Iraqi Army is now capable of maintaining order in Iraq with limited U.S. support. Well, read the news. Iraq is still in chaos. As we withdraw, it will become worse; Sunni v. Shitte, Kurd v. Sunni and/or Shitte. Arabs are as brutal as Central Asians.

However, they are even worse soldiers, and bring new meaning to the term cowardly. An American colonel who tried to train an Iraqi brigade regularly quips that his greatest accomplishment in twelve months was to get the Iraqis to use the toilets. He was not exaggerating.

Americans have no idea how screwed up the world is east of Greece. Iraq is not yet a success story. The insurgency is just laying low. The Muslim mind thinks in terms of years, decades, and centuries – not election cycles. You will hear optimistic talking heads speak otherwise. They will tell you of the great success in Iraq. You will even hear this occasionally from Soldiers, Marines, and “Operators” who have had good experiences with the Iraqi forces.

However, their experience is the exception.
Americans have been conditioned and have become accustomed to tiptoeing about, fearing to offend anyone – even those who are offensive to the bulk of humanity. Thus, there is not an American politician or a media guru who will speak the truth clearly.

Although this writer has read extracts from the Koran, there is no claim from this quarter to any real Islamic theological scholarship. My understanding from Muslim acquaintances is that a true Muslim understands the Koran as literally as an Evangelical Protestant understands the Bible. Those who do not, are apostates.

Relying on the New Testament we believe that “By their fruits ye shall know them.” This is how we know them:

• Dismemberment of American soldiers in Somalia while Somali Muslims danced in glee – October 1993.
  
• The celebrations in “The Arab Streets” (include all of Islam from Gaza to Indonesia) after the bombings of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the downing of United Flight 93, animating Muslims throughout the world to joy and celebration – September 11, 2001 and the weeks following.
  
• Dismemberment of Americans from Blackwater in Fallujah complete with the hanging of burned bodies from a bridge to the delight of the Muslim crowd – March 31, 2004.
  
• Decapitations of Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Kenneth Bigley, and others at various times and places.
  

Lest we think that this barbarism is reserved for Westerners, Islam promotes:

• Honor killings of girls and women not only in Islamic nations, but right here in the good ol’ USA.
• Child brides.
• Conversion killings of anyone even thinking about leaving the Islamic faith.
• Child abuse and indoctrination via children’s cartoons (Muppets no less!) that make sport of killing Americans and Jews and portray us as pigs and dogs. (You can find them on YouTube!)
• Punishing children for petty theft by having their arms broken beneath the wheel of a truck. (You can find this gem on YouTube as well!)
• Slavery in all its glory. Both for labor and sexual purposes. This is rampant in the Islamic world particularly among our Saudi “allies”. Victims are Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Filipino, Indian, and from any country where one could be lured with the promise of an escape from poverty. Some victims are from the West.
• Cruelty in all its forms to one and all.

Having spent the best part of five years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel (Gaza/West Bank), I can tell you that I have personally seen an adult man take off his shoe and beat a toddler around the head and shoulders with its heel. The little boy was wearing only a dust soaked shirt that came up above his belly. Yet, not a tear fell on his dirt-smudged cherubic face. He fell down breaking his fall with his tiny hands, but would not – or could not cry.

I have seen an adult man suddenly and repeatedly strike a burka-wearing woman with a stick when she tried to exit a compound through a gate without a male escort.

I have seen a man beat a donkey on the legs and back with a club until the panicked, pleading, and bleeding animal fell to the ground.
Kabul has astounding traffic tie-ups.

Road rage is limited because one never knows if the other guy may have a flamethrower in his vehicle, but the cursing and honking is legendary. In the spring of 2007, during a massive, two-hour traffic jam on Jalalabad Road, I watched as an Afghan driver and his assistant got out of their flat bed truck in an attempt to beat the heat by lying down in the shade under the tires. The truck was hauling two large containers of medical supplies marked with a Red Cross. The driver apparently forgot to put out the tire chalks, and the truck rolled over both men crushing their heads like peas. Nobody – nobody – lifted a finger to help them. Their bodies were simply pulled to the side and the honking and shouting went on as usual. Life means nothing.

Apologists will bring up the crimes of the West – especially the Crusades. The fact is that the Crusades were waged to counter the Seljuk advance on Byzantium and the atrocities inflicted on Christians and Jews in the Holy Land. The Crusades were waged during a period of time when life in general – not to mention war – was totally barbaric. That degree of barbarism is unimaginable to modern Western sensibilities, but still considered absolutely reasonable by Muslims.

Had the Crusades not been waged; had the Habsburg Monarchy not turned back the Ottoman tide at the end of the 17th Century; had Isabel of Castile not driven the Moors from Grenada, you would not be reading this diatribe. You would be illiterate, ruled by a tyrant, and squatting on the dirt floor of a mud-brick shack picking your nose.

On September 24th, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly. He basically put the world on notice. Israel will not tolerate any more nonsense from the Islamic world. In contrast to the incoherent rambling of Gadhafi, the rancorous rants of Ahmadinejad, and the lame political oration given by President Obama, Netanyahu made his points with force, conviction, and clarity. Speaking of Islam he stated:

“In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.”

With cessation of the draft in the early 1970s America cultivated a professional warrior class. For over thirty years we have trained and equipped the most lethal fighting force ever known to mankind. They have sworn an oath to our Constitution that they take seriously.

The question is whether or not their political leadership takes their own oath seriously. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are worthy of competent leadership that they can trust. Our president has demonstrated his contempt for America on foreign soil. In speeches around the world, he has apologized for our history and failed to recognize our contributions.

His personal history is littered with questionable personal friendships and professional associations. He has denied our Judeo-Christian heritage and stated that “Victory” is not in his vocabulary.

We need to ask ourselves if he is worthy to be trusted with making policy that may mean the lives of our brave Warriors?

President Obama and General McCrystal need to review their history. When you treat the Afghans with kid gloves, they will bite off your hand.

***********

Jim Sauer is a retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major and combat veteran with over thirty years of service. Since retiring he has worked in support of U.S. Government efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel.

From the blog: “Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home”

http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/2009/09/from-sergeant-major.html

US Journalist Subjected to Enforcement of Foreign Law in Terror Investigation

newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/10032009a.htm

Next week, investigative journalist and author Dr. Paul L. Williams (left; Hamid Mir, right) will be tried in a foreign court for his investigative work on reports of al Qaeda terrorists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

But he broke no American statute and his alleged violation of Canadian law took place not in Canada, but at his home in Pennsylvania.

Williams got into a legal jam with the Canadians while discussing his book The Dunces of Doomsday on the nationally syndicated “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio program with George Noory.

To make matters more bizarre, Williams had been advised by the Ontario Provincial Police to issue warnings to his fellow Americans about terrorist activity at the Canadian university that placed the lives of countless millions of Americans in jeopardy.

The case is significant since it represents the first time an American journalist is being forced to submit to Canadian law.

Williams has been stripped of his Constitutional rights and forced to deplete his financial savings to pay for his Canadian lawyers.

“The matter would have gone away if I simply signed an apology,” Williams said, “but what kind of journalist would I be if I apologized for telling the truth?”

He estimates that the cost of the lawsuit already has topped $500,000.

Williams visited McMaster University in May, 2006 to verify accounts by Janice Kephardt of the 9/11 Commission, journalists Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of “The Washington Times,” former federal prosecutor John Loftus,  and others, that the liberal Canadian university had harbored leading al Qaeda operatives, including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer el-Maati.

The same sources testified that when the al Qaeda operatives left McMaster, “over 80 kilograms” (180 pounds) of nuclear material was reported missing.

During his visit to McMaster, Williams says that he discovered an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries within the university’s department of engineering.

In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, he says, 9 out of 10 faculty members were from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. Similarly, Williams maintains the three McMaster officials, who head the College of Engineering and supervise the work at the reactor, all hailed from the University of Cairo.

Jane Corbin of the BBC has reported that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Williams says that he and several of his associates, including a licensed private investigator, met with officials from the Ontario Provincial Police, who confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton.

The officials in question – - Detective Constables Dennis Bryson and Tim Trombley – - were not available for comment.

Williams insists that the problem at McMaster was evidenced by the fact that several of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students at the school.

Supporting Williams’s contentions, Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has testified on tape that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 80 kilos of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school.

Unguarded Reactor at McMaster University

Jayne Johnson, a spokesperson for McMaster, declined to comment on whether el Shukrijumah and other al Qaeda operatives were ever students at the school. She maintained that such information was confidential.

Peter Downward, the attorney representing the University says, “We regard Mr. Williams’ allegations about McMaster as being on a par with UFO reports and JFK conspiracy theories. The notion that because there are people on faculty from Egypt that McMaster is then a haven for terrorism is not only logically offensive, it smacks of racism.”

McMaster may get away with dismissing findings of lawyers, investigators from the 9-11 Commission, and international journalists as racist, logically offensive, and loony.

However, the predominance of Muslims from terror sponsoring countries at McMaster and the lack of security at the reactor has been verified by independent sources, including Sean Michaels of Global TV-CA.

Moreover, Ontario police officials have labeled the campus “a hive of jihadi activity.”

In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence.

Islam: hatred, death, and destruction

Yesterday, October 2, President Obama led the United States one step further toward the beckoning arms of Islam. He signed a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution that deplores attacks on religions.

For more than ten years, Canada has been trying to get a UN resolution on the freedom of expression through the Commission on Human Rights. When the Commission was replaced by this new "reformed" Council, the distribution of seats on the UN's human rights body changed and the support Canada had assembled suddenly evaporated.

When the Danish cartoons were published, Cuba and a group of Islamic countries pushed through an amendment which imposed a limit on any speech they claimed deemed to “an act of racial or religious discrimination."

Although the resolution sounds innocuous and contains a statement supporting freedom of expression, it suddenly becomes ominous when you realize that the only religion that demands this particular right is Islam.

Obama, in another of his Jimmy Carter moments, signed it.

The resolution is not legally binding but provides Islamic nations with pseudo-moral ammunition to use whenever Muslims determine that Islam is being ridiculed by Western politicians and pundits through “negative racial and religious stereotyping.”

Islam cannot abide criticism. Instead of intelligent and civilized discourse with others, its preferred response to criticism is a stream of hate-filled vitriol.

**********

And speaking of hate-filled vitriol, the man who single-handedly caused hate-filled rioting across the Islamic world, Kurt Westergaard, was in Burlington Ontario, yesterday. 

Mr. Westergaard is the Dane who depicted a cartoonish Muhammad with a time-bomb in his turban and who has since had to learn to

“… live in a house under police surveillance, protected by the Danish secret service. We lived in ten different safe houses and drove ten different cars. Now, I live in a house which really is a fortress, with steel doors, a panic room, reinforced glass in the windows, and cameras.”

Islam insists it is the epitome of peace, but in fact, Islam is precisely the opposite: it represents all that is evil in human kind. --JGP