Why We Can Lose to the Islamists
**
I’ve written quite a bit on the non-violent tactics of the Islamists. That’s the major theme of my blog. And these non-violent tactics have yet to be addressed in this conflict between the Islamists and the free non-Muslim world.
Though the war on terror as a name for this conflict is slowly being discredited, there is little to replace it. Though politicians, MSM analysts and media have agreed that we now face a fascist ideology held and promoted by what we call terrorists, they seem unable to say what the actual tactics are of those who hold that ideology beyond calling them terrorists. Thus, with their circular logic, they arrive back to square one. We must do something to end terrorism. When that happens, out marches the right and left solutions to the problem, all of which have done little to reduce that actual advance of the ideology throughout world.
From the Sudan to Somalia to Iran to Palestine to Afghanistan to Pakistan to Malaysia and Indonesia, the Islamists are advancing their objectives throughout the Muslim world through violent jihad and non-violent infiltration and intimidation. In the non-Muslim world, under the secular beliefs of multiculturalism and political correctness, Islamists have advanced their ideological agenda forcing the governments and institutions of the non-Muslim World to submit to Islamist demands under the promise of peaceful co-existence.
The result is that the non-Muslim world finds itself impotent or even unaware of the threat to its civilization, morals, values and beliefs.
Daniel Pipes writing recently in The Sun describes how the non-Muslim world can lose this clash of civilizations.
On the face of it, the West's military predominance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag? Yet more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple. Islamists (defined as those who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam) might do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs.
Pipes exposes what those three fatal bugs are - pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency.
Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has taken hold that "there is no military solution"to current problems, a mantra applied to Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, America in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan if not military solutions?
Self-hatred: Significant elements in several Western countries — especially America, Britain, and Israel — believe their own governments to be repositories of evil and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This "we have met the enemy and he is us" attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements. Osama bin Laden celebrates by name such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. Self-hating Westerners have an outsize importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the press, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' auxiliary mujahedeen.
Complacency: The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine gives many Westerners, especially on the left, a feeling of disdain. Whereas conventional war — men in uniform; ships, tanks, and planes; and battles for land and resources — is simple to comprehend, the asymmetric war with radical Islam is elusive. Box cutters and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent. Senator Kerry and too many others dismiss terrorism as a mere "nuisance."
These three ‘bugs’ as Pipes call them are fertile ground for the gathering storm of intimidation, infiltration and disinformation that is the softening–up process as prelude to the coming war.
I’ve written quite a bit on the non-violent tactics of the Islamists. That’s the major theme of my blog. And these non-violent tactics have yet to be addressed in this conflict between the Islamists and the free non-Muslim world.
Though the war on terror as a name for this conflict is slowly being discredited, there is little to replace it. Though politicians, MSM analysts and media have agreed that we now face a fascist ideology held and promoted by what we call terrorists, they seem unable to say what the actual tactics are of those who hold that ideology beyond calling them terrorists. Thus, with their circular logic, they arrive back to square one. We must do something to end terrorism. When that happens, out marches the right and left solutions to the problem, all of which have done little to reduce that actual advance of the ideology throughout world.
From the Sudan to Somalia to Iran to Palestine to Afghanistan to Pakistan to Malaysia and Indonesia, the Islamists are advancing their objectives throughout the Muslim world through violent jihad and non-violent infiltration and intimidation. In the non-Muslim world, under the secular beliefs of multiculturalism and political correctness, Islamists have advanced their ideological agenda forcing the governments and institutions of the non-Muslim World to submit to Islamist demands under the promise of peaceful co-existence.
The result is that the non-Muslim world finds itself impotent or even unaware of the threat to its civilization, morals, values and beliefs.
Daniel Pipes writing recently in The Sun describes how the non-Muslim world can lose this clash of civilizations.
On the face of it, the West's military predominance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag? Yet more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple. Islamists (defined as those who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam) might do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs.
Pipes exposes what those three fatal bugs are - pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency.
Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has taken hold that "there is no military solution"to current problems, a mantra applied to Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, America in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan if not military solutions?
Self-hatred: Significant elements in several Western countries — especially America, Britain, and Israel — believe their own governments to be repositories of evil and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This "we have met the enemy and he is us" attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements. Osama bin Laden celebrates by name such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. Self-hating Westerners have an outsize importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the press, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' auxiliary mujahedeen.
Complacency: The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine gives many Westerners, especially on the left, a feeling of disdain. Whereas conventional war — men in uniform; ships, tanks, and planes; and battles for land and resources — is simple to comprehend, the asymmetric war with radical Islam is elusive. Box cutters and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent. Senator Kerry and too many others dismiss terrorism as a mere "nuisance."
These three ‘bugs’ as Pipes call them are fertile ground for the gathering storm of intimidation, infiltration and disinformation that is the softening–up process as prelude to the coming war.
**
townhall.com
**
There has been some confusing reporting in the past few days regarding President Barack Obama's plans for the Defense Department budget. Officially, the Office of Management and Budget is claiming that it will increase the budget by 8 percent. But because most of the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs have been funded through supplemental appropriations rather than the regular department budget, total military funding remains a mystery. Mark me down as suspicious. I have been told by sources at the Pentagon that they have been told not to expect full funding of all existing programs. And there is evidence that Obama has been planning to force cuts on our military for some time.
According to The Boston Globe on Nov. 10, 2008, the need for budget cuts at the Pentagon (prepared last year by a Defense Department advisory committee that proposed possible program cuts on the assumption that the DOD would not be appropriated enough money to cover all current defense programs and weapon systems) was the enthusiastic subject of an Obama transition group study back in October:
"'Business as usual is no longer an option,' according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to the Globe. 'The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action.'"
READ IT ALL: http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2009/02/04/obamas_defense_budget_mystery
According to The Boston Globe on Nov. 10, 2008, the need for budget cuts at the Pentagon (prepared last year by a Defense Department advisory committee that proposed possible program cuts on the assumption that the DOD would not be appropriated enough money to cover all current defense programs and weapon systems) was the enthusiastic subject of an Obama transition group study back in October:
"'Business as usual is no longer an option,' according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to the Globe. 'The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action.'"
READ IT ALL: http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2009/02/04/obamas_defense_budget_mystery
posted by jillosophy at 2/04/2009 10:23:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home