More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood: the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him. Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”
[ … ]
Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years: “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”
So if you sometimes ask yourself why America sucks and we’re such screw-ups, you’re asking the wrong question. We’re very good at what we do. Everything that has happened has occurred by design. There is intentionality behind this design.
Obama visited an American Mosque. Here is a video of his speech. He said all sorts of things that were lies. In fact, most or all of what he said was false. For instance, Islam cannot coexist at peace with any other ideology. It is an invasive parasite bent on the destruction of the host. We’ve discussed this at length before.
But there is one lie in particular that deserves discussion so that you understand just how misleading his speech was. It is this.
“Now, a lot of Americans have never visited a mosque, and to the folks watching this today who haven’t, think of your own church or synagogue or temple and a mosque like this will be very familiar. This is where families come to worship and express their love for God and for each other,” he said. “…So the first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim-Americans don’t hear often enough, and that is thank you. Thank you for serving your community.”
In my many articles on rules of engagement in Iraq, I dealt with the issue of lack of permission to fire on Mosques even when they knew of sniper hides in Minarets, fighters who ensconced there, and heavy weapons cached there. Our ROE has always had a Western bent. We see things through Western eyes, and often from a Christianized perspective.
Thus, the building where the church meets (the church is the people) is a place of “worship.” Without knowing anything about Islam, we assume that a Mosque is a place of worship. But to the Muslim, it is much, much more than that. It is the literal means for the spread of Islam through all means governed by the Mosque, and the “all means” to which I refer means everything.
The Mosque is the center of community, the weapons armory, the place for distribution of wealth, the location to meet other Muslims, the place where politics is taught – in short, the be all and end all of the Islamic strategy for conquest. Let someone who knows more than I do explain it better, John Guandolo.
Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.” This could not be further from the truth.
In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man. Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time. Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did. Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow. And Mohammad built mosques.
Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law). There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations. Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader. The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.
Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam. It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition. It was a place where jihadis lived and trained. It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader. This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.
Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad): The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers. (emphasis added)
“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.”
[ … ]
… the Islamic Law of Sacred Space makes clear that when Muslims build mosques they are claiming ground for Islam. Specifically, a radius of up to three (3) miles from the mosque belongs to Islam. This explains why the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding from Saudi Arabia and others, are building huge mosques in the middle of nowhere in America. They are claiming ground for Islam. Now all they have to do is occupy that ground.
You can think of Muslim homes as patrol bases and observation posts, and their Mosques as Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in a worldwide conquest for your politics, your wealth, your children, and ultimately your soul. Mr. Obama is lying to you. Mr. Obama isn’t stupid – he knows that he is lying. It’s important for you to know it too.
Let’s dispense with the notion that jihad is interpreted in many different ways by many different Islamicists, and can mean many different things, such as an internal striving for something. In order to understand Islam, one must understand abrogation. I am turning to John Guandolo.
One of the facets of sharia (Islamic Law) that turns the light bulb on in people’s minds more than anything else seems to be the moment they grasp the Koranic concept of abrogation and progressive revelation.
Islam teaches that Allah (the god of Islam) revealed Islam to mankind throughout history progressively. Allah revealed the Law to Moses which predicted the coming of Mohammad. Those who did not accept the Law of Moses were lost. When Allah revealed the Evangel to Jesus, which also foretold of the coming of Mohammad, it abrogated the Law of Moses, and those who did not accept it were lost (hellbound). When the final seal of the prophets – Mohammad – came and revealed the Koran to all of mankind, it abrogated all that came before it, and those who did not accept it were lost.
According to Islam, the original Law of Moses and revelations given to Jesus were corrupted by the Jews and Christian Priests and, therefore, do not exist on the planet today in their “original” form. In other words, Islam teaches that all Bibles in the world today are corrupt because the fore-tellings of Mohammad were all intentionally removed.
According to Islam, the message of the Koran was revealed to Mohammad via an angel over a period of approximately 23 years – progressively over time.
The Koran is organized into 114 chapters called “Suras.” These suras are not organize chronologically, but generally by size of the chapter from largest to smallest with the exception of Sura 1 which is only several lines long.
Three times in the Koran (2:106, 16:101, 17:106) Allah says that whatever he reveals chronologically later abrogates (overrules or cancels) what he previously revealed. Allah commands Mohammad to bring the community of people from their unbelief to full compliance with sharia progressively in stages. This is exactly what we are seeing on the ground today across the world. The Muslim community is slowly moving from living however they want to live to living in communities that are adhering to the sharia to a greater and greater degree.
According to Islam, Mohammad first received revelations in Mecca for a period of thirteen (13) years. He was completely rejected as a “prophet” by the religious scholars (Jewish, Christian) of the time. During those years only approximately 200 people converted to Islam – in 13 years. This is the time of “tolerance” where Mohammad had to tolerate the non-Muslims and there were no revelations of jihad.
Then Mohammad made the hijra to Medina, and was called to become a political and military leader. There he raised an army and gained many converts to Islam as he began to get revelations of jihad. First Mohammad received revelations of defensive jihad, then limited offensive jihad, and finally, the command to wage jihad as a permanent obligation until the entire world is under sharia.
Allah said it last (chronologically) in the Koran, then Mohammad said it, and then Mohammad did it. This is why there is no gray area in sharia as to the permanent command for all Muslims to wage jihad until the entire world is under sharia when they have the strength and ability to do so.
The Law of Jihad provides for how jihad can be waged by Muslims depending on where they are and their abilities.
Bringing greater sharia adherence to the world via jihad is the Muslim Brotherhood’s entire focus of all they do, and the stated objective of all of the jihadi organizations on the planet.
Christian doctrine includes the notion of progressive revelation, but not the bastardized form in Islam. In Biblical doctrine God’s revelation is progressively more complex throughout the scriptures, but there is never an abrogation of God’s revelation or a changing in His expectations for us or how He saves mankind. In the Holy Scriptures there is consistency. In Islam there is contradiction. Islam was and is a political faith concocted by a syphilitic pedophile for the purpose of keeping his band of fighters together. It isn’t original or unique. Everything in is fabricated, stolen or otherwise concocted for the sole purpose of exercising dominance over other men and taking their women and wealth. You may or may not share my theological views, but hold on for a moment and you’ll see the relevance of this for your life.
Since it is an ideology of domination, it has a doctrine of justification (Allah’s warriors are just and righteous to steal the riches of their conquests), no doctrine at all of forgiveness, grace or love, and an eschatology of victory. Whereas Christianity makes it clear that the elderly, the sick, widows and orphans have a special place in God’s heart, Islam in its unmitigated darkness targets the weak, infirmed and defenseless. It targets the weak of mind for its pernicious doctrines, and the weak spirited for domination.
The city authorities covered up what had happened for as long as they could. They didn’t want to acknowledge that young women had been molested under the eyes of their police, and they especially didn’t want to admit that most of the gropers were recently-arrived “refugees” from North Africa and the Middle East. It wasn’t until last Sunday that the news of what happened was splashed across the headlines in Germany and the rest of Europe. And it took several more days to learn that Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, and other German cities had experienced the same sort of incidents on New Year’s Eve. Later we found out that the same thing occurred in Helsinki, Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Oslo, and Stockholm. I’m certain that we’ll eventually hear of incidents in other major European cities that have a significant “refugee” population.
In each city the modus operandi seemed to be the same: a large number of young men, often intoxicated and setting off fireworks, preying on young women in a coordinated fashion, as if the whole thing were planned and organized in advance. Which it may well have been – but in a distributed fashion, not with a central command structure.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not order his troops to carry out attacks. But he didn’t have to – this is Islam, and any good Muslim who has paid attention to what is preached in mosques and instructed in madrassas knows exactly what to do.
Not to mention what is preached in the Koran. The Baron indirectly adopts my own label for Islam and its cipher-like zombies: Star Trek’s the Borg.
The third layer of purpose is more subtle. To understand it, you have to understand Islam as an organism, as a hive mind that acts through many agents but with a single program.
This organism is now expanding into new territory, feeling its way as it goes, assessing the presence of the enemy and attempting to determine the strength and nature of his response to the incursion. One way to test the enemy’s mettle is to target his women.
This army of “refugees” made a statement on New Year’s Eve in Cologne (and in Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Oslo, Stockholm, and elsewhere: Islam is here, and we’re claiming your women. After all, Verse 16.71 and other verses assert:
And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
And thousands of right hands were making their claims of possession in Cologne and other European cities that New Year’s Eve. Probing, Fondling. Raping.
Britain’s The Daily Mail has extensive coverage of the assaults and the aftermath here.
So, we know all about German and European women. But, where are all the German and European men? Have they been castrated? Turned into eunuchs by their education and political upbringing?
One of them might answer: “That’s not fair! We’re not afraid of Muslims. We know they’re bigots. But we don’t want to be called Islamophobes, or bigots, or ‘right-wingers.’ We’re very upset. We don’t know what to do.”
Then, gentlemen, you can kiss your country goodbye, and your womenfolk, too.
Society in western Europe is on the verge of breaking down amid chaotic violence caused by economic dislocation, mass immigration and terrorism. This is not the view of some ‘crazy survivalist’ but of the head of the Swiss Armed Forces.
Lieutenant-General André Blattmann has issued a warning to the Swiss people that society is dangerously close to collapse and advised those not already armed as part of the Swiss Army reserve to take steps to arm themselves …
“The threat of terror is rising, hybrid wars are being fought around the globe; the economic outlook is gloomy and the resulting migration flows of displaced persons and refugees have assumed unforeseen dimensions.”
Europeans are buying guns, but as long as the most sought-after item is OC spray by women who are rightly afraid, Europe hasn’t found the soul to defend itself, and probably will not survive. The men are confused, halting and befuddled. It took a committed Christian continent to repel the Islamic assaults of history, and Europe today is so secularized and morally hideous and obscene that the most significant reaction Germany can muster to a rape victim is to harass her.
As Texas officials spar with Obama administration lawyers over refugee resettlement, Amarillo is building Muslim “ghettos.”
Under federal refugee programs, the North Texas town has become home to more than 1,000 Mideast migrants – giving Amarillo the highest refugee ratio in the country.
“Our education system is overloaded with kids who can’t speak English. We have something like 22 languages spoken in our schools,” said William Sumerford, a local taxpayer activist.
City Commissioner Randy Burkett is considering a plan to halt further refugee settlements. Burkett could not be reached, but Mayor Paul Harpole isn’t optimistic about the city’s authority to push back.
“We’ve been a giving community, and it’s a huge disservice to bring in refugees in numbers that we’re not able to handle. We create small ghettos,” Harpole told Watchdog.org.
These ghettos won’t be acceptable for long by the Muslims. We’ve seen what happens to women who are ambushed by hordes of Muslims, and it’s awful for them.
Take note of one Frenchman who is accosted by a Muslim criminal in broad daylight, the only thing stopping him being that the Frenchman toted a handgun. Also take note of the swaggering, strutting, arrogant demeanor of the criminal, perceiving himself to be dominate in a strange land because of birthright.
The common theme should have become more pronounced by now. By birthright (or conversion), Muslims are taught to see what’s yours as theirs, women as chattel, and men as kafirs to be conquered and killed. Islam doesn’t coexist. Islam is an invasive organism that tests, prods and penetrates to find weaknesses in the host organism. It’s goal is to take over the host, consume its wealth, and conquer its people.
The migrant situation is going to get way worse, and we’ve only seen the beginning. The number of migrants has reached 60 million, with many still in transit. Let me repeat that for emphasis. Many of the migrants haven’t even yet arrived. They are still in transit. It may sound repetitive and redundant to keep saying it, but be ready to use weapons to defend yourselves, your family and your tribe. Practicing with your weapons is necessary, as necessary as having weapons and ammunition. But also necessary is the mental and spiritual steel and resolve to kill in order to effect self defense. While it may seem odd to bring this up, apparently it isn’t such an odd observation for Frenchmen or Germans.
While it may interesting to study and practice maneuver warfare and small unit combat tactics, techniques and procedures, MOUT and CQB techniques, the most likely first employment of a weapon you will ever face will be with your handgun and/or tactical knife. Remember Herschel’s Dictum. Always carry, always be prepared, keep your head on a swivel, and know with certainty that this is headed our way.
Matt Bracken has written a very important essay, but before I get to that, I wanted to preface his essay with a few remarks.
Matt deals with a number of very important things, spending much of his effort in the where, what and wherefore of the vice set up for peaceable men and women across the globe. We are under increasing pressure from many sides, and Matt explores that in his essay with his focus on (1) Islam, (2) International Socialism, and (3) Nationalism. His essay is a treatise in history, and one which is largely unparalleled in my opinion.
But Matt’s audience isn’t necessarily theologically committed, nor is it his purpose to address the ideological underpinnings of these three nefarious movements and their common moral malfunction. In other words, the “why” was not explored in this essay, and that I think was purposeful. Furthermore, Matt’s exploration into the “why” of things might differ from my own.
My own views are clear to regular readers. I am a committed Christian, specifically a Calvinist. I do not apologize one iota for my system of doctrine. Islam is a devilish political religion concocted by a syphilitic pedophile for the purpose of keeping a band of warlords and murderers together. Statism in all of its forms is evil, pernicious, and a foul odor in the nostrils of God. There is only one God, and one true religion, and our way to reconciliation with Him is through His son, Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. He (Jesus) demands fealty, He sits in the heavens and mocks the rulers of this age, and He will judge them in both time and eternity.
Jews didn’t cause our problem. Bankers – for all of their evil with fractional reserve banking – are a sign of the times and have the same cause as all of the other evils I am discussing. Statists are the same as Islamists, who are the same as the banking cabal, who is the same as the current administration and most previous ones, and (here is the hard part for readers) who is the same as the voting electorate who put them in place. They are all servants of the evil one.
Bankers wouldn’t have power if politicians didn’t grant it to them and men avoided debt, and the politicians wouldn’t be in power if the voters hadn’t voted themselves more largesse. The root cause of all of this is a rejection of the Son of man, the God-man Christ Jesus, and his demands for our lives, and His holy law for the governance of men. But contrary to the demands of the false God Allah, His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. He is a God of love and light, not of darkness and death as is the false god of Allah, or the false god of mammon.
Finally, the men who forged this nation (Samuel Rutherford, John Adams, etc.) split with the English over much less than what we face. We are a pitiful men, worthy of everything we are suffering now. God grant us the strength to stand when it matters, and the wisdom to know how and when.
As for Matt’s essay, he is published at WRSA and Gates of Vienna. Here is a teaser in case you haven’t already read his essay.
Right now, approximately a million new Muslim migrants are engaged in a struggle to find a warm place to sleep in a continent with nothing approaching the capacity to adequately house them. At least 75% of the migrant invaders are Muslim men of fighting age. Native-born ethnic Germans, Swedes and others are being thrown onto the street to provide emergency housing for Muslim “refugees.” Tens of thousands of migrants are currently living in tents, and in temporary shelters like school gymnasiums and underused warehouses.
There will be no means of finding or creating permanent quarters for them before the Central European blizzards come. When the snow is deep in Germany and across Europe, these men are going to enter local houses, demanding to be taken in as boarders—or else. Where it is useful, small migrant children will be held up in front as human shields for their emotional blackmail value; elsewise, they will be discarded. One way or the other, Muslim migrants will be attempting to move inside of German homes and apartments seeking heat and food, and the young Muslim men will be seeking undefended infidel or kafir women to slake their lust (which is their right, under Islamic Sharia law).
In disarmed Europe, any group of a dozen or more cold, hungry and angry Muslim men armed with clubs and knives will be able to enter any German house or business that they like. Worse, there are now reports of vast quantities of firearms being smuggled into Europe by the muhajirs, with cowed European authorities afraid to search the migrants or their baggage, lest they provoke riots. And weapons are not only smuggled in “refugee” baggage: eight hundred assault-style shotguns were just seized in a single truck in northern Italy, bound from Turkey to Belgium. How many truckloads of weapons and explosives have not been stopped?
In Germany, even before the winter snows, the migrants are flash mobbing and looting shops and stores. Seeking to forestall a social eruption, police do not respond until the mobs have safely departed. For now, the German government is paying these store owners for their lost merchandise, but this cannot continue forever. Businesses are closing and Germans are retreating in fear, as the muhajirs learn that they can invade private property and rob Germans without repercussions, convincing them even further of the docile passivity of their hosts, and the inevitability of their ultimate hijra invasion success.
As attacks mount, the German police will nearly always fall out on the side of the traitor-elite politicians who pay their salaries, and they will not come to the rescue of besieged ethnic Germans. At least, not under official orders, or in uniform. This calculated disregard by the international socialist elites for the safety and welfare of ordinary German citizens will in time lead to vigilantism and death squad actions by “off-duty” German military and police personnel. They will be acting against their “hands off the Muslims” orders, which are ultimately emanating from Brussels. And in time, enough firearms will find their way from the military, police and black markets into the hands of ordinary European nationalists for them to mount an armed resistance.
Things are going to get dicey. Never give up your guns. You will need them.
SYDNEY, Australia — Armed police officers surrounded a cafe in Sydney’s central business district Monday morning after one or more gunmen took hostages and displayed a black flag with Arabic script in white in the cafe window.
A police spokesman confirmed officers were called to the Lindt Chocolate Cafe, in Martin Place, a major shopping and pedestrian thoroughfare, at around 10 a.m.
A commercial television network, Channel Seven, which has a studio near the cafe, showed footage of people, wearing Lindt uniforms, pressed against the cafe windows, displaying the flag.
Reports say anything from 20 to 40 or 50 people are being held. You mean that the police weren’t able to anticipate it and stop it before it happened? You mean the police being armed isn’t enough to keep people safe? You mean that there are 40-50 people now in Sydney, Australia who wish they were concealed handgun carriers?
My good friend Tim Lynch sent me a note today that is so valuable that it needs to be shared with my readers. I asked Tim permission to do so in its entirety. Tim was a contractor (military and intelligence) in Afghanistan for about a decade.
He knows more about Afghanistan (and as much about Jihad) as any English speaking man alive. His words should be studied.
Thanks for that Herschel I didn’t know or correspond with Jim when he was in Afghanistan and that is no doubt my loss. Seeing him go that way makes me pissed too. It reminds me that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the Jihadis faced the most danger when activly fighting Americans. If they were wound and captured or just captured by the Americans they were in the safest situation they could possibly be in given the time and place. Literally – they would not be safer no matter where they were or who they were with if they were captured by our military. Conversely an American was in mortal danger not while fighting Jihadis but if captured by them. The Jihadis were horrible at fighting, cowards when hard pressed but lions once their foes were wounded, hog tied and under their control.
I hate cowards more than just about anything and those punks, who would cut and run in the blink of an eye if they felt pressure on their flanks, are straight up cowards. And only cowards could believe that beheading captives will put fear in a warriors heart – it does the exact opposite and this country still produces enough men who will run through the fires of hell just to sink a bayonet into the guts of cowards who threaten our way of life.
The New York Times as well as other media outlets are now confirming, along with the Obama Administration, that Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, has been killed by a drone strike in a remote, Pakistani village last week:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A Central Intelligence Agency drone strike in Pakistan’s tribal belt killed Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi, American officials said on Tuesday, dealing another blow to the group in a lawless area that has long been considered the global headquarters of international terrorism but the importance of which may now be slipping.
The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said that as a result of Mr. Libi’s death, “there is no clear successor to take on the breadth of his responsibility, and that puts additional pressure” on Al Qaeda, “bringing it closer to its ultimate demise than ever.”
If his death is borne out this time, it would be a milestone in a covert eight-year airstrike campaign that has infuriated Pakistani officials but that has remained one of the United States’ most effective tools in combating militancy.
One American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, described Mr. Libi as one of Al Qaeda’s “most experienced and versatile leaders,” and said he had “played a critical role in the group’s planning against the West, providing oversight of the external operations efforts.”
As damaging as these “decapitation operations” may be to Al Qaeda, we seem to be losing the forest for the trees.
While the U.S. focuses on sending missiles through the windows of every, significant Al Qaeda leader that remains (and each, new one that sprouts up), the war against Militant Islam has long since moved on to other, more threatening venues. Iran, for example, is a declared enemy of the United States, bent on developing nuclear weapons, but U.S. policy has never reflected anywhere near the seriousness accorded to Al Qaeda, despite the fact that Iran poses a threat that is orders of magnitude greater than Al Qaeda. Islamists appear poised to take absolute control of the most populous Arab state in Egypt and are actively taking advantage of the civil war in Syria where U.S. intransigence has created a vacuum among the rebel forces. Turkey is moving doggedly toward an Islamist state that will seek to dominate the region in direct conflict with U.S. national interests. Pakistan seems to be increasingly in the grip of Islamists who occupy key positions in its military and intelligence services. More ominously, Europe is increasingly subject to the influence and intimidation of Islamist immigrants who regularly resort to violence to undermine traditional, Western values. In the U.S., any talk of Islamists or their ideology is forbidden throughout the federal government.
For all that George W. Bush may have gotten wrong during his eight years in office, and in particular with his war planning, he did understand that the United States (and the West at large) was not fighting only or even primarily against Al Qaeda, but against a broader ideology– islamofascism, if you will– that motivated not only Al Qaeda but an entire movement of muslims determined to impose fundamentalist Islam upon the world.
As a last, side note on the al-Libi assassination, we should be careful what we wish for. The U.S. may succeed in debilitating Al Qaeda’s operation capabilities to such an extent that they will change tactics and resort to the sort of “lone wolf” terror tactics that traumatized Israeli society in the intifada days of a decade ago. Anyone who lived as I did in the Washington, D.C. area in the Fall of 2002 well remembers how just two persons, acting on their own in seemingly random fashion, could seriously disrupt an entire region. It is a wonder that the Islamists have not resorted to this tactic in any concerted way. Let’s hope that they don’t. But, considering how little strategic thinking seems to be going on in D.C., “hope” may be the only thing left.
December in Western Culture is always an appropriate time of year for reflection– remembering that all-important point in history when God invaded our world in human form. This particular December, however, is especially appropriate for reflection on what has variously been termed “The Long War” or, “World War IV,” or, by this Administration as, “Overseas Contingency Operations” as the President has unilaterally declared that the Iraq War is over and the books are closed.
It is my intention, then, to offer up over the next weeks what I consider to be the lessons we have learned in the 30-plus years since the re-birth and rise of Militant Islam in 1979. I wish I could preface this series with optimism and confidence of victory. I wish I could write that the West is winning, however slowly, the great struggle against this latest fascist incarnation, but reality will not permit.
It is time to face this awful situation squarely, not with fatalism or despair but with determination. It is impossible to ignore the steady drumbeat of politically correct programs that hamstrings our efforts, or another miserable candidate who garners applause with 1920’s style isolationist rhetoric. American leaders seem all too adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and mistaking our friends and enemies.
Barring the advent of national leadership which is nowhere evident, or a miracle of some kind– of which history is not replete— we must bravely conclude that, for now, the American public at large will not rouse itself to effective action. We are caught in yet another national whirlpool of apathy, denial, distraction and delusion— just as we were in the 1930’s and the 1990’s– from which the only escape is a national trauma on the scale of a Pearl Harbor or September 11th calamity. We have pushed our luck far too many times and refuse to get serious about taking the fight to the enemy– indeed, a president is applauded when he promises to “bring the troops home” without regard for consequences. Ear-pleasing platitudes are what the Public demands, so it is no wonder that the politicians serve it up by the plateful.
If there is any ground for optimism in this Long War, it may be found in the capacity of our enemy to bouts of incredible stupidity. To be sure, the U.S. is no less prone to such lapses, so in this respect the Long War is like a game of football in which the side committing the fewer mistakes will win. I take from this a grim hope that the inevitable attack against the U.S. by the Islamists will be limited to a similar scope and scale of the 9-11 attacks. Is it too ironic to pray that the Islamists be so stupid again?
As terrible as such an attack would be, American history suggests that we are only roused to great and decisive action by such, limited attacks. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, it is difficult to say when the U.S. would have openly entered World War II against the Nazis. Without an American entry in December 1941, it is doubtful that Normandy is invaded in 1944. Without an invasion of Normandy in 1944, it is possible that Hitler’s scientists finish development of an atomic bomb.
To reference more recent history, it is clear that the U.S. would not have invaded Afghanistan nor deposed Saddam Hussein without the September 11 attacks. It is perhaps a sign of our timidity and half-hearted approach that we have failed to achieve any, definitive victory in the War even 10 years later. Nonetheless, it is clear that the September 11th attacks stirred America to a unity of action and purpose (albeit squandered and now cooled) that has not been seen since 1945.
To be clear: I do not wish any, such attack against the homeland. I do believe, however, that such an attack is increasingly inevitable. It is only right, therefore, that we consider all of the lessons learned in the 10-plus years since September 11, 2001 in the hopes that we not repeat those mistakes. With the frightening prospect of an attack lingering on the horizon, I offer the first of at least nine lessons from this Long War:
Lesson #1: Clearly identify those responsible and what they represent.
Regular readers will know that I detest the moniker, “War on Terror.”
As many pundits and writers have pointed out, “terror” is a tactic. It is not something we can fight and defeat. And to the extent that we refuse or avoid recognizing the Enemy and calling it by the proper name, we splinter our efforts, lessening the odds of prevailing. In this season of presidential campaigns, Americans should insist that the Republican candidates at the very least make a clean break from political correctness and honestly name the enemy. Militant Islam, Radical Islam, Islamofascism. The point is that all Americans and the world must understand that these attacks originate from an ideology and not simply from a criminal enterprise or a fringe group of shadowy “terrorists.”
The 9-11 attackers were trained and motivated, at the very least, by an interpretation of the Koran and Islam that joyfully and obediently embraces a violent and decisive confrontation with anyone, muslim or not, who does not adhere to their doctrine. It is a seething belief that the entire world must be conquered and subdued to the will of their god, Allah. It is not an ideology that can be appeased or reasoned with any more than other, authoritarian doctrines. The West should have learned from its experiences with the Nazis and Communists that an ideology embraced with religious fanaticism cannot be appeased or mollified but must be defeated and discredited.
Militant Islam may very well prove to be the most virulent of the authoritarian ideologies to manifest itself since the rise of the Ottoman Empire. We are fighting against a body of believers numbered in the tens of millions, even if they only consist of a minority of muslims. This is not a fringe group. Islamists are spread across continents and ethnicities. Compounding this danger is the apparent surge of power and influence of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East.
Since 9-11, the U.S. has been rightly pursuing the militants, not only in Afghanistan but literally across the globe. But while the U.S. military has worked wonders in places like Fallujah, Ramadi, Marjah and the Philippines, the larger U.S. government has acted like an adolescent who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. Too often the focus on military operations has resulted in a complete failure to engage in the larger war of ideas in places that are not hot zones but are no less critical. Worse still, the U.S. State Department has often worked at cross-purposes with the military.
Consider Lebanon. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, despite all the hand-wringing and wailing of the Left Wing Media, created a powerful opportunity for the rise of a non-Islamist coalition. We forget that the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon came on the heels of the capture of Saddam Hussein and even anti-U.S. figures such as Walid Jumblatt were reluctantly praising the elections in Iraq:
The January 2005 vote in Iraq also appeared to play a role since it supported the notion that Arabs craved democracy. (Lebanese Druze chieftain Walid Jumblatt gave credence to the importance of these developments when he said, “It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. . . . When I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.”)
But the U.S. simply could not summon the will to support democratic groups in any, meaningful fashion. The U.S. foreign policy establishment preferred to coddle and reach out to thugs like Bashir Assad in Syria. And so Lebanon has slipped ever more deeply into the control of Hezbollah, funded and controlled by Iran through Syria.
Recently we have seen Egypt, Tunisia and Libya sliding into the Islamists’ camp. The U.S. seems not only oblivious to this developing disaster but actively supportive. Whether this folly is generated by a fear of offending muslim sensibilities or an arrogance that the U.S. can co-opt or mold the Islamists once they are in power, the net result is the same. Ironically, the Obama Administration does not want to be seen as meddling in the internal affairs of Egypt or Iran, but has no such qualms with interfering with formerly pro-American allies like Honduras and Colombia.
This refusal to acknowledge the enemy will forever cripple our war efforts and will enable the enemy. A muslim who does not subscribe to the Wahhabist version and rejects militant Islam should be no more offended when we target the Islamists than a 1940’s German would be offended by our targeting of Nazis. In fact, our refusal to clearly identify the enemy in this case creates a dangerous confusion in the minds of non-muslims and muslims alike. Muslims need to clearly and unequivocally choose sides in this War. Are they with us or with the Islamists?
The current taboo allows and encourages a shadowy world where loyalties remain unknown and ambiguous. It is no interference with freedom of religion to ask whether a mosque is preaching Militant Islam. No one has ever asserted that freedom of religion includes a right to advocate for the subversion and overthrow of our Constitution and nation. It is incumbent on members of any congregation, muslim, christian, jewish, or mormon, to report and, if necessary, testify against leadership that advocates violence against others in society. Personal knowledge of violent plots combined with a refusal to report them constitutes at least passive participation in a criminal conspiracy. In time of war, however, the failure to expose the efforts of the enemy to recruit for and advance attacks is treasonous.
For some mysterious reason, however, no Administration has ever dared to clearly identify militant Islam as the enemy. Instead, we have tried to fight Islamists as a criminal enterprise (Reagan, Bush I and Clinton); as nameless, religionless “terrorists” (Bush II); and now as a “specific network” consisting only of Al-Qaeda (Obama). We cannot defeat an enemy we dare not name.
This article from The Hindu provides a good summary history of the Haqqanis. Upon reading it, consider just how well connected and globally minded they are.
Born in the early 1950s, Jalaluddin Haqqani hailed from the Zadran tribe of the Pashtun ethnic group. He studied at a seminary in Datta Adam Khel, and would likely have gone on to become a rural cleric — had it not been for a series of dramatic events that transformed Afghanistan, eventually bringing to power a new class of armed clerics who would displace both the traditional tribal élite and the modernising left-wing secularists who had swept them aside.
In 1973, Afghan communists overthrew the decaying monarchy. Even though the new President, Daud Muhammad Khan, was the deposed king’s brother-in-law, he declared the country a republic. President Khan presided over a dramatic process of social reform — marked, among other things, by an emphasis on women’s rights. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate, fearful that Mr. Khan’s nationalist rhetoric would seduce ethnic Pashtuns living on its side of the border, responded by backing an insurgency spearheaded by the Afghan Islamists.
Five years before the crisis that would suck the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, Jalaluddin Haqqani declared war against the Afghan state. Helped by the ISI, he developed sources of funding in the Middle East, using the flow of cash to build an impressive military apparatus.
The ISI, though, wasn’t Jalaluddin Haqqani’s only source of support. In the wake of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, journalist Steve Coll has revealed, he was cultivated as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset. Charlie Wilson, a right-wing politician who helped funnel tens of millions of dollars to the Afghan jihadists, described Jalaluddin Haqqani as “goodness personified.”
Key figures in the global jihadist movement — among them Osama bin Laden — learned their military skills in camps set up by Jalaluddin Haqqani, and maintained a close relationship with him in the years that followed.
Mustafa al-Hamid, an al-Qaeda linked ideologue and writer who served with Jalaluddin Haqqani’s forces, wrote a hagiographic account which was published in the jihadist magazine al-Somud last year. The “majesty in his personality was a model for the great religious scholars of Afghanistan and students of the knowledge of the pure mujahideen, who now stand as an impregnable bulwark against the largest crusader attack upon the Islamic nation.”
From the outset, scholars Don Rassler and Vahid Brown have noted in a seminal paper, that Jalaluddin Haqqani helped shape the global jihadist movement’s ideas.
In 1980, for example, Haqqani asserted that Middle Eastern charity to the Afghan campaign did “not absolve the individual Muslim of the duty to offer himself for the jihad.” Abdullah Azzam — bin Laden’s mentor, Lashkar-e-Taiba co-founder and ideological patriarch of the global jihadist movement — arrived at the same conclusion four years later, when he declared the Afghan jihad fard ‘ayn, an individual obligation. When bin Laden shifted base to a pink stucco three-storey home in Khartoum in 1991, having fallen out with Saudi Arabia’s royal family, Jalaluddin Haqqani used the opportunity to operate on a wider stage. He backed Hasan al-Turabi’s Islamist regime in Sudan, and sent volunteers to fight in Bosnia. In 1991, at a meeting in Karachi, he also bragged about his war against India, saying his networks had “trained thousands of Kashmiri mujahideen and have made them ready for the jihad.”
Nizamuddin Haqqani, Jalaluddin Haqqani’s deputy, proclaimed in 1991 that the U.S. and Russia were “both infidel forces.”
Bin Laden’s close relationship with the Haqqanis helped him act on those ideas during his last, tortured months in Afghanistan — scarred by an increasingly bitter relationship with Taliban chief Mullah Muhammad Omar which saw al-Qaeda’s leader confined to the city of Kandahar.
“From that point on,” Dr. Rassler and Dr. Brown record, “al-Qaeda came to increasingly rely on the Haqqani network’s autonomy from the Taliban in Loya Paktia as a launching pad for its declarations of war on the West.”
Bin Laden’s declaration of jihad against the West — his most sweeping manifesto and ideological keystone of the 9/11 attacks, was critically issued from a Haqqani camp in the Zhawara valley.
Since 9/11, the Haqqani network has survived by using the same geographical advantages that stood it so well during the anti-Soviet jihad: its control of key routes from Pakistan into Afghanistan, and its ability to retreat south across the border.
Now take note of one particularly stolid commentary at Reuters.
Pakistan hopes the United States will eventually welcome the participation of the Haqqanis in any Afghan peace talks. Kabul also understands the group can’t be excluded.
Although the Haqqanis fall under the command of Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, U.S. officials believe they do not always accept Taliban authority and can act independently.
Jalaluddin has historically shown a penchant for changing sides, as the Americans know all too well, and he may be more flexible than the hardline Siraj.
Washington is scrambling to bring stability to Afghanistan at it gradually withdraws from the country. Striking a deal with the Haqqanis may be wise while the ailing Jalaluddin might still have a say.
That was no mistake, and you don’t have to read it again. Reuters is recommending that we strike a deal with the “ailing” elder Haqqani who likes to switch sides rather than his more radical son. And hurry. The ailing Haqqani may die, in which case whatever deal we might have struck with him – which was sure to be honored by his more radical son – will have been a missed opportunity.
This is what happens when ignorant people assign themselves the responsibility and authority to become Afghanistan / Pashtun / Islamic / Jihadist / Pakistani experts. Also, regarding that last paragraph in The Hindu piece on control of key routes from Pakistan into Afghanistan, who was it that issued the warning about the coming logistical struggle because of the attacks on lines through Khyber and Chaman, and that, three and a half years ago?
It is appropriate to consider, ten years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, what has transpired and where we find ourselves.
A number of excellent writers have undertaken to do this, so I will not re-invent the wheel. At the same time, however, there are a few points that seem to be missing from the analysis.
So, for example, Barry Rubin over at Pajamas Media has an article titled, “Ten Years After September 11: Who’s Really Winning The War On Terrorism?” Rubin has an excellent summary of the Al Qaeda strategy and its place in the larger context of Islamic militancy:
Let’s be clear. Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon to achieve several goals:
–To become the leader in a worldwide jihad.
–To persuade Muslims that America is weak and can be defeated.
–To stir far more Muslims to jihad, that is a Holy War that today can be defined as an Islamist revolution.
–To mobilize forces in order to challenge and eventually to overthrow all of the existing regimes in the Sunni Muslim areas, replacing Arab nationalism in many of those countries with Islamism as the main ideological force.
I would suggest that al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks largely succeeded in three of those four goals. Only in the first did it fail, and for a very good reason. Precisely because it carried out the attacks, al-Qaeda became the main target for U.S. efforts and repression by leaders in Muslim-majority countries. Consequently, it has suffered greatly from losses.
By the same token, however, other Islamist forces have largely been left alone by the West or faced far less pressure. Such groups include the Muslim Brotherhood groups, Hamas, Hizballah, and the pro-Islamist regimes in Syria and Iran. In fact, Islamist groups and Islamism as an ideology have advanced impressively, especially in the last few years.
I would differ with Rubin that Al Qaeda did not succeed in becoming the leader in worldwide jihad. Clearly, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Al Qaeda was easily the most visible terror group and most heralded in the Islamist world. The fact that Al Qaeda has suffered a disproportionate number of decapitation operations by the U.S. does not mean that it did not accomplish its goal of jihadi leadership. In fact, it could be argued that Al Qaeda has succeeded brilliantly in this regard to the extent that the U.S. has been distracted from fighting other no-less dangerous groups which share the wider goals of Islamist domination of the West.
Indeed, Rubin alludes to this as the very problem afflicting U.S. policy:
Where is terrorism weaker? Other than Algeria, where it was defeated in a bloody civil war, it is hard to find any such examples, though in other places like Morocco and Saudi Arabia — terrorism has not made gains.
In many places in Europe, the Brotherhood and even more radical groups have made important strides in gaining hegemony in neighborhoods and over Muslim communities. Governments have not combatted this and even have encouraged it, arguing that the organizations are not presently using terrorism. But with growing radical Islamist ideas, the level of terrorism and intimidation also increases.
A key factor is the failure of the U.S. government, which basically defines anything that isn’t al-Qaeda as not being a threat. Within the United States, a major terrorist attack has been averted, though luck seems to play a role here (underpants bomber; Times Square bomber). At the same time there have been many more small-scale attacks. One way the U.S. government achieves positive statistics is to redefine specific events — a shooting at the El Al counter in Los Angeles, an attack on a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest, the murder of a military recruiter in Arkansas, and even the Ft. Hood killer — as non-terrorist, non-Islamist criminal acts.
So are things much better a decade after the September 11 attacks? Aside from the very important aspect of avoiding a huge successful terror attack on the United States, the answer is “no.”
The unfortunate fact is that, even if al-Qaeda were totally eradicated tomorrow, the terror threat to the West would hardly recede, since al-Qaeda has never been the source of the threat, but simply one of its manifestations. The AP report obliquely reflects this: “Senior al-Qaeda figures have been killed before, only to be replaced,” even as the Obama administration is optimistic that “victory” is at hand.
To get a better perspective on the overall significance of the latest killing of an al-Qaeda member, consider how at the turn of the 20th century, the Islamic world was rushing to emulate the victorious and confident West — best exemplified by the Ottoman empire itself, the preserver and enforcer of Islam, rejecting its Muslim past and embracing secularism under Ataturk. Today, 100 years later, the Muslim world has largely rejected secularism and is reclaiming its Islamic — including jihadist — heritage, lashing out in a manifold of ways. Consider how many Islamist leaders, organizations, and terrorists have come and gone in the 20th century alone — many killed like bin Laden — only for the conflict between Islam and the West to continue growing by the day.
This is the essence of where we stand today. By and large, the Obama Administration and its supporters on the Left refuse to face the fundamental nature of the conflict. While it is true that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001, those attacks were merely a manifestation of what has been a perpetual civilizational conflict between Islam and the West since the militant spread of Islam after 632 A.D. The militant strain of Islam has always sought to expand and dominate non-muslim peoples and it always will.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes in Carnage and Culture:
In the century between [the death of Muhammad and the critical battle of Poitiers, France in 732 A.D. which stopped the incursion of Islam into Southern Europe], a small and rather impotent Arab people arose to conquer the Sassanid Persian Empire, wrest the entire Middle East and much of Asia Minor from the Byzantines, and establish a theocratic rule across North Africa…. [B]y the mid-eighth century, the suddenly ascendant kingdom of the Arabs controlled three continents and an area larger than the old Roman Empire itself.
The Arab conquests were a result of two phenomena: prior contact with Byzantines, from whom they borrowed, looted, and then adapted arms, armor, and some of their military organization; and the weakness of the [Persian Empire and remnants of barbarian conquests of Asia and North Africa].
[The conquests by early Islamic militants goes beyond adopted technologies and weak adversaries]. There was to be a novel connection between war and faith, creating a divine culture that might reward with paradise the slaying of the infidel and the looting of Christian cities. Killing and pillaging were now in the proper context, acts of piety.
For the rest of the ninth through tenth centuries, the war between [Islam and the West] would break out in northern Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, and the other larger islands of the Mediterranean [which] became the new line of battle between the two entirely antithetical cultures.
Although Hanson is commenting upon distant history, it is remarkable how applicable these observations remain today and how little the nature of Islam has changed in 1300 years. Militant Islam in the 21st century still maintains the “novel connection between war and faith” and a “divine culture that might reward with paradise the slaying of the infidel.” True, militant Islam has traded in the scimitar for suicide bomber vests and I.E.D.s, but the subjugation of unbelievers remains the same.
We seem to be making a fundamental mistake in the West when we fail to see the broader context of the struggle. September 11, 2001 was not a “tragedy” but an act of war. A tactical strike by militant Islam at the financial, military and (it was hoped) political heart of the West. And it was not the first such strike. Militant Islam has been on the march in modern times since at least 1979 with the founding of the theocratic state of Iran. As Mr. Ibrahim writes in his article, the muslim world is quickly turning (or, more exactly, re-turning) to militant Islam as a means of forcing an expansion of power, in the Middle East in the short term and in Europe and even North America in the long term. This is not some new phenomenon to any student of history but a continuation of a struggle between two civilizations: one based upon Greek and Roman thoughts of law and liberty with Christian overlays (Western democracy) and one based upon the all-encompassing rule of the Koran which sublimates the individual in every aspect of life. The two cultures are thoroughly incompatible and the history of the world has shown that peace has only, ever reigned between the two when Islam was too weak to force its will upon the West.
This, then, should be the take-away from 9-11: we are in a desperate struggle for civilizational survival that is being fought on the battlefield, certainly, but also in the courtroom, in the media, in politically correct driven government policy and think tanks, and in the very essence of our culture— how we view our basic freedoms and the means we are willing to employ to cherish and defend them.
Sadly, I see little evidence, ten years after the attacks of 9-11, that America’s leaders are at all willing to face this larger context. It is too frightening. The risk of being called xenophobic, or Islamophobic or chauvinistic is too intimidating. So we will fight where we find it convenient to fight. Drone attacks that take out an Al Qaeda leader but leave in peace Iranian leaders who have killed far more Americans than Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We will look for the first opportunity to declare victory, as when Osama Bin Laden was killed, but ignore the mortal threats to peace and economic security posed by a nuclear Iran or a growing Hezbollah or Hamas. We will sacrifice precious blood and treasure gaining great victories in Iraq and Afghanistan only to throw it away in hasty withdrawals under the smokescreen of “transition.”