Babylon's Covert War - The conflict in Iraq explained

Amazon Books ^ | 2008 | JH White

[BCW]

s it possible to really win the war on terror? Are there really reasons for Jihad that can be understood and countered by the West? Is military or martial action the last-best chance for ending the threat posed by Islam? In his new and controversial book, Babylon’s Covert War, author J H White answers these and other complex questions related to the global fight against radical Jihad. Islam has a strategy that was incorporated by Muhammad in the 7th Century that has continued in various forms over a multitude of battlefields be they military, social, or political. During the emergence of Islamic domination, the United States never fully grasped or understood that Islam was a creature that grew and survived through deceit, lies, and falsehoods. Western, and particularly U.S., mistakes regarding Islam’s rise to power, coupled with political interference from Washington D.C. and hampered by traditionally-minded military strategists, have allowed Islam to grow and spread outside of the traditional boundaries of the Middle East. For its part, Islam is more than happy to exploit the divisions caused by the West’s inability to act decisively against perceived threats, fully understanding that our inaction ties the hands of the true warriors who are ready, willing, and able to act to neutralize it. Islam’s threat has been long lived, and until it is met with force and destroyed totally it will not subside.

[BCW]

It's all in there...

[Diogenesis]

When the Founding Fathers Faced Islamists

"Back in 1784, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had to decide whether to appease or stand up to armed Middle Eastern pirates. Sound familiar?

.... The Middle East, a term coined by Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of McCain’s boyhood idols, is where both American warfare and American diplomacy began in the late 18th century, as our infant republic faced its first post-Revolutionary struggle against the evocatively named Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire.

The regencies of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers (future homes of Muammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat, and the Islamic Salvation Front, respectively) had been hosting and sponsoring Islamic piracy since the Middle Ages. Scimitar-wielding corsairs would regularly interrupt the flow of trade and traffic along the coasts of North Africa, seizing European vessels and taking their crews into bondage. Cervantes wrote his first play, in the 16th century, about the dread corsairs, and by the 18th, the American colonies had a minor seagoing presence in the Mediterranean protected by the redoubtable British Navy. But the Crown was reluctant to war against so petty an antagonist, preferring to pay “tribute” to the Barbary States instead, as a shopkeeper would protection money to the mafia. After the U.S. broke away from England and became its own nation, however, the geopolitical dynamics changed, as did the American equanimity with doing business with pirates.

In 1784, corsairs attacked the Betsy, a 300-ton brig that had sailed from Boston to Tenerife Island, about 100 miles off the North African coast, selling her new-made citizens as chattel on the markets of Morocco. The U.S. was not free of its own moral taint of slavery, of course, but it would be impossible to hasten the industrial development that would eventually render the agrarian-plantation economy obsolete if merchant ships could not be assured of safe conduct near the Turkish Porte. Other vessels, such as the Dauphin and Maria, were also seized, this time by Algiers, and the horrifying experiences of their captive passengers relayed back home were the cause for outrage. James Leander Cathcart described the dungeon in which he was being kept as “perfectly dark…where the slaves sleep four tiers deep…many nearly naked, and few with anything more than an old tattered blanket to cover them in the depth of winter.”

In response, Thomas Jefferson, then the Minister to France, suggested a multilateral approach of what we would now term “deterrence.” He asked that Spain, Portugal, Naples, Denmark, Sweden and France enter into a coalition with America to dissuade the regencies from their criminal assaults on life, liberty and the pursuit of international commerce. As Michael Oren, in his magisterial history Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to Present relates, “By deterring, rather than appeasing, Barbary, the United States would preserve its economy and send an unambiguous message to potentially hostile powers.” Jefferson thought it would impress Europe if America could do what Europe had failed to do for centuries and beat back the persistent thuggery of Islamists. “It will procure us respect,” said the author of the Declaration of Independence. “And respect is a safeguard to interest.”

This sober judgment fused the cold calculations of latter-day “realism” with the morality behind revolutionary interventionism: not only would America protect its citizens from plunder and foreign slaveholding; it would ensure that other countries under “Christendom” were similarly protected.

Though Jefferson found a stalwart Continental ally in a former one, the Marquis de Lafayette, France squelched the idea of a NATO made of buckshot and cannon. While waiting for funds that would never come from Congress for the construction of a 150-gun navy, the sage of Monticello resigned himself to further diplomacy with the enemy. In 1785, he dispatched John Lamb, a Connecticut businessman, to secure the release of hostages in Algiers, held by its dynastic sovereign Hassan Dey. Lamb failed ignominiously.

At the same time, John Adams, then minister to England, agreed to receive the pasha of Tripoli, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Ajar, in his London quarters to discuss a possible peace deal. Adams described his interlocutor as a man who looked all “pestilence and war,” a suspicion that was soon confirmed by the pasha’s demand of 30,000 guineas for his statelet, plus a 3,000 guinea gratuity for himself. He also did Adams the favor of estimating what it would cost the U.S. to broker a similar deal with Tunis, Morocco and Algiers — the total price for blackmail would be about $1 million, or a tenth the annual budget of the United States.

Adams was incensed. “It would be more proper to write [of his meeting with ‘Abd al-Rahman] for the… New York Theatre,” he thundered. He agreed with Jefferson that a military response was increasingly likely, but Adams doubted his country’s economic ability to sustain it. For the short term, he thought it better to offer “one Gift of two hundred Thousand Pounds” rather than forfeit “a Million annually” in trade revenue, which the pirates were sure to disrupt. Not long thereafter, Jefferson joined him in London to prevent the “universal and horrible War” and reach an accord with the refractory envoy from Tripoli. Both gentlemen of the Enlightenment, and comrades in revolution, affirmed America’s desire for peace, its respect for all nations, and suggested a treaty of lasting friendship with the regency. ‘Abd al-Rahman listened well, but his reply was one that would shock modern ears less than it did those of the two Founding Fathers:

“It was… written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged [the Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon wheoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Though a period of paying tribute and douceurs (or “softeners” — expensive trickets and toys) to Islamic pirates would continue, the words of ‘Abd al-Rahman Adams were chilling enough to leave Adams and Jefferson in no doubt as to the sanguinary and messianic nature of their adversary. “An angel sent on this business,” lamented Jefferson, “could have done nothing” to placate such men. He called them “sea dogs” and a “pettifogging nest of robbers.” The episode preceded further acts of piracy against American vessels and the imprisonment and sale of its crews and passengers, and was enough to get Jefferson to overlook his wariness of federalism and agree to a Constitution with a strong central government capable of building and keeping a powerful navy. Adams, as it turned out, was more worried that American opinion wouldn’t rally for war, or accept its dire consequences. But the Philadelphia convention that drafted our national covenant in 1787 was hastened, and its welter of opinions unified, by the Barbary question. As the historian Thomas Bailey wrote, “In an indirect sense, the brutal Dey of Algiers was a Founding Father of the Constitution.”

Barbary Pirates torture western prisoners

America still sued for peace. The Betsy’s release had been negotiated, albeit abjectly, and to the accompaniment of America’s first diplomatic accord, the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Ship-Signals, signed with Morocco in 1786. But no sooner was the ship let go and its captives freed than it was recaptured by Tunis and renamed the Mashuda. Also, Washington at one point found itself spending 20% of its annual revenue in paying blackmail to a loose confederation of terrorists on the high seas. Under Jefferson’s presidency, the first era of American military predominance was inaugurated, with men like William Bainbridge, William Eaton and the Byronic swashbuckler Stephen Decatur, becoming folk heroes."

[ClearCase_guy]

Islam’s threat has been long lived, and until it is met with force and destroyed totally it will not subside.

Total War. What we did in WWII. Women and children are not targets, but it is understood that they will be casualties. You have to shrug it off. Fire bomb the cities. Nukes are an option. Break things and kill people.

And if you don't have the stomach for that, then stay home, watch "American Idol" and get ready for Sharia Law -- because it's coming.

[yldstrk]

wipe out islam

[SECURE AMERICA]

The War on Terror was the PC term decided to be used instead of the War with Islam.
No we could not be truthful and say that. We needed to make it these little “extremist” terrorists groups. Much easier to sell.
But when the Twin Towers fell was it these little groups out in the streets celebrating? Hardly. It was millions of muslims all over the world.
This is one case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend that does not work The two factions of muslms have been fighting over who is the most islamic and should rule ever since Mohammad was planted in the ground. But there is one thing they both agree on. WE (America/ Civilization) are the main enemy of all muslims. We can not work with either side because in the end, they both want us dead.......

[BCW]

I was several times to give closed speeches to civic groups and church groups -- I started with the first War on Terrorism by President Jefferson in the early days of the US...that ended the conflict and threat of Islam when the Marines landed in Northern Africa and laid waste to their ports of operation... Most people were like...

It's all coming full circle yet again - and the idiot voters that all was cool with the Middle East...Great write up...thanks for posting!

[ConservativeInPA]

Make Dresden look like a botanical garden.

[BCW]

That is exactly what is happening!

The rise in conflicts over there has one ultimate goal...a new caliphate that will directly target the US and her interests here and worldwide...

It’s not a conspiracy theory - it’s the truth!

[Travis McGee]

We’re going to find out, sooner or later,
If Abdul will pray, to a glowing crater.

[Excellence]

The leaders of this country learned slowly then, and are refusing to learn at all today.

[drunknsage]

Thank you for posting that.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.




.

[tet68]

I kind of like the Put them in a rolling barrel thing.
we could put them in commercial clothes dryers set to
Extra Dry...
No, it’s not water boarding although you could program
in extra rinse...

[expat2]

However, the Islamists are in grave danger of doing what Hitler did — becoming overextended. They are battling the US, Russia, China, India plus many others such as Burma/Myanmar, Malaysia, Philippines, etc. Eventually, they will make too many enemies as a result of their hubris and initial successes, and get clobbered as Hitler did.

[huldah1776]

It was the Babylonians who enacted God’s justice against Israel when they were sacrificing their children among other things. The only time God did not forgive in the Old Testament...

“However, the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger burned against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him. And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel. And I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the temple (house) of which I said, ‘My name shall be there’.”
“Surely at the command (mouth) of the LORD it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; AND THE LORD WOULD NOT FORGIVE.” (All caps mine) 2 Kings 23: 26 & 27 and 24: 3 & 4

Lamentations was written afterwards.

[Lurker]

Well put.

[frog in a pot]

However, the Islamists are in grave danger of doing what Hitler did — becoming overextended.

Perhaps not of much significance since they are not in uniform and can melt into the larger society as needed +/-.

In this regard, they (particularly our home-grown version) present a threat similar to the anti-American progressives in our midst. Look how well they have succeeded.

Imagine how effective covert operations across in the U.S. would seriously disrupt our lives - and there is reason to believe they have been training. It could be a very tough nut to crack especially with the current leadership.

[expat2]

Well, Hitler got away with his crap for a long time (Austria, Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland. Belgium, France, Rumania, Western Russia, etc.) before the ROW (UK, US, Russia, etc) finally got their act together. The Germans could pass for Brits or Americans pretty easily, too.

[frog in a pot]

You are certainly correct, but my point is that Hitler’s crew was easily and quickly identified by their uniforms, machinery and logistical requirements. Over extension applies to and is measured by failure of the latter, of course,

The muslim combatants travel light, are able to fit in as non-combatant citizens and live off the land - and wear no uniform (except occasionally that tablecloth accessory). They also have a compelling recruitment or drafting procedure and it appears are able to replenish their ranks like rabbits.

[expat2]

They don’t worry me, because they cannot hold territory without treachery from within. THAT’s what I fear the most.