Posted on 01/02/2010 10:45:46 AM PST by GOPGuide
Today's column is for all hawkish Americans currently wrestling with looming doubts about the pointlessness of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and clubbing those doubts down with the much-mentioned perils of leaving Afghanistan to "the terrorists." In short, it's about how to "lose" Afghanistan and win the war.
And what war would that be? Since 9/11, the answer to this question has eluded our leaders, civilian and military, but it remains the missing link to a cogent U.S. foreign policy.
It is not, as our presidents vaguely invoke, a war against "terrorism," "radicalism" or "extremism"; and it is not, as the current hearts-and-minds-obsessed Afghanistan commander calls it, "a struggle to gain the support of the (Afghan) people." It is something more specific than presidents describe, and it is something larger than the outlines of Iraq or Afghanistan. The war that has fallen to our generation is to halt the spread of Islamic law (Sharia) in the West, whether driven by the explosive belts of violent jihad, the morality-laundering of petro-dollars or decisive demographic shifts.
This mission demands a new line of battle around the West itself, one supported by a multilevel strategy in which the purpose of military action is not to nation-build in the Islamic world, but to nation-save in the Western one. Secure the borders, for starters, something "war president" George W. Bush should have done but never did. Eliminate the nuclear capabilities of jihadist nations such as Iran, another thing George W. Bush should have done but never did -- Pakistan's, too. Destroy jihadist actors, camps and havens wherever and whenever needed (the strategy in place and never executed by Bill Clinton in the run-up to 9/11). But not by basing, supplying and supporting a military colossus in Islamic, landlocked Central Asia. It is time, as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.) first told me last April, to "let Afghanistan go." It is not in our interests to civilize it.
But we would "lose face" in leaving Afghanistan, supporters say. News flash: We lose face every day in Afghanistan executing a costly, impotent policy based on massive state bribery, the public devaluation of American life ("population protection" trumps "force protection"), and deference to Islamic custom, as when women Marines are ordered to wind head scarves under their helmets for missions. And the point of this mass American supplication? To win a local popularity contest in which the only competition is the Taliban. Earth to military geniuses: The people are already with you, or they're against you.
In other words, it's time to toss the policy of standing up Sharia states such as Iraq and Afghanistan onto that ash heap of history. It's time to shore up liberty in the West, which, while we are stretched and distracted by Eastern adventures, is currently contracting in its accommodations of Sharia, a legal system best described as sacralized totalitarianism.
Such a war -- to block Sharia in the West -- requires more than military solutions. For starters, it requires an unflinching assessment of Sharia's incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution, and legal bars to Sharia-compliant petro-dollars now flowing into banking and business centers, into universities and media. It absolutely requires weaning ourselves from Islamic oil -- what a concept -- and drilling far and widely for our own.
Halting the spread of Islamic law in the democratic West requires halting Islamic immigration, something I've written before. But there's another aspect to consider. On examining a photo of armed Taliban on an Afghan hill, it occurred to me that these men and others like them can't hurt us from their hilltops. That is, what happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan -- or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia -- if we (duh) impose wartime restrictions on travel from and to Sharia states.
But that cramps our freedom, critics will say. Well, so does standing in line to de-clothe and show our toothpaste because Hani Hanjour might be on the plane. Funny kind of "freedom" we're now used to. And funny kind of war we now fight to protect it -- a war for Sharia states abroad while a growing state of Sharia shrinks freedom at home.
The faster we extricate our military from the Islamic world, the faster we can figure out how to fight the real war, the Sharia war on the West.
Much better ideas than those offered by either the “democratization” or isolationist wings.
What is it about these "journalists" that give them the arrogance to presume to lecture everyone on topics they clearly know nothing at all about?
Another idiotic screed from another media "Conservative" who knows nothing and is willing to learn nothing on the this topic
Great analysis.
And, I agree.
That what the Clinton administration thought all through out the 1990s. How that Do Nothing thinking work for us on 09-11-01?
I tend to agree with nearly all of what she said. I would add that we need to get these people out of our country (countries) and force them to live in their Islamic societies by their beloved Islamic rules. We need to quit providing them with an escape valve. They are here working to undermine us. Or murder us. There should be a moratorium on their immigration to the West, and on their travel. They should be quarantined like the deadly disease that they are.
She supports bombing and or raiding Afghanistan to target AQ but not nation building.
Clinton didn’t do what she wants - BJ just ignored the problem.
Neo-Isolationism in a post 09-11 worlds is even sillery as a strategy then Isolationism was in 1940.
She’s not isolationist a la Ron Paul or Buchanan.
She wants targeted attacks to stop nuclear proliferation and AlQaeda camps rather than nation building.
Good read - thanks for posting.
I think you might have missed the point.
If we leave our borders wide open and allow anyone who can buy an airline ticket to come here, we do need to do something about Afghanistan and the other hell holes of the world.
Obviously the one worlders like Bush and Clinton don’t want closed borders.
If we do as she says, refuse entry to anyone who is of the Islamic faith and seal our borders so that refusal really works, kick out the Islamics that are already here and destroy their training camps, then we can afford to ignore the other hell holes other than to destroy their potential to make international war.
If they want to kill each other will AK-47’s so be it, but no nukes allowed.
Will it work?
I don’t know but it would be worth trying just to get the radicals out of the country.
West has charted out a nice comfortably gutless political position that manages to be on both sides of the issue while actually standing for nothing.
I agree with all that. I think that these muslims nations and their governments need to understand one thing: if one of YOUR nationals commits an act of terrorism against the US, the consequences will be that one of YOUR cities will receive a sudden Cruise missile “visit”. Make it incumbent upon them to kill off their own “extremists” as they keep telling us these jihadists are. It would give them an incentive to clean their own house.
>>>Sharia, a legal system best described as sacralized totalitarianism<<<
This is a great definition. Thanks, Diana.
An idiotic "false choice." Fighting the terrorists overseas on their home turf does NOT prevent us from securing the borders, resisting sharia law here at home, etc. It is the liberals and the MSM that prevent us from doing these things here at home.
Back in the Cold War there were many idiots who argued that the US should not fight communism in other countries, that we should just pull back and concentrate on resisting the leftwingers here at home. But if soviet communism were to have taken control of Europe, Asia, South America, etc., we would not have survived for long thereafter in our own land.
>>>Sharia, a legal system best described as sacralized totalitarianism<<<
This is a great definition. Thanks, Diana.
I think she makes some excellent suggestions, although I think that defeating these savage creatures in their nest is also important. It seemed to me that she was saying that this does not seem to be our intention, and as long as we don’t intend to destroy them, there’s no point in our being there.
But she makes by far the clearest statement I have seen of the challenge:
“What has fallen to our generation is to stop the spread of Sharia in the West.”
You can also make the point that even if we do defeat the Taliban or AQ in Afghanistan or elsewhere, but permit Islamic law to take over our country, we have still lost. In a big way.
Muslim immigration must be stopped and we must also simply refuse to recognize or deal with sharia and sharia-based institutions in any way.
One does not have to do either/or stay in Afghanistan and fight Sharia in the West. We can and must do both.
We must insist that Christians and Jews are treated fairly and protected (as we treat Muzzies here) in Muslim countries or we will begin deporting all muzzie immigrants from those countries.
The 'cold war' that's been raging in our own country for at least the last 50 years looks to be nearly over. The conquest complete without even a single shot fired in defense; a way of life, a culture, a nation succumbs and becomes the spoils of the victor.
My only remorse is that I've lived long enough to see it happen. Rest in Peace my beloved America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.