Posted on 10/28/2001 8:56:24 AM PST by Sparticle
Why should the war in Afghanistan stop during the holy month of Ramadan for terrorists?
The United States is coming under intense pressure to end its war in Afghanistan before the holy month of Ramadan beginning 17 November 2001.
At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting in Shanghai, Indonesia’s foreign minister Hasan Wirayuda warned of "explosions across the Muslim world if the US military campaign continues into the holy period of Ramadan".
And, in an interview to CNN from Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf said, “One would hope for restraint during the month of Ramadan because this would certainly have some negative effects in the Muslim world.”
The US response to this has been mixed.
US secretary of state Colin Powell said that “[Ramadan] is a very important religious period, and we will take that into account.” But the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, told reporters that the campaign would not be halted for Ramadan. “There continues to be terrorist threats in this world,” he said, “and the sooner we deal with this problem, the less likely it is that you’re going to have additional terrorist attacks.”
Should the US continue its war during Ramadan?
Ramadan or Ramzan as it is called in the Indian subcontinent is the holiest month for Muslims. They fast between sunrise and sunset to fulfil the fourth of the five pillars of Islam. It lasts a month and ends with the celebration of Id-ul-Fitr. It is as holy as Christmas for Christians, Yom Kippur for Jews, the Navratris for Hindus, or the Guru Purabs for Sikhs.
You could argue that no man should kill another in this holy month. Except that this is defeated by an argument of even higher moral order that no man should kill another at any time. But can that be applied to the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and his Al-Qaeda network that willfully killed 7000 people on 11 September in America in an anti-Islamic act of terrorism?
But assume for a moment that man cannot kill man in a holy period. By that token, how bloodless have the past Ramadans been?
Recorded history suggests that Prophet Muhammad fought to reclaim Mecca during the Ramadan in 624. Sallah eddine al-Ayoubi defeated the Crusaders in the 1100s during Ramadan. In modern times, the Syrian and Egyptian armies backed by Arab oil wealth attacked Israel on 6 October 1973 in the smack middle of Ramadan.
Iran and Iraq fought a terrible war for eight years through eight Ramadans. Saddam Hussein offered a ceasefire during the 1981 Ramadan to regroup his forces and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini rejected it to prevent it. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Mujahideen launched their worst attacks during Ramadan.
Anti-government Islamic rebels in Algeria called for increasing attacks during Ramadan in 1995 as reaffirmation of their faith in the creed. And, while the Northern Alliance respected cessation or reduction of hostilities during Ramadan, the Taliban has been its most brutal violator.
In India, prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee initiated a ceasefire in Kashmir during the Ramadan of 2000. This was dishonoured by such Pakistani terrorist groups masquerading as jihadis as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad, and the Al-Badr.
So which Islamic country at war or terrorist group has respected the sanctity of Ramadan?
You could still argue that two wrongs do not make a right. You could say that the US oughtn’t still to fight a Muslim nation during Ramadan.
But how much of a Muslim nation does the Taliban represent? And how much of Muslims are the Taliban, or Osama Bin Laden, or his murderous Al-Qaeda network? The world has billed the war in Afghanistan as a war against terror, a war against terrorists. Since terrorists have no religion, why should the war be stopped during a religious month like Ramadan?
Stopping the war during Ramadan would strengthen Bin Laden’s argument – and his exhortations through Al-Jazeera – that the US war is against Muslims, against Islam.
Why give him that opening to wedge apart the international coalition of Muslim and non-Muslim countries put together with such great difficulty by Powell from America and British prime minister Tony Blair?
And yet, there may already be indications of a dangerous acceleration of the war to end it before Ramadan. To the extent that US warplanes are bombing Taliban frontlines in northern Afghanistan to expedite the Northern Alliance’s capture of Mazar-e-Sharief and Kabul, it is all right. But to hasten the pace of the ground war by injecting more US or multinational forces with the sole objective of terminating the war by 17 November would be disastrous. Casualties could exceed politically acceptable numbers and harm the war effort.
The objective should be the destruction of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the capture of Osama Bin Laden however long it takes, and not Ramadan. It is unlikely that Bin Laden will oblige the United States by sleeping in the path of American bombers before Ramadan.
The bigger American worry should be the approaching Afghan winter. Winter destroyed the best Alpine forces of Germany in Russia during World War II. Soviet forces used to fighting in extreme cold climate could not overcome the Afghan mujahideen after 10 winters. And there are those in the Indian Army who believe that the Pakistani intruders in Kargil could not have been dislodged from the heights if the May 1999 war had stretched to - 40 degrees centigrade winter.
But it will be perilous for the US to have a winter-fixation in place of a Ramadan-fixation. Wars cannot be rushed. After winter will come summer.
Their celendar and their actions prove otherwise =====> Let them die in pieces.
Hmmm--maybe we should activate the National Guard units from North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and similar states. Winters there are probably about like winters in Afghanistan--I suspect the farm and ranch boys from those states can handle it.
Personally, I think we should DOUBLE THE INTENSITY of our war efforts during Ramadan.
The Islamic leaders are worried about factions. The factions see a chance to cause mischief. If the leaders support us too much, then the factions can rattle the sabre. If the leaders resist us too much, then we get ticked off. The factions win either way. So the Islamic leaders are forced to walk a tricky tight rope between us and the fanatics, with the wolflike faction leaders drooling below.
In this instance, Islamic leaders are forced into pressuring us to stop fighting. They know the score. If they didn't offer some kind of verbal fight with us, then the factions would exploit the anger of the terrorist-lovers.
But as for US citizens calling for a ceasefire, I think it is a sure sign of fanaticism. Several possible forms of fanaticism:
1. fanatic pacifists
2. closet socialists
3. closet terrorist lovers.
4. Or they are fanatically ignorant, choosing to hold opinions when they don't know what the heck is going on.
Good point!
We're not stopping for it so stop running your mouths (or better "fingers") about it.
Sometimes this place is like the rest of Shallow America.
Learn to let things go.
Next debate.
IIRC, this Ramadan thing didn't become an issue until Bill Clinton used it as an excuse to hold off bombing Iraq in 1998. See the following links: RAMADAN AND THE TIMING OF THE STRIKE and Full Text of the President's Televised Speech from the San Francisco Chronicle. Somehow, this has become de facto policy.
Also, if attacking during Ramadan was such a big offense to the Muslim people, why didn't Clinton feel the same way about Christians when he snatched Elian Gonzales during the Easter weekend the following spring?
-PJ
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.