Posted on 10/16/2003 5:06:23 AM PDT by SLB
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.
Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things.
Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.
On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.
Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab and Islamic world.
In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.
He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who terrorized blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.
Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.
"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member of the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim world for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York.
"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam We have to be very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash of civilizations."
Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by William N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on defense issues for The Times Opinion section.
Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw."
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."
Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in June.
An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment was not examined in detail.
Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public forums may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy position in the Pentagon.
Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before Congress and appear in public forums.
Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged with speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist leaders.
Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and actions are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic world.
Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations.
In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol" may be perceived as particularly inflammatory.
The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Now why would they be trying to do that?
I mean other than it is a religion of peace ...
Actually, I think this is more than appropriate comparison. If anything, Islamics are worse: they want to _kill_ all non-Islamics, not just run 'em off.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York
Nope, no mistake. It's _exactly right_. Before the WTC attack, I had come to realize that the defining struggle of the twenty-first century would be that of Islam versus the Judeo-Christian "West". The September 11 attacks were the "Clarion Call" of this conflict: literally, the trumpets hail, the call to the coming battle. Again, the General is correct in his observations, or perhaps he is simply more forthright than the _rest_ of the politicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, many of whom perceive the truth but are afraid to embrace it.
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."
Um, this is a joke, right? If anything, it could be argued that America's "position" in the "Islamic world" has never been _better_. We have overthrown the dangerous governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran may not be far behind (they must _not_ be permitted to develop nuclear weapons). Even Saudi Arabia may now hold some "free" elections (how "free" can a Saudi election _be_?).
The message to Islam is clear: either change on your own, or you _will_ face change imposed upon you by the West. If Islam doesn't like it, well, tough.
The only problem so far is that we are not being forceful _enough_ with Islam. That increased "forcefulness" won't occur until there's another major attack on the United States.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations.
Gee, I wish Dubya had held to his guns on that. It suggests that he, too, "gets it", but has had to be restrained by his "handlers" for the sake of politically-correct public consumption.
The "brutal invasions of Islamic nations" are _exactly_ what's required if we want to bring the scouge of Islam to an end.
Islam and the Christian West cannot co-exist. This is Islam's decree, not ours. Islam makes no bones about stating its ultimate goal. Ultimately, if Islam is unwilling to "fundamentally" change into a peaceful religion (well nigh impossible given the reality that - to Islamics - the Quran is unchangeable) by its own doing, then it must be _changed by_ the West into one. If Islam refuses to change, insisting on a struggle to the death, well, as a Westerner, I'd prefer their death to ours. It's that simple.
General Boykin realizes this. More power to him!
Cheers!
- John
It seems like they're on a crusade of their own.
Gee, I thought it was the voters. I missed the newscast where GWB was anointed. Anybody got the video?
The article tries to insinuate that the general said the enemy was Islam. He did not say the enemy was Muhammad, he said the enemy was Satan. This will come as news to the liberal media, but in Christian theology Satan is an equal opportunity corrupter of hearts. And nowhere did the general say all Muslims are servants of Satan - that is only the liberal media's insinuation and not one of his actual statements.
Similarly when he spoke of the Somalia warlord and said my God is a real God and his was an idol, he did not say this of all Muslims but of a particular warlord. You don't have to be a theologian to realize that starving thousands of innocents for worldly power is not the action of a man who believes in a just judge who searches hearts, but someone who believes in power. Nowhere did the general say that no Muslim believes in a just judge who searches hearts - whatever other errors he may ascribe to all of them. That the charge applies to all Muslims was not what the general said but merely the insinuation of the liberal media type writing the article.
Then the article tries to make much of the general's use of the phrase "Judeo-Christian". It calls that Bin Laden's terminology. Not that he has any exclusive right to it, but yes it is naturally Bin Laden's terminology because the general was at that point explaining why our enemies are attacking us. When speaking of someone's motivation you use his terms, as a matter of course. It is one thing to leave open a position for Muslims who repudiate Bin Laden, and another to whitewash the actual fact that Bin Laden and his supporters are bigots who hate entire religious groups. Saying so in no way implies that said bigotry extends to all Muslims. That was again merely an insinuation of the liberal media type writing the article, and not anything the general said.
Then others here want to make it a matter of calling the war a crusade. Notice that the general never did, it is again merely an insinuation. It will come as news to the Judeo part in Judeo-Christian that the crusades were about defending or spreading Judeo-anything. (They began with pogroms).
Some here have said it doesn't matter because the general's religion has no effect on his job performance or on public policy. Of course it does. That effect is just positive. He believes in his cause which he knows is just; he does not underestimate his Adversary; he sees the fight conducted under the eyes of a just judge; he is not afraid to die for that cause; he believes his human opponents are fundamentally misguided by an evil Principle, which only they can freely renounce, by embracing justice instead. All of which are positive pragmatic effects, even if you don't believe a word of the general's religion.
It is indeed possible to make extra recruits for our enemies, unnecessarily, by falling for the same bigotry blinding our enemies. But there is no evidence here that the general has done so. There is evidence that the media are themselves bigots, that they want to paint any Christian as also a bigot, that they want to whitewash the bigotry of Bin Laden and his crew, and in this thread there is evidence that some here would be only too happy to star in the central casting role the media left has scripted for them. Despite the conclusion jumping of previous posters in this thread, however, there is no sign here that the general has that particular part.
All men are created equal, and have the right to their religion. Christians are excepted of course. (Doesn't this make anyone suspicious?)
Considering that the Crusades were mainly a defensive action, as Spain was overrun at the time by the Moslem horde kinda clears it up.
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.