Posted on 09/12/2005 4:16:31 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA
Thanks, and I'm in agreement with you.
As the Muslim populations -- and their level of cultural and religious assertiveness -- expand, European geography will be "reclaimed" for Islam. Europe will become pockmarked with "little Fallujahs" that effectively will be impenetrable by anything much short of a U.S. Marine division.
Not only will Islamic cultural aggression against a seemingly passive and apologetic indigenous population increase, but the zone of safety and support for the actual terrorists will expand as well. "
Great article. I'm not as concerned that Europe becomes dominated by Islam, as long as it’s united against terrorism. But I don’t think we’ve made progress in that regard. After four years, our administration can’t even define terrorism. They can’t even keep cabinet officials on message that Iraq is a battle in the War on Terror.
For all the strength Bush has shown, that’s a profound pathetic failure of leadership.
Same thing.
Political systems and religions are not mutually exclusive.
The Nazis never had the ear, and more, of the Roosevelt White House.
Go back four years to 9/11. Remember finding out how many of the terrorists were Saudis. Remember finding out that what drove them is Saudi Whabbism?
Remember how we were hopeful the Saudis would get theirs.
Then we heard Islam was a Religion of Peace.
Now tell me if any entity on Earth as done as well as the Saudis in the past four years.
Their threatening enemy, Saddam, is gone. Fuel prices have tripled.
Wonder did they commemorated the fourth anniversary?
While we are focused at Europe falling to Islam, we miss what's happening at home.
For all the strength Bush has shown, that’s a profound pathetic failure of leadership.
Other than the creep of Islam in Europe (like Kudzu), your point above is the most disturbing. It is almost like the President wants to fight a private was against an enemy he refuses to name in public.
We are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam (because Islam declared war against us). I understand why the President wants to be careful in naming the enemy so as not to cause vigilantism against mosques and muslims in the country, but I believe his failure to clearly define the problems increases the vigilante urge...a failure in leadership creates a vacuum of leadership, and citizens and others unsanctioned groups are encourage to fill that void.
Bottom line, the President is either prosecuting a private war (the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan being the public face only) or he is completely misguided as to the nature of the enemy.
"We haven't gone through all this to create another oil rich IRAN!"
Sadly, I think we have.
The Iraqis are muslim. To be muslim is to be a cultural retard. Once we give them the keys, they're going to mess the place up with their backward, oppressive belief system.
Iraq was a mistake. Hindsight is 20/20. I supported the move into Iraq. I think we should finish. But if we had it to do over, we should have concentrated on Afghanistan.
The muslim threat to the world, and to anything resembling a modern culture is very real. The muslims are focused and committed, while most "western" countries are divided and distracted.
"Now tell me if any entity on Earth as done as well as the Saudis in the past four years. "
Sadly, you're most correct.
The Bush-bots will go crazy at the suggestion that Bush is anything less than perfect.
Given that Bush is better than the democrat candidate, and in areas is effective, the growing divide in our country reflects a failure in leadership.
I was in the military and I believe if it happens on your watch, you own it. No mitigation, no weaseling.
"We are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam (because Islam declared war against us). "
Couldn't agree more. See my tagline.
I think there’s a little bit of truth in both those alternative, but I’m more focused on something else that’s occurring.
I agree that we’ve minimized the Islamist nature of terrorism, but more so in order to minimize their appeal to a billion Muslims. I don’t think doing so is an absolute deception or misunderstanding. Being at war with Islam is bantered about among the far right, but I don’t think it has traction elsewhere or in any level of the administration or military. Being at war with a religion (a thought or idea) is antithetical to Western civilization. Bush was fairly clear that we are at war with both the terrorists and perhaps those that supported or harbored them. We were placed at war with those that act against us, not all those that just share thoughts against us. Being at war with a covert nationless enemy presents enough of a conceptual challenge without expanding it to a physical war on an idea.
Uniting the nation and world on such a novel concept in such an adversarial environment takes a nimble thinker and gifted orator to further develop, reinforce, maintain and defend that framework. That’s over his head.
Ask any 10 people in the administration to define terrorism, and you’ll probably get 10 answers. Some think the definition should be restricted to attacks on civilians and property. Other’s agree with the current FBI or State Department definitions that label any irregular warfare as terrorist if it’s “illegal” (making any violence against an oppressive government terrorist). But that validates the left’s “On man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” claim and kills much of our support.
I don’t think any of this indicates a misunderstanding of the enemy or deceptive motives, just an oversight and an inability to decisively follow through with the intellectual and political battle supported by the military. I read yesterday that many textbooks covering 9-11 are now being printed without using the word “terrorism”. Most of the media is doing the same. Absent another attack, the next administration (Republican or Democrat) will probably follow and redefine our WOT as something else, probably not even a war. I think that subtle failure to communicate and instill a very simple but novel conceptual framework of this war goes a long way toward eroding our victories on the battlefield.
Jews and Christians survived in some Moslem dominated nations for millennia. Islamists are not a completely new trend, just a rare one. People never change religions, but they do change political ideals and values.
I think that if the WOT if conceptually framed right, on top of Bush’s military commitment, we can quickly assemble overwhelming force against it, regardless of the number of Moslems in the world.
Being at war with a covert nationless enemy presents enough of a conceptual challenge without expanding it to a physical war on an idea.
I think that subtle failure to communicate and instill a very simple but novel conceptual framework of this war goes a long way toward eroding our victories on the battlefield.
Very powerful statements! The reality is, of course, that we are at war with a religion (however, as you say, antithetical it is to western thinking).
Our government seems intent on redefining the war and the enemy in terms that make sense to it. Big mistake, IMO. The enemy feeds on our confusion as to its identity. This is not just a military struggle or an ideological struggle (though it is also military and ideological)...it is a war declared by a religion on all peoples who do not share that religion. And this religion's weapons are terrorism, propaganda/lies/obfuscation, intimidation of moderate muslims, indoctrination/education, etc. It uses and abuses our own laws and freedoms and rights in its fight to establish a world caliphate.
You are correct about the difficulties of fighting an unconventional war, but the reality is...this is an unconventional war and any effort on the part of our leaders to try to caste it as something else does, as you have also stated, greatly damage our effort, both on the field of armed conflict and on the societal and intellectual battle fronts as well.
I think our President is a good president for conventional times and problems. But he seems to be inadequate to confront this monstrous enemy we now face.
You raised one other issue I wanted to comment on. You stated that by defining the enemy clearly as devout Islam (Wahhabi Islam, Classic Islam or the Islam of Mohammed) we are somehow encouraging moderate muslims to join with their militant brothers (and that might be true)...but by not clearly defining the enemy, we are making it more difficult for those moderate muslims who are trying to change Islam's violent ways.
Though I might be wrong, I have yet to encounter a problem that was made easier to solve by refusing to speak the truth when defining such problem.
It reminds me of the old adage about setting out on a trip without a clear destination...you have no idea where you might end up. Same in this battle. If we can't define our enemy (to a degree and depth that even he does know himself), who knows what the outcome will be.
They way things are going, I'm reminded of the state of the Roman Empire not long before it was invaded and overwhelmed by the barbarians. They'd sunk into immorality, corruption, and decadence big time. There is still a large core of Americans that despise all this stuff, but sadly, they aren't the ones running Hollywood and the media, and I don't see a lot of them occupying offices across the Potomac. I wish they were.
He's one of my favorites, too!
Yep. Keep it up, Backhoe, you're doing a service in trying to wake everyone up. Bless you for it!
I meant to ping you on my post #35 above.
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.