Posted on 12/14/2005 10:03:44 AM PST by elizabethr
The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo By Paul Sperry FrontPageMagazine.com | December 14, 2005
Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.
A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.
Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.
Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?
Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.
But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United States.
Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.
"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."
So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.
"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."
Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."
So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.
"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."
It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.
According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.
In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.
The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.
In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.
And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.
It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war."
Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat,\ it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.
Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.
"I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."
Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.
PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters.
"A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."
The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin.
"Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.
It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.
I suspect it's survival. Islam is a religion of intimidation. Converts away from Islam are often rewarded with death threats - often made good upon. Those who are not Muslim to begin with are second class "Dhimmis" in Islamic societies. Unfortunately, most people seem more inclined to do what's easy rather than what is right and therefore take the path of least resistance.
Yeah, agreed. But there are also millions in other nations, free nations such as this one, that stay muslim. I suppose those are the "sheep" ones that just never bother to question anything. But certainly there is little fear for them here for the time being.
bump
It's the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' story (which usually has a rather unhappy ending).
If it runs, it's an Islamic Jihadist
If it stands still, it's a well disciplined Islamic Jihadist.
We'd better wake up to that fact soon or we will have sharia law in our formerly constitutional republic.
All Mosques, ALL Islamic Organizations in these United States should be rounded up and shipped back to the Middle East.
Starting TODAY.
That's true for me.
Check out The Women of the Arabs written in 1873! Looks like little has changed.
Nope, I stand by my statement. There are exceptions. Given a choice practically none of those women would be Islamic, knowing what true freedom would mean to them.
buddy , on our own strengths is what I was suggesting and that is the largest "weakness" proscribed. Also, the book says intervention.
the book also says Israel will prevail as well
an iteresting thing though, just like in back to the future.... the space / time continium can be interupted thereby effecting a change in outcome.
if you new the outcome of the future was dependant on your actions any change changes the outcome.
weenie
Let's not allow ourselves to be tempted to make the mistake of "loving our enemies" where islam is concerned. Whether it is just another religion is immaterial. When our way of life comes under attack by 3rd world savages, we will be forced to wage war. There will be no time for nice turn the other cheek nonsense.
Allah is just the Arabic word for God.
That doesn't mean the Muslims worship the one true God.
Uh...I don't think I am tempted to do that. My post dealt strictly with the difference between Christians and Muslims on the individual level.
The government doesn't bear a sword for nothing.
The "turn the other cheek" reference gets taken out of context often. The other thing is that there are two realms within which to work. For example, the Bible says that we are not to judge one another. Clearly that doesn't imply that we are not to have a civil society with rules, laws, etc. to be upheld with honest judges judging people according to those laws. In fact, the Bible establishes that this is the way societies, if properly organized, are to behave, with laws and rules.
What we are not to judge is the things that God judges in each of our hearts. We have no insight into another's heart generally speaking. Sure, a terrorist desiring to kill many other people has extreme "blackness/evil" in his heart, that much is obvious. But for the average "law abiding" person that is "good people" as people go, we just don't have that insight.
In the same way, "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" apply similarly. Otherwise this world would have been overrun by evil a long, long time ago per God's plan.
Heh...
But instead they've been "studying" the customs of Ramadan and whose royal Muzzies arses to kiss.
Priorities, priorities...
Big war that needs to be dealt with quickly.
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.