Posted on 08/28/2006 2:57:27 PM PDT by Clive
Nearly all Canadians agree on the need to stop Islamist terrorism. What we disagree on is the methods needed to accomplish this.
One method there is near-unanimous agreement on is improved intelligence and heightened security. As Brian Jenkins, a terrorism expert at the RAND corporation, says in the new issue of the Atlantic: "Because of increased intelligence efforts by the United States and its allies, transactions of any type -- communications, travel, money transfers -- have become more dangerous for the jihadists." Making terrorist attacks much more difficult to pull off means there will be fewer terrorist attacks.
Another point of unanimity, among terrorism and security experts at least, is the success of the war in Afghanistan in smashing al-Qaida. Now, rebuilding Afghanistan is a different matter, and certainly al-Qaida has become an ideology that inspires jihadhists around the globe.
And, of course, Osama bin Laden and his leading lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large. But the al-Qaida that was centralized had a state, a base and limitless resources -- that is gone. This is an important achievement.
There is very nearly the same consensus on the disastrous nature of the war in Iraq. Removing Saddam Hussein was a tremendous good, and this should not be overlooked. But it was very separate from the war on Islamism.
Moreover, the war in Iraq has squandered American credibility and resources, created a vacuum of power from which terrorists can emerge and ignited a civil war. The consequences will be with us for years to come.
On where we go from here, unfortunately, there is little agreement. And it's clear that the current U.S. leadership has no idea what it's doing. The Bush administration is strong on moral clarity, but on how to defeat our enemies, it is worse than useless.
'Know thy enemy'
We have to start from the beginning. The famous maxim of the ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun-Tzu, "know thy enemy," is as true today as it was when he wrote it. Devising the best strategy to defeat Islamism starts with understanding it.
First, let us establish that there is a phenomenon called Islamism. Sometimes it's known as neo-fundamentalism, sometimes radical Islam, sometimes Islamic fundamentalism and sometimes political Islam. I use Islamism because that's what we're dealing with here: Islam as a political ideology, one that is meant to govern countries.
It is the ideology, not just the terrorism, which is the problem. For example, a man is a threat when he believes Sharia should govern Canada, Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs, women are inferior beings, gays should be stoned to death and that the West is intentionally keeping Islam down. Regardless of his views on violence, which could easily change at any minute.
But not all Islamists are the same, just as not all communists or fascists were the same. Strategy requires prioritizing.
Churchill, let's recall, courted Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini for years, and communist dictator Joseph Stalin was vital to us winning World War II. Churchill saw that the real threat in the 1930s and early 1940s was Hitler. Take him down, and fascism goes down.
And Nixon, as hardline an anti-communist as there ever was, joined the Chinese communists in opposing the Soviet Union, because Nixon realized that the real threat was the Soviet Union. Take it down, and communism goes down.
But here is where Islamism is vastly different from communism and fascism, its 20th-century brothers. It is not directed, or even led, by any state. The Iranian Revolution in 1979 certainly emboldened Islamists worldwide. But Egypt and Saudi Arabia could also be considered the centre of Islamism. And Egypt and Saudi Arabia detest Iran. So there is no clear axis here.
I will continue this column next week.
-
Clearly, the most imorta
---
"Nearly all Canadians agree on the need to stop Islamist terrorism."
---
I wish the USA was so lucky. Our liberals are busy baking cookies for Radical Islam.
Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.
Thank you.
I have asked the moderator to add the missing trailing t character.
Yes, they are. The congregate in Mosques.
I'd start with the mosques.
"A mosque a minute, until we're done."
ML/NJ
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Smith_Jordan_Michael/2006/08/28/pf-1780687.html
ARTICLE SNIPPET: "'Know thy enemy'
We have to start from the beginning. The famous maxim of the ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun-Tzu, "know thy enemy," is as true today as it was when he wrote it. Devising the best strategy to defeat Islamism starts with understanding it."
===
===
ON THE NET...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=globaljihad
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=jihad
http://www.internet-haganah.com/harchives/005643.html
INTERNET-HAGANAH.com: "TALKING POINTS"
ARTICLE SNIPPET: "The Internet is the home front of the global jihad."
(June 19, 2006)
They didn't seem to have any problems finding and fixing them during the crusades.
Lies, lies. Monstrous lies from the Dems. Shame on them.
The Crusades are looking wiser by the day.
How about starting by sending agents posing as Muslims into every Mosque in the country with a wire and a mission to root out the jihadi maniacs. Lordy, I wish we would start doing that here.
WHAT?
"It is the ideology, not just the terrorism, which is the problem. For example, a man is a threat when he believes Sharia should govern Canada, Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs, women are inferior beings, gays should be stoned to death and that the West is intentionally keeping Islam down. Regardless of his views on violence, which could easily change at any minute."
Not that I agree with any of that stuff, but it seems to me that you have a right to think those things in a free society. The threat is when you are motivated to strap a bomb to yourself.
Up to a point. In the U.S., the Constitution is the Law of the Land. This is not debatable and not up for vote.
I suppose you could introduce Constitutional amendments that would nullify portions of the Constitution and add amendments that are taken from Shari'a law. But getting amendments through is a laborious process and success is never guaranteed.
Now if you propose to replace the Constitution by force and overthrow the government of the U.S. by violence, that is treason, a hanging offence.
So if the Muslims in the U.S. think they can make Shari'a law the Law of the Land, they have a whole lot of procreating to do.
That was the unspoken second half of my post. Free societies have constitutions to make sure that Islamist whackjobs can't change the law to opress the rest of the population.
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.