Posted on 04/08/2003 10:21:16 PM PDT by blam
Enemy Within May Complicate War
Posted April 1, 2003
By Scott L. Wheeler
Muslims constitute an estimated 2 percent of the 400,000 soldiers serving in the U.S. Army.
Perimeter guards were in place to protect resting U.S. troops awaiting deployment orders that soon would send them rappelling from hovering helicopters to the ground assault that distinguishes the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. With the perimeter secured, the officers of the 1st Brigade were getting some of the sleep they knew would be in short supply once they were dropped into combat. But shortly after 1:00 a.m. local time, Camp Pennsylvania received a jolt that jarred the trust and stirred the anger of combatants at this temporary location in Kuwait near the Iraqi border.
Sgt. Asan Akbar, 31, rolled live grenades under three command staff tents and shot an officer in the back while he donned his protective mask, according to a Los Angeles Times report based on eyewitness accounts. Akbar's sneak attack on his resting comrades left two dead, 14 wounded and many others wondering and speculating about motives.
According to the Times, those who knew Akbar growing up described a responsible youngster who was an honor student in high school and seemed to take life seriously. Akbar's mother, Quran Bilal, who changed his name from Mark Fidel Kools when he was a child, told the Times that her son "was a good Muslim." When she saw him in January, she said, the sergeant spoke of his impending deployment, saying "he was going [to Iraq] to blow up bridges." Instead, according to the eyewitness accounts, he blew up three tents full of his fellow soldiers.
Concern about this devastating incident is complicated further by what many consider a potentially greater problem. According to the Times, "Soldiers recalled hearing the suspect say as he was being led away by armed soldiers: 'You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children.'"
Senior defense officials say that this may raise serious questions about a potential enemy within. "If [extreme] Islamists have infiltrated into the [armed] services it is a matter of grave concern because, by definition, Islamists are engaged in advancing an agenda that is inimical to this country and what it is and what it stands for, and its security most especially," says former assistant secretary of defense Frank Gaffney. Now president of the Center for Security Policy, Gaffney says he has no problem with Muslims serving in the armed forces but draws a line of distinction between traditional Islam and the jihadist radical splinter groups known as Islamists. It is the latter category into which U.S. security officials place Osama bin Laden. "That is the subset I am concerned about," says Gaffney.
Related material
For more on the subject of Islamist infiltration of the U.S. military, see syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin's commentary in the Washington Times of Saturday, March 29, titled, "When Attitude Wears a Uniform."
Indeed, he emphasizes, "I wouldn't be inclined to focus on the Muslim population within the U.S. military except to the extent people who are not necessarily Islamists may nonetheless be induced or recruited to subscribe to jihadist tenets by Islamist clerics in the military's chaplain corps." Gaffney and other defense specialists are concerned that since the United States is a nation whose identity is so closely tied to religious freedom it finds itself in the predicament of trying to sort out whether a soldier's faith might affect that soldier's military service and, ultimately, the national security. "I think the thing the Department of Defense [DoD] must get its hands around right away is who are the imams that it has in its ranks as chaplains and what are they promoting in their ministering to Muslims in uniform?"
Again, deciding who is allowed to be certified as a military chaplain could place the DoD in the seemingly untenable position of selecting some religious leaders' beliefs as legitimate and some as illegitimate, so it doesn't. DoD regulations state: "Because of the separation of church and state in the Constitution of the United States and the prohibition of the establishment of religion, only churches and civilian religious organizations can ordain or appoint clergy." The DoD qualifications are the same for all religions, with the regulations providing: "Applicants desiring to be clergy, regardless of faith, must first be educationally qualified to enter this professional branch" of the armed services. "To do so they must complete a bachelor's degree and 72 graduate hours of instruction in religious studies and related disciplines to be certified as educationally qualified."
But the lack of graduate-level Islamic educational programs in the United States seems to limit the number of Muslims qualified to be military chaplains. This is a fact that the DoD acknowledges in the regulations, providing: "Few programs exist in the United States in Islamic studies that are accredited or have qualifying educational-institution standing." In fact, the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS) is one of only two organizations recognized by the Pentagon as certified to provide the 72 hours of graduate-level Islamic studies, and this presents a problem, according to Gaffney. "The reason that is so worrisome is, at least as of last June, that nine of the 14 [Muslim] chaplains in the U.S. military were appointed by the GSISS, which is an Islamist-related organization," Gaffney tells Insight.
In March 2002, federal authorities obtained search warrants and raided several organizations thought to be either front groups or linked to front groups connected to Islamic terrorist organizations. Among them was the GSISS, which authorities believe to be associated with a now-defunct Florida-based group, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), run by Sami al-Arian. Federal authorities identified WISE as a front for the Muslim terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad; earlier this year al-Arian was indicted for allegedly raising money for terrorist activities.
The GSISS referred Insight's inquiry to the school's attorney, Nancy Luque, who said that "No charges had been filed" in connection with the raid, nor did she expect any. Luque also stated that "None of the chaplains trained by the school had any contact" with Akbar. Luque denies any ties to extremism, saying, "There is nothing linking the school to Islamists." She explains, "Extremists and fundamentalists interpret the text of the Koran in isolation, [the school] does not." Luque claims to "interpret it [the Koran] liberally in light of American values and ideals."
Recently an "Islam Online" Webpage entitled "Ask the Scholar" posted a question from a reader about Muslim soldiers. "Dear Scholars, As-Salamu alaykum. Are Muslim American soldiers allowed to participate in the war on Iraq?" The question was dated March 20, just before the war began. The answer in part was: "It goes without saying that Islam abhors violence and terrorism in all forms. Being a universal message, Islam calls for peace, tolerance and justice and provides for the happiness and welfare of humanity as a whole. ... Consequently, Muslims are commanded not to support or participate in any injustice or oppression against others, Muslims or non-Muslims."
Another response to the same question was provided by Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, who pronounced: "It is not permissible for the Muslim American and British soldiers or any other Muslim soldiers to participate in the war against the Iraqi Muslim people."
All of the defense experts contacted by Insight to discuss this issue were quick to point out that the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. armed forces not only have posed no threat but have served courageously and with distinction. But many expressed concern that an extremist faction might make concerted efforts to enlist its members, proselytize, and at critical times disrupt military operations. Prior to the events that led to Akbar's arrest, his superiors already had determined that he would not be deployed to the front lines with his unit because of what news reports refer to as strange behavior.
Some defense experts point out that if Akbar had gone to the front with his unit, and then turned on his fellow soldiers, the resulting casualties could have been much worse - with the additional complication that the deaths would have been blamed on combat rather than hostile fire from within the unit.
Gaffney says that, if Akbar is proved guilty, his motives and source of inspiration may reveal sensitive vulnerability within the DoD's chaplain corps. "I believe the military is going to need to look at this both in terms of trying to understand whether that vulnerability may have contributed to Sgt. Akbar's conduct and whether indeed his behavior was an isolated event or a foretaste to what may be to come."
Scott L. Wheeler is reporter for Insight.
But islam is not the "church."
Why don't they just go by the ruling of the New York State Supreme Court made in 1892 that islam is not to be tolerated in the U.S.?
Let's not get our panties in a bunch, OK?
Tell us more about this please.
|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
What if they go nuts and start killing muslims?
And how about the Hindu soldiers?
I'm sure You've read about the riots and murders in India, and even more so, Kashmir..
And fundamentalist Christians, especially the "cultists", and the "end of days" christians..
While You're at it, let's be sure to check out those soldiers with sympathies for the Aryan (white supremist) movement, just plain rascists, social democrats, (neo-nazis) and then there are... well, you get it..
They're all "Americans" over there..
Many Iraqis are confused by the many "different" americans.
They think the Mexican soldiers are Iraqi, Saudi, Jordanian, Syrian, etc.
Same with the black soldiers.
They don't know what to think of the soldiers with asian heritage.. ( one soldier was immeadiately nicknamed "Jackie Chan" by the Iraqi children. )
The soldiers just reply "American"..
They don't say african american, or mexican american, or asian american.
It's pretty much the same about religion.
It doesn't matter over there. They're all Americans.
Whatever God they pray to, it's to stay alive.
They don't have time for theological differences..
The muslim soldiers over there are Americans, first and foremost.
We have had one incident involving a muslim soldier, which didn't even have anything to do with religion, and we're ready to segregate them all.
Sorry, I can't even get close to that concept.
I was in the Navy and I recall overheard a black sailor telling others they could cause trouble by demanding a pork-free diet.
I have no problem with real religion, but these guys were using religion to be a pain in the ass.
And that made me extraordinarily angry.
No.
I don't care which invisible man in the clouds they worship - if they're in the American military, they'd better be ready to kill anyone who's threatening this country without hesitation, and without regard to race, religion, creed, color, sexual orientation, or choice of breakfast cereal.
That's what *I'm* paying them for...
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.