Replies

Re would I answer your four questions from #299, rhetorical though they were:

My answer to your 4 questions is the same as yours, I assume. So, Can you accept agreement? Or does that stymie you?

Re Islam. I don't know what others have said to which you refer as "crap" -- but what Gaffney, and myself, clearly and carefully stipulate to be "Islamists" is a thing distinct from "Islam" or "Muslim," and is the accepted academic, governmental and journalistic term for politicial Islam's espousers, whether violent or not in mein and modality.

In religious terms, they are Salaffi, wahabbi, deobondi, tablighis, and related variants, as I'm sure you know.

Islamists are the enemy, or more formally, Islamists call themelves our enemy -- the West, the US, moderns, and any non-them Muslim is the enemy,and is plainly identified as such as in "the US is the main enemy of Islam." -- Bilal Phillips(look him up,he started the organized Saudi recruitment of US miitary during the first Gulf War and is an often cited figure and featured guest of many of Grover's groups).

This distinction is now increasingly well understood by policy makers, and others dealing at serious and senior levels. People, including the President and the Securty cabinet, may speak euphimistically about "Global War on Terror" but they all know what and who is meant.

It is what Rumsfeld's recently leaked memo about the war of ideas and the need to interdict at the madrassah level was all about. There are 10,000 madrassahs roughy, in each of Pak, Indo, and Malysia and a not insignificant number in India, not to mention of course Afgh. Most of these are less than 2 decades old -- n other words a massively funded rabidly grown phenom on a sharply upward curve. They are, in the main, Saudi funded, e.g., the Sauds spend more on these schools in Pak. for instance that the Pak. gvt. spends on all levels of education.

A few million more graduates a year and in a decade they will be Islam -- and then we will be at war with Islam. That is, strategically speaking, why it is so crucial to call a spade a spade here, stop wasting time with (much less legitmatig) the "wrong" Muslims and instead embrace, shore up, and work with the moderates while that is still possible.

Last, from that point of departure, I would suggest to you that the root of this contretemps with Gaffney and the national security convervaties is the above -- not personal ,political, points, jealousies, or whatever. These are serious strategic thinkers, people who understand how the world of security and threats works, and who helped to win the Cold War -- they are not gadflies or people dipping into the security realm, skimming the surface like a waterbug, making casual observations to fit one or another prejudice.

One does them, the movement and one's own argument a large disservice to think otherwise, no matter what a comfortable default that may be for some. It is a deeply flawed thesis.

Islamists are actively threatening Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East and Central Africa, the Balkans and Central Asia, and virtually run Pakistan as well as dominating the Muslim community's voice and institutions from Mecca and AlAzar to Finsbury Park, Marseilles to Chicago, LA and DC. It is time for strategic clarity on the matter.