The prospect of nuclear war with Iran got me to thinking about Wretchard’s The Three Conjectures from September 19, 2003. In researching the internet for something along those lines I ran across this blast from the past [bolding added by me]
TMLutas (November 26, 2003)
. . . for Americans, the first amendment and its attendant religious tolerance so limits and colors their politico-religious outlook that certain alternatives simply are not examined. They are culturally taboo because the day to day reality of all the world’s religions living cheek to jowl next to each other requires it to maintain religious peace in the US.
The tools that are being overlooked are tools of spiritual warfare. Declarations of apostasy, work towards conversion, theological debate, these are all tools that are being discarded a priori when all that is being examined is threats and bribes (which Wretchard calls inducements) to change the islamist’s behavior.
Strong religious belief in the monotheistic tradition is well prepared in resisting temptation and enduring persecution. Islamism is no different and thus Wretchard is right, there is no practical set of inducements or threats to reliably move these people to different behavior patterns.
But would a suicide terrorist carry out his operation if he were convinced he would spend eternity in hell instead of heaven? Would an imam cry out the call of violent jihad if he were convinced this was against the will of Allah and would result in mere banditry that is contemptible in the eyes of God? You may or may not know how to bring about these changes in opinions but they are a separate class of persuasion to change intentions from either threats or inducements and deserve separate treatment.
Let’s be clear up front. This does not necessarily mean the end of Islam. This elimination of Islamism could be carried out entirely within the borders of Islam. Certainly there are theological experts in Islam who have declared what Osama bin Laden is doing to not be true jihad but hirabah, banditry. In fact, while other religions may play a role in this spiritual warfare, the heaviest weight falls on western muslims.
The problem is how can the US, as a society, do what the US, as a government, is forbidden to do? Congress can make no law on the subject so the executive cannot implement anything and there is nothing for the judiciary to interpret. For the statists in the US, that leaves the cupboard pretty bare on societal action. Fortunately the statists are a minority but we’ve got the neutrality acts to worry about. Al Queda (thankfully) is largely a foreign operation. Organizing and acting across the border to take it out is something that can plausibly be read as creating and acting on a private foreign policy and thus, under US law, illegal.
The same forces that have acted in the past to push God out of the public square will not automatically reign in their horns when the subject is Al Queda. Make no mistake, this will be a massive injection of God into the public square and that will make some people uncomfortable. When Americans get profoundly uncomfortable, they tend to head for the courthouse.
So we have several problems on the down side of this strategy.
1. The government can’t do it without shredding the Constitution.
2. The society isn’t used to having such initiatives without government dominating the process.
3. There is well established and generally useful law that potentially stands in the way of doing it.
4. There are organized factions of secularists in the US that predictably will get the hives over the whole initiative and resist.The upside is that the chances of the US surviving as a nation without turning the middle east into a nuclear wasteland goes way up.
America, you decide.
Here it is four years later and we’re still deciding.
This blog is all about self-mobilization of American patriots trying to contribute in a positive way to the War of Ideas. There has been much criticism on this blog and elsewhere about the Administration’s failures in strategic communications, about the government’s failure to counter al Qaeda and anti-Western propaganda, about the impunity with which anti-American Americans parrot the enemy’s talking points for partisan political gain, but rarely have I tempered that criticism with explanation of extenuating and mitigating circumstances for those failures.
There has been much that has gone on since 9/11 that cannot be candidly explained and described and justifed to the world in open forums. To do so would blow the cover on too much, burn too many assets, make impossible the assistance America receives from Muslims, who are the only people who can accomplish a Muslim Reformation that rejects the doctrines of perpetual Holy War against non-Muslims. Our leaders cannot explain to us without telling the whole world, including our enemies, foreign and domestic, what they are up to.
I think what our leaders are up to amounts to aiding and abetting Muslims in joining the 21st Century and reforming their religion before the continued survival of the West mandates the deaths of millions of Muslims in a thermonuclear ratonnade which fouls humanity’s terrestrial nest and burdens the survivors of Western Christendom with unbearable guilt.
Notice the use of the word hirabah in 2003. It has taken four years to come into common usage in discussion about the Long War.
So, back to the question, restated. What can We The People of the United States do that our own Constitution and laws and judiciary prevent our elected Representatives, our Chief Executive / Commander-in-Chief, and our regularly constituted Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic state actors from doing on our behalf?
I recommend that in trying to answer the above question we give some thought to the answers to these questions:
What are you, the reader of this blog, prepared to sacrifice to preserve the Westphalian nation-state known in 2007 anno domini as the United States of America? Are you sure it is worthy of survival? How many Muslim deaths is the restoration of your sense of security worth?
Are you sure your country is a force for good in this world?
How much suffering are you prepared to endure, and see your loved ones endure, before you submit to sharia, and convert or pay the jizya? Do you consider this a preposterous question unworthy of your consideration?
I have lots of questions, but I can only answer for myself.
Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group 
“I recommend that in trying to answer the above question we give some thought to the answers to these questions:”
Your questions are both political and spiritual – which is logical, since islam is both political and spiritual in intent.
Spiritually, there is no morality without freedom to choose. So yes – freedom is what makes us a moral country – or not – whereas sharia does not make a moral people or country, since the people have no choice other than do or die (or maybe suffer loss of limbs, time in jail etc). Therefore, for me there is no choice – freedom is the only way. The number of muslim deaths necessary? Whatever number it takes for them to allow _this_ country to choose its own way. The number is _their_ choice. We do not choose to force our way on them – they only die if they insist on trying to force their way on us.
The second question is tough…Do I consider it a preposterous question? Absolutely not…but societally? I greatly fear that those who have come to believe that life itself is the ultimate good, and that literally _anything_ is better than death will make a choice I wouldn’t make, and find out too late that there really are some things worse than death. I fear that to resist sharia, we will be forced into conflict against our own.
Sometimes I’m glad I’m on the down side of life…but I fear for my children and my grandchildren. In this life, there is no purpose other than to produce children, raise them and then die. If you believe in an afterlife, then that will determine your reward. If you do not, then I understand postponing the inevitable as long as possible, but eventually it will come. I suspect that the reason muslims are so willing to die is because their lives are so miserable, and the reason we are so unwilling to die is because our lives are so good. If they impose sharia on us, then we too will be more willing to die, I think, so better to die before in order to prevent sharia, than after as a result of sharia.
sue, have you seen Jihadism, Liberalism and Perversion?
Those within our walls whom we are forced into conflict with over our survival forfeit the right to be considered “our own”.
Those who see WWIV on the horizon are in the same situation as those who saw WWII coming when Hitler reoccupied the Rheinland and the Allies stood idly by. Unwelcome prophets. Our Campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are preludes to the greater conflagration, much like the Spanish Civil War was a prelude. We’re soon to have more pressing problems than racism, sexism, homophobia and Global Warming. Those without the mental toughness to deal with harsh reality will be recognized as the dead weight they are, and abandoned by those who intend to survive.
The Cold War and its hot elements (Korea, Indochina, Yom Kippur War, among others) was WWIII
>>sue, have you seen Jihadism, Liberalism and Perversion?>>
No… but judging by the pop-up clip, it’s similar to much that Dr.Santy ( http://www.drsanity.blogspot.com/ )has written. I’ll check it out – I usually check AT daily, but yesterday was one of _those_ days.
>>Those within our walls whom we are forced into conflict with over our survival forfeit the right to be considered “our own”.>>
That’s painful to consider, though I don’t disagree. What about the military? how do you consider the military role to play out? That stumps me.
WWI’s end with the Treaty of V led directly to the situation that brought about WWII. WWII’s end led directly to the beginning of the Cold War, due to the fact that Stalin was given much of Eastern Europe and also wasn’t crushed along with Hitler. The end of the Cold War led directly to the power vacuum that the Islamic Jihad is taking advantage of, using the anti-Americanism and useful idiots originally created by the Soviet Union propaganda apparatus for use in the Cold War.
So WWI, WWII, WWIII, and WWIV are all linked together if you study the connections that connect historical events. All events are connected, but these world wars are had so much far ranging consequences to their events that it started to snowball.
America is unlike Britain and France in that the mistakes we do, we will own up to and solve by our own power. We won’t outsource it to other people, like France outsourced it to Britain and Britain outsourced it to us in WWII. They were the ones that allowed Hitler to become as powerful as he did. Not we. We disagreed with the Treaty of Versailles, but we were told to shut up cause we entered the war late and were just uppity commoners anyway.
Britain had a bunch of colonies that they decided to abandon. Why? Because they could not fullfill their obligations. They were arrogant enough to claim Greatness, but they couldn’t back it up, now could they.
And so the world is the way it is because people could not back up their claims to majesty and greatness.
Few nations and empires could back up their actual claims over territory and power. Rome was one of them. Axum another. Certainly America as well.
Those are the nations that have the power to set history, not the pretenders to the throne.
Are you sure it is worthy of survival?
It is the worthiest nation in the history of nations.
What are you, the reader of this blog, prepared to sacrifice to preserve the Westphalian nation-state known in 2007 anno domini as the United States of America?
There is nothing I can sacrifice to preserve that which exists in 2007. Change will always occur. What I will do is to pledge my life, my fortune (which isn’t hard since if America falls, so does its economy), and my sacred honor to the preservation of that which makes America great. I wish to see America become all that she can become.
How many Muslim deaths is the restoration of your sense of security worth?
Whatever Total War and military necessity dictates is necessary to convince Muslims that they should work with us, instead of against us. Fallujah is an example of what it would take for a similar neighborhood. Multiply that by the number of cities in a nation and by the number of Islamic nations, and you tend to get an estimate.
Are you sure your country is a force for good in this world?
I’ve read about empires, kings, republics, democracies, and SM Stirling’s Draka. I have no illusions about what is good or evil in this imperfect world, so I do know that the United States is about as good as we can get for this time in human history. If something better comes along, then good, but likely generations will have passed by then.
It is why America spends so much energy with Iraq. We want a successor or at least a partner. We know that nothing is forever, that we will be judged by what we leave behind just as we judge our ancestors by what they left behind for us.
How much suffering are you prepared to endure, and see your loved ones endure, before you submit to sharia, and convert or pay the jizya?
Suek described the paradox well here. The more horrible things become, the more people are willing to suffer to end such things. It is a human quirk, I suppose.
Optimally, we should be able to use most of our nuclear stockpiles before that occurs. Surrender is only justified if the only way to protect your people is to lay down arms or if you have nothing left with which to fight with.
The Ancient World was just as cruel, or crueller, than our world. What Julius Caesar said about the lot of the conquered and what the Greeks said about how the strong do what they will while the weak suffer what they must, are still true today. Defeat sucks, which is why it is not a good thing. To others, however, defeat is simply losing a job, losing a lawsuit, not getting what you blackmailed the politician for, and so forth. That is not losing. People don’t know what losing is, because America has made sure that people had a safety net. When people have a safety net, they start to forget what they are truly risking. And if the safety net is pulled… well then they might fall to their deaths believing that they risked nothing more than embarassment.
When safety comes from the government, you start to forget what happens when that government no longer exists.
Then the Islamic Jihad will look like an exotic new thing, of no danger to you whatsoever. You have the safety net, of course, so why should you worry.
Ran across this article today…another aspect of islam to consider. This is going to be a very strange war, I think. Knowing the enemy is essential – especially when the enemy seems to have a completely different mode of thought process. It strikes me that if this article is correct, then the links between islam and liberal atheism are even stronger than I thought, and now I get to ponder on the outcome of that. I’ve assumed that in the event of islamic dominance, the libs would be the first to go…maybe not….
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/69d3fe38ae104480d4d00a977aeef60a-275.html
Here is something else to ponder on, sue:
Why are the American Christian theologians so reticent in challenging the Islamic tenets of jihad and dhimmitude?
Is the chaotic, irrational, despot Allah really the same deity worshipped by Christians and Jews?
There is an ideological and religious aspect to this war that our First Amendment precludes our government and military from acknowledging. NGO’s, particularly faith-based NGO’s, ought reasonably to be expected to take up some of that slack, but I see little evidence of it.
I’ve assumed that in the event of islamic dominance, the libs would be the first to go…maybe not….
They will be the first ones to go, but I don’t think it really changes anything. The Soviets also were going to get rid of all their useful idiots once they conquered the West. That doesn’t mean people still can’t be useful until then.
The connections between socialism or fake liberalism and Islamic fascism were described by me here in the Triangle of Death.
Link
That’s painful to consider, though I don’t disagree. What about the military? how do you consider the military role to play out? That stumps me.
I think they will continue to be the first line of defense. Paradoxically, what would galvanize irregular support amongst Americans would be the situation where enemy attacks have almost totally bypassed the first line. They, the military as represented by one example, Petraeus, will their hardest to adapt and change and learn, in order to be useful and relevant in the 21st century. The enemy will also learn and adapt. Whoever learns the most, mostly wins.
Why are the American Christian theologians so reticent in challenging the Islamic tenets of jihad and dhimmitude?
I think there are three contributing factors that I can think of. Fear of being called out for being intolerant or Islamic bashing, which is an example of the effectiveness of CAIR.
Second, there is a strong tradition of individual introspection and laisez faire style practicing of religions here in the US and Europe. Religion is not so much a commandment as it is a fad or a structure or a thing you do. It is not what you are. It is not what you put most of your hopes and aspirations into. Michael (one of them) posted an interview, via Blackfive, about those deployed to Fallujah and how they saw the evolution of the situation there. One remark from a Marine was that the Fallujans take religion much more seriously than those back home. And if that is true, then it would be even more true for Europe. Because of these things, people here in the West aren’t motivated as strongly to publicly challenge others in a religious tone. That may change as Shariah gains more prominence as an actual policy, as it has in Europe.
The third contributing factor in my belief concerns organization. Islam is organized into about the same kind of structure as the Catholic Church was before Henry the 8. You have a couple of people at the top, for example, and then Mohammed, which is like a dead pope that everyone can quote as a justification for their actions. This type of organization makes it much easier to organize counter-reformations and counter-rebuttals in a religious theme.
No matter how many people feel strongly about Islam, their religion does not have the infrastructure to create grassroots outrage on the fly. Things are done more based upon individual will here in the US. Individual free will, which is not recognized by Islam. Inshallah and all.
So I tend to think American Christian theologians find things problematic with Islam, of course, but they are prevented from organizing by the intimidation tactics of fake liberals and internal Muslim vanguard members from CAIR. They did not start out organized, like Islam, so Christians have to depend upon themselves or their local pastorals. Which aren’t really giving out the cry for mobilization and grassroots recruiting. As for why, see point 1.
Even if such things didn’t exist, Americans would still feel more comfortable with a personal religious connection with God rather than trying to convince people that their way is the wrong way.
Christians do try to convert others, of course, but the institutional supports for such don’t really exist on a large scale like CAIR.
Evangelicals might be the only corresponding analog here in the states for organized efforts. Yet the evangelicals themselves are not united. Although they would still be the ones where you would see the most outspoken and verbal outrage against Islamic terror and Shariah.
There was some talk before over at Dr. Sanity or Pakistan news about how violence is conducted so that nations and countries fall. I said that violence needed to be organized in order to take down a nation or regime. That no matter how many “youths” you have on the street, what matters is organization and leadership, not actual numbers or even weapons.
The Left doesn’t agree with such a view. They believe that if you mobilize and organize a non-violent group, such as student reformists in Iran before the Ayatollah took over, then you could use the students to counter-balance the extreme violence of the Jihadists.
Obviously I disagree with such a policy.
And that is why the Left’s policies inevitably led to dictators, terrorists, and extremists taking power. The Left creates a power vacuum by eliminating and weakening any local ability to organize their violence. Which allows in foreign powers that can and will organize violence in return for power.
Those that have the Left “on their side” will have their ROE and prisoner policies micromanaged and “sensitized” for the daily news. Those that the Left supports gets free reign to do whatever they want.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Why are the American Christian theologians so reticent in challenging the Islamic tenets of jihad and dhimmitude?
My 2 cents — somehow, there is a belief that seems prevalent that if we challenge another religion on their “rightness” or “wrongness” and the other religion is shown to be somehow less than good, that it weakens all religions.
In other words, I have heard other Christians say that we can’t challenge the tax-exempt status of a Mosque because if the government gets a foot in the door with one church, our church could be next. So all too often everyone wants to play polite instead of calling a spade a spade.
And then there’s the “all roads lead to heaven” kind of beliefs that are out there also. If you truly believe that to be the case, you wouldn’t have any basis to stand on when challenging another religion. Standards become relative, and evil is not defined concretely.
As to your other questions… I do believe that our country is a force for good in this world. No question in my mind. I would be willing to sacrifice what is asked of me to see it continue. Before I would submit to sharia law, I would rather die. And I say that in all seriousness.
Star, you sound like a militant nationalist
Reconciliation with these people is going to take me awhile.
ymar, I’m not particulary religious myself but I respect the power of faith. Seems to me al Qaeda and the Taliban could accurately be described as faith-based NGO’s and Western Christendom has no corresponding dopplegangers with which to oppose them. Is that a feature or a bug?
From your link, Cannoneer…
With the exception of the bolded section, I’d have to answer a yep. The difference being, I’m fairly certain that I understand why we are there. Just because the libs don’t have a clue, they assume no one else does either.
As for the “unambiguous security feeling” that comes from following the rules – well, it’s actually fairly defined, and it’s not a “feeling.” It’s a faith in my fellow man and my country based on the belief that *most* of us are following the same set of rules.
To put it in simple terms — consider a stoplight. As long as everyone follows the rules (yes – they ARE simple) and stops when it’s red and goes when it’s green, things are fine. Someone approaching a green light at 40 mph has faith that his fellow drivers will be stopped while their light is red. If we didn’t operate with that faith, every one of us would stop at the light whether it was red or green. It’s when a person chooses to ignore the rules that the rest of society obeys that there is a problem. So this moonbat may call it being a simpleton to obey the rules. I think of it as putting the welfare of my fellow man above my selfish desires for instant gratification. Maybe it’s just picking fly poop out of pepper, but to me it’s a different thing altogether from a “feeling of belonging and a feeling” that I’ll be taken care of if I follow the rules.
Star, you’re describing what sounds like a Conservative view of the Social Contract. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
“Why are the American Christian theologians so reticent in challenging the Islamic tenets of jihad and dhimmitude?”
I believe it’s due to ignorance about the beliefs of Muslims. Muslims in America have mostly kept a low profile, and mostly conduct their religious services in Arabic. We have a tendency to leave other religions alone as long as they don’t make trouble. There’s a possibility that many muslims who have come here have done so to escape the oppression of islam in their countries of origin, but see the imposition of that oppression as an inevitibility – “Well, it was nice while it lasted” kind of thing.
Christians are certainly aware of islam of the past, but as a RC, we have our own past institutional sins to consider, and probably most consider that islam has certainly evolved out of the past as we have. It is becoming apparent that it has not, and the oppression of the past is the oppression of the present.
Christians are also constrained to not condemn others, but to work to convert them. The article I linked to makes it clear that the probability of this is low, but Christians are not conscious of that. Their hopes are still high.
So…to answer this, I’d propose the reasons are: ignorance, disbelief, evangelism and timidity. The last because for the most part, we find it unseemly to attack another faith – unless of course, you’re from the Westboro Baptist church…! And that’s the problem – most don’t want to seem as if they’re from the Westboro Baptist church…we want to be _nice_.
“Is the chaotic, irrational, despot Allah really the same deity worshipped by Christians and Jews?”
See…now, that article is really like a ray of sun on this facet of discussion. Even as much as I have learned about islam since 9/11, even though I disagreed with the idiot bishop who proposed that we call God “Allah” because worship the same supreme being and it doesn’t matter what we call Him (because I saw it as a type of dhimmitude, not disagreement for theological reasons), I _did_ think that we were talking about an equivocal Supreme Being. That article points out that we are _not_ talking about a “same” Supreme Being…that the God of Judaism and Christianity is one of reasoning and logic, that allah is one of absolutism, with logic and reason not a characteristic. We can take the bible as a basic handbook and reason our way to our modern culture. The koran is to be taken literally, and as such is frozen in time. Modern culture cannot be assimilated because reason and logic are not allowed, and the koran does not speak to modern culture – therefore, islam needs to destroy modern culture.
There is a group called “Muslims against Sharia” which is fighting against this concept – they say allah is all good, “all good” contradicts the “kill all non-believers” idea, therefore since a contradiction exists in the koran, and since allah dictated the koran, and since allah is perfect, therefore he cannot contradict himself, therefore there are errors in the koran as it has been handed down. I’m sure there is more to their theory than that, but that’s the nub of it. Can they bring change? I don’t know – but that’s what has to be done if Christianity and islam are to live in peace, and if islam is to be brought into the modern culture.
nice post thank you
I agree with you Sue — especially on the timidity part. Somehow there’s the belief that if we ARE nice, we can win others over to our way of thinking.
I have heard others say that the MEers do not understand nice, that they only understand force and subjugation. Do you think that’s true?
I’m not sure this is particularly relevant, but I couldn’t pass it up…!
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/12/storm-track-intimidation-muslim-cajones.html
>>I have heard others say that the MEers do not understand nice, that they only understand force and subjugation. Do you think that’s true?>>
For the most part, yes. The Christian culture teaches that “the last shall be first, the first shall be last”, and as such, tends to encourage rewards those who place themselves below others. “Oh no, I couldn’t _possibly_ accept such a nice award, gift whatever”. Muslims don’t have that outlook – he who has the power has the goodies. He better be nice about using them, but unless you’re strong enough to take them away, forget about it. Look at the recent statement by the tribal leaders in Iraq “we’ll kill even our own sons if they join the insurgents”…and they have the power to do that – and apparently have already done that. They are not condemned by their people for this – no mixed feelings, apparently. Gives me a whole new perspective on Abraham sacrificing his son when commanded to by God, I’ll tell you.
So then what is the correct response? To be true to OUR beliefs (assuming a Judeo-Christian outlook) we should put others first. But by putting them above us — putting the Muslims first — we give them the power, and in their eyes, that validates their beliefs as Truth.
You’re welcome, Ziad of Middle East Post.
Well, guys, sounds to me like the Resistance to Sharia Western Christendom can put up is pretty fragmented and half-hearted. Watched Kingdom of Heaven again last night. Don’t know if Western Christendom still produces people like those Crusaders. If they do, they’re probably Marines.
You know — it’s a tough answer Cannoneer. For me, like I said, I would rather die than submit to that. But answering for the many distinct sects within Christendom is very difficult. Under that one umbrella you find everything from the Peace at any cost people to the war is the only answer to anything.
The correct response…indeed.
Islam is primarily a political organization, with the absolute authority of a Supreme Being as the enforcer. The imams are just the _visible_ enforcers – they tell the muslims what the rules are. Allah is the ultimate enforcer.
Governments – nations – have no morality in the Judeo-Christian ethic. They are not moral entities. Individuals are. Governments as well as individuals have the right of self defense.
So…the Judeo-Christian outlook is relevant only in interpersonal interactions – political and governmental actions are on an entirely different level. Take the Huckabee position of pardoning murderers. Very Christian, right? Not so. Justice is an equal Christian value. Very easy for Huckabee to pardon a murderer – he’s not the offended party. Christianity teaches forgiveness – but that’s A requirement for the party injured, not on society as a whole. Society’s job – as spoken through government functions – is to enforce _justice_, which relieves the injured party from the old law, which is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Nationally speaking, certainly our religion speaks to our values, but the primary responsibility of the government is national security. That means protection from an alternate form of government, if that alternate form is imposed instead of chosen.
To answer your statement then, I’d say we – as a nation – have the right to self-defense. That means we put _us_ first. We stand strong and use our strength to ward off attack. Good fences make good neighbors, as they say. Either that or submit.
Better you than me. I don’t _do_ submission.
LOL!! Very good answers Sue — and it makes sense. This has been bugging me literally all day. But you’ve really nailed it down. I knew that I believe it’s right — no, just — for my government to enforce laws and bring justice. But I couldn’t put into words why. I was not taking into account individual vs. national directives.
There are other views, of course. Check this one out…!
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/12/11/stop-the-flight-93-memorial-bl-1/
Whew – that guy’s a loon.
No…he’s a muslim…
Of course, maybe we’re saying the same thing…????
A few days later…this came to the top of the pile. This is a lot more important than it appears at first – it basically says that we’ve won! No, the battle’s not over yet, but it is a clear iindication that those who pull the strings are aware that they moved to soon – before they had all their jihadists in place. Being a democracy, there is certainly the probability that if this idea takes hold and the muslims subside, we will go back to snoozing and blissful inattentiveness, and this battle will have to fought in the future sometime. Our children today – even our young adults – are blase’ about Communism, and don’t understand the unreasonable antagonism their elders hold towards Communism. In fact, their attitude is one of no fear of the boogeyman. No doubt our great grandchildren will have the same attitude about islam. Until it rises again. Hopefully the present will be still be taught so that at least there will be _some_ recall when the need comes.
Those who are responsible for propaganda should be broadcasting this letter/publication whatever it is. They probably won’t be, but they should be.
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/12/15/ix-nay-on-the-ihad-jay/
Who IS responsible for propaganda?
The opinion I’m forming is that it is a function of the military, and as I stated in another comment section, probably can be carried out in part by the military itself, but the military should be availing itself of the free bloggers out there who are willing to perform some of their functions. Writing takes time – if a blogger is “approved”, and someone is keeping tabs, then let the blogger do the job. If no blogger is taking on a particular facet of the needed propaganda, then use the military, one way or another.
Of course, this is entirely unacceptable, but that’s who I think should be responsible – we _are_ talking about people who intend to do us harm – and that, in my mind, falls under the purvue of the military. It’s a self-defense thing.
Counterpropaganda is a PSYOP mission at the tactical and operational level, but PSYOP and the echelons above it would rather leave the strategic propaganda uncountered and the American people propaganidized by the other side than be accused of targeting the domestic audience.
The pain the “Loyal Opposition” can inflict on the military for operating in the domestic psychological battlespace is not worth whatever “reward” might be bestowed upon them by the pitifully few who will welcome their efforts. Most of the military figures it is somebody else’s job, which it is (Other Government Agencies — State, Justice, Homeland Security, CIA) and if it is not getting done that’s not their problem.
So essentially the enemy and the media both have pretty much unrestrained free rein to fill our heads with bad news and pessimism and almost nothing official is done about it.
I want to figure out some doable work arounds to this governmental paralysis.
Sort of answered this in today’s post… I think it needs to be a special temporary office established by the president and answerable only to him. It would function only during times of conflict on foreign soil. By being temporary, it would discourage a buildup of bureaucratic types. It would probably be staffed by ex-military, in order to function optimally.
Ideally, I’d like to see a governmental requirement on the MSM to publish notices put out by such an office during times of conflict, but since that isn’t likely to happen, the blogs will have to do. Anyone who cares probably is getting their info online anyway. Bloggers would be sent info and/or the means to connect with info sources, and if a particular area wasn’t being covered by civilian unpaid bloggers, then the office would establish blogs themselves…undercover? or openly? I’m not sure. If the cooperative bloggers were good, the undercover bloggers would probably be ferreted out, anyway – in the open might be better.
I think the work-around is simply a matter of organization. Finding someone with know how – meaning knowledge of what needs to be transmitted – and then getting stuff planted in the places where it will get the greatest coverage. Use the awards voting pages to determine where it will do the most good…certain types should go in the “right-leaning” blogs, certain types should go in the “left-leaning” blogs.
At the moment, though, it has to be a labor of love, because there sure isn’t going to be any pay.
How would this temporary office be funded? If it is funded by taxpayers various House Committees will be able to kill it.
How do you require the MSM to do anything?
Bloggers are already being sent info and/or the means to connect with info sources.
Uncover will be blown.
Left-leaning blogs? How will they be of any use to the pro-victory side?
>>Left-leaning blogs? How will they be of any use to the pro-victory side?>>
I’m not sufficiently devious to give you an answer – but I think there are people who could. How about planting articles that raise the idea of given the equation of Christianity and islam (yes, I disagree, but there are who equate them) we already have Christianity, we _certainly_ don’t want islam. As it is, lefties seem to playing the game of watching with glee as islam moves on and takes over Christianity. Almost as if they can’t see that if Christianity is not successful in resisting, that islam will be a theocracy that is way more rigid that Christianity ever was, and brooks no contradiction.
Using the idea of judo – that giving way to your opponent gets him off balance, allowing you to throw him. That sort of thing.
I’m going to counter some of what I’ve read here. I have been thinking about the topic of WW IV or CW2 for quite a while.
It is my belief that the entire Islamic world is not an existential threat to the USA in the way that many here portrait it. Certainly it is a threat to it’s own minorities, be they Kurds, Christians or Bahais.
They are a serious threat to Israel, and Israel, like the USA seems to be having a hard time finding leaders or fortitude to deal with the problem.
And I agree with the entire “Eurabia” hypothosis. So, perhaps, if all of these come true and we see Europe and the Middle East all fall to radical moslems, and Israel destroyed (is that even possible?) we would then be in the existential crisis that is the topic of this blog. But we are far from even one of those taking place the chances of the Muz taking over the USA are zero.
Which doesn’t mean we are not in an existential crisis, we are, certainly. But it is much more a crisis of internationalists intent on subverting our Republic for their own good, than a invasion by proxy that is centered on Islam.
Who has done more damage to America in the last 20 years – radical muslims, or rap artists? Yes, the WTC attrocity was a horror. But a horror that has not yet been repeated, and many steps have been taken to prevent re-occurance. Rap artists, meanwhile, are made rich by corporations and willing buyers, while creating a ruling mythos that is utterly nihlistic and destructive.
In terms of actual invastion, the Mexicans are here in numbers that are truely awe inspiring and dangerous. Perhaps they can be assimilated, perhaps not. If not they certainly form a much larger threat than the 0.3% of Americans who profess Islam as their faith.
Think of the event that is likely to start our next major war. An Islamic terror event would likely, again, for a time, unite the 99.7 percent of the non-Muslim citizens against the perpetrators.
I see far less chance that we would remain united in the event of a Mexican vs. American standoff of some type.
I watched last week as European bureacrats approved a treaty, nicknamed the Turnip by some, that esentially sets up unelected as a supergovernment and diminishes the role of the nations of Europe to less than that of an American state. No elections will take place among the citizens at large to approve these radical changes.
Thus a revolution is made. We see the same attempt at revolution here: instant citizenship for an entire class of people who are illsuited to be citizens. A desperate attempt by the far left to create yet another voting-block, like public employees and Blacks, that is impervious to reason.
Where this ends is with a country deeply divided. Broken. And, eventually probably with conflict moving from cold to hot.
It’s not easy to understand or characterize this mix of ingrediants that is going to make the stew of our undoing. The Muslims have a role, but they are really just the spice in the stew.
Look at the completely out of control criminal class in Mexico. They are working their way here. They assassinate judges, mayors, politicians, pop musicans, army chiefs and each other with absolute impunity. More journalists are killed in Mexico than Iraq.
Or read the recent article “9 miles” from the LA Weekly about the hundreds of thousands of hardcore gang members in the LA basin, and their spread through the rest of America.
Or, if you are really strong willed, read the comments on Democratic Undergroud, or Truthout.org or other leftist boards. You will see a hatred of America that rivals anything found on Jihadi boards – from men and woman who live down the block.
We are a nation divided, a nation weakened by too much booze and porno and cheap money and simple minded ideas.
As that great poet said before another war: “the center can not hold”.
We don’t need Islam or Moslems to start our next major conflict. All the components are right here, right now, just waiting for the spark.
My take on Jack’s comment is that only through learning how to handle terrorism, Islamic JIhadists, and such revolutionaries will we learn how to confront and take down the Leftist social re-engineering of human society.
After all, the Leftist methods with Mexicans are the exact same methods used by Hizbollah and Hamas to create the Palestinian people, which fuels an eternal power that ensures the power of the Palestinian elites.
If America fails to learn or to fight against terrorists, our fate is sealed. For nothing we will ever do will be effective against an alliance of Muslims with European nukes with Mexican nationalism and Leftist subversion capabilities. We must break and destroy one opponent at a time. The closest (although perhaps not the most dangerous) threat we have is the Islamic Jihad. They will be our test to see whether America deserves to survive as a nation. If we don’t perform well, the next challenges will undo us most definitely.
Remember Petraeus’ COIN strategy for turning Sunni rebels into allies of the US. Now try to imagine that used in New Mexico, Texas, California. The Left wants to convert the Mexicans to us. Mexicans want to work and want security. Just like Iraqis. And just like Iraq, there will be Mexicans that take advantage of the weak and exploit them. If we step in and use what we learned in Iraq, we can break the BACKs of Mexican drug cartels, corruption schemes, and the Left in this country in one campaign.
Convert to them I mean, not to us. Against America and for the Leftist cause. Which is international and slave economy orientated.
Hey Jack. glad to see you over here.
Now, what are you countering?
My focus on this blog hasn’t been on immigration or border security. That doesn’t mean those issues are not important, just that we have a recognized war for which Congress Authorized Use of Force, which my sons have fought in, that I recently returned from, which gets most of my finite attention.
Think about this Jack. White women world wide have elected not to breed.
Muslim women have on average 6 kids over their lifetimes, and thanks to Western medicine most of those kids live to military age.
Mexican women on the other hand haven’t quit breeding, yet.
Your choice may well be that of being an Anglo in Aztlan or a dhimmi in the Emirate of North America.
Allah hu Akbar! or Dios es Grande?
Ymarsakar, Great points. We do need to push back against SOMETHING, and if we can’t find the gumption to resist a fanatical suicide cult that makes great show of telling us how much they hate us every minute of ever day, then we will have trouble dealing with anything else.
Cannoneerno4, Thanks for the gracious welcome! Always loved you postings elsewhere, nice to see the blog. My hats off to you and your boys for everything you are doing to keep us safe.
It’s good your blog has a theme and its well developed.
As for your point about birth rates, given the two choices presented Salt Lake City is sounding better all the time!
I have been focused on mere documentation of the mayhem in Mexico, particularly on the border. I think you might enjoy my blog, and if you do I’d be appreciative of a link.
It would probably be my first, despite the year of clippings I’ve gathered. I believe it can be a valuable resource.
http://www.blogofthegods.blogspot.com
This thread seems related to this discussion, obliquely at least, and is interesting in its own right.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009446.html
If terrorists were strategically smart and capable, rather than tactically proficient, they would recognize that America’s defenses are extremely vulnerable to penetration the closer they get to America. That is because America is weakest here due to the strength of Leftist foundations, think tanks, organizations, and mobs.
The farther away terrorists fight Americans, like in Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, the less damage they can cause us.
The problem that the article describes is the same problem with Shiite Al Sadr militias and Sunni Al Qaeda/Baathist elements. The objective is to create violence and hate, then perpetuate it by creating more violence and hate. Disarming individuals, as they did in New Orleans, is just one part of the process. Destabilizing society so that criminals run rampant is just another part of the objective to kicking the Americans out of Baghdad.
America won’t use her military might inside America to fight terrorists and criminals, thus decreasing America’s defense. What good is a weapon if you refuse to use it? But in Iraq, we get the exact same solutions to the Left’s stoking of black violence as we get with AQ stoking of Sunni and Shia violence in Iraq. Counter-insurgency is that solution. And we could only acquire it through using the military, which could only be used on an external target, not an internal one.
That is why the terrorists are strategic fools for not closing the distance to us. The farther away they fought, the less restrictions America had. The closer they fight, the closer they get to their logistical supply lines called CAIR, ACLU, and the Democrats.
Other considerations do apply, of course, such as the fact that the closer terrorists fight to America, the more Flight 93s we will get.
The classical military analysis is that the closer you get to the enemy, the weaker your logistics become. Irregular warfare adds 2 more dimensions to this aspect, so that you can actually get across an ocean, to Iraq, and have a stronger logistical element there than you would have here in the states. Represented by the fact that Iraqis can have their loyalty shifted to the military, while the Left here in the US can not have their loyalty shifted to us or the military.
The military has an easier time working in that environment precisely because of Iraqi support, while they have a hard time here in the US precisely because of a lack of such support. It’s a different dimension of course, so we’re not talking about guns and beans here as would be meant by regular logistics.
The terrorists have the same dynamic. They are fighting in Iraq, which is an Arab country, so their supply line of explosives and ammo coming from Syria and Iran are very close. Yet their human logistics, meaning human intel and resources, are far lower in Iraq than the US’s.
America is weakest here due to the strength of Leftist foundations, think tanks, organizations, and mobs.
That right there is a Politically Incorrect statement. If you were a serving field grade officer who said that in public your career would be over. There is a partisan political component to Irregular Warfare and Strategic Communications and Psychological Operations that nobody on the inside is going to fall on their sword over. They aren’t going to deal with it. It’s like the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. Most see the gorilla, but think it is unseemly and unprofessional to express any anti-gorilla sentiment. Besides, the Gorilla Libertion Party controls their promotions and budgets.
America won’t use her military might inside America to fight terrorists and criminals, thus decreasing America’s defense. What good is a weapon if you refuse to use it?
Military might has not been considered a useable weapon inside America since about 1877 or so. Martial law really is unusable as long as judges and pettifogging lawyers are out and about and not in hiding or buried in the rubble.
Oh, well. The continuing militarization of civilian law enforcement should provide a ready market for surplus MRAPs and warbots.
the Left here in the US can not have their loyalty shifted to us or the military.
That is the problem. It is not a problem I want the military to solve for me. It is a spiritual/philosophical/ideological/social/POLITICAL problem that the non-Left (I hate identifying as the Right; the Right-Left political spectrum is bogus) must either solve or learn to live with.
One of the most amazing analogies I derived from studying the war in Iraq concerns how US military personnel handled the need for local autonomous police and army units in Iraqi neighborhoods and provinces.
The US military could not maintain martial law forever, which was simple since martial law was NEVER implemented in Iraq by the US military (looters go loot more), so the US wanted the locals to do most of the work.
Strategically, that is a good goal. Meaning, Los Angeles’ gang problems won’t be solved through martial law. Los Angeles’ gang problems will be solved by bringing in United States military power, training, hardware so that the police can work closer with the locals without fear of gang reprisals. Because any gang reprisals will bring on a Fallujah.
That needs martial law, kind of, meaning in the sense that the military has to be authorized to use military hardware an in urban city. Or at least BE on the streets and live on them, which is the same as garrisoning military forces in an American city. Not usually done.
That is the problem. It is not a problem I want the military to solve for me. It is a spiritual/philosophical/ideological/social/POLITICAL problem that the non-Left (I hate identifying as the Right; the Right-Left political spectrum is bogus) must either solve or learn to live with.
Relevant to what you said here, Canno, is that once you solve the problem of crime, instability, and fear, the political stuff starts resolving itself, as we saw with the Sunni Awakening. The political leaders may arise or the military force required may be already there, but Iraq gives us the answers to these hypotheticals already. We know where the Awakening occured and we know how. Duplicate it in American cities, and the Left will no longer be able to acquire political power through terrorizing the powerless. It will also stop people like Sadr from gaining power through convincing people that only Sadr can provide for them.
Not that many people in Los Angeles or anyplace else in this country want their gang crime problems solved that bad.
The Army and Marine Corps are bowed up with Iraq and Afghanistan. Who would you send to occupy L.A.? What happens to the commander who accepts such a mission when the Ninth Circus Court orders him to cease and desist?
To replicate the Anbar Awakening in American cities would first require some law enforcement success against the most violent urban insurgents and several years of attrition and failure until Concerned Local Citizens chieu hoi.
What happens to the commander who accepts such a mission when the Ninth Circus Court orders him to cease and desist?
That is a similar problem to why Andrew Jackson decided to relocate the Cherokees from Georgia, even thought the Supreme Court ordered that the Cherokees should be able to stay and be protected. Jackson said to the judges “find someone to enforce the order”. Jackson knew he couldn’t enforce it, not against the various many Georgian settlers that can’t be controlled through the federal military, so thus the Trail of Tears was born.
Not that many people in Los Angeles or anyplace else in this country want their gang crime problems solved that bad.
Not many Sunnis wanted Al Qaeda and the Baathists gone from their territory, either, in the beginning. The question is not really what the people in the localized target zones want, the question is whether our enemies are going to be pouring criminal and terrorization organizational assets into the region, stocking it up as a fortified base from which to launch attacks against us and destabilize law and order inside the US.
The ones living in violent neighborhoods want security, they just don’t believe that the cops or the Marines can give it to them. Thus it gets them into a state of non-cooperation or lackaidaiscal motivation when it concerns helping the police out. Without that community-police bond, criminals have a field day, just like in Iraq. Creating and cementing bonds with the community, creates the relationship Americans now have with Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Makes it easier to uphold law and order, if the locals are working with you instead of against you or sitting on the fence.
None of that is going to change in our favor, if LA residents are never exposed to American military might and security. If all they can rely upon are cops with cop type rules, then they know that the gangs have more power over their lives than the authorities do. To change this equation, one must invest forces to eliminate the criminal organizations thriving in an environment of lawlessness, not just the ring leaders or their gang members.
Crime, by itself, can’t destroy a nation. But it is a very vulnerable spot for foreign nations and non-state actors to take advantage of. We see in Iraq what it costs to fix the problem once it has gotten out of hand and foreigners have infiltrated American AOs. I’my simply recommending that we pre-empt the enemy, and remove the vulnerability before the enemy takes advantage of it Or the Left opens the gate of Los Angeles so that our enemies can take advantage of it.
The Army and Marine Corps are bowed up with Iraq and Afghanistan
A few training advisers and fast reaction forces is all that is necessary. LA, to use one example, is still an American city, not an Iraqi one. Dynamics are different. The manpower required is going to be based upon what is allowed and what the local conditions are. Since the local conditions are much better in LA than in Serbia or Iraq, you won’t need as much manpower. Of course, without martial law, if the soldiers operate like they do at the Southern Border, which is under US police law, then you will indeed need many many soldiers to do much good at all with restricted ROE.
But you will still get ROE problems and legal shenanigans, if Los Angeles is infiltrated by foreigners and used as a base from which to strike at the rest of America. If the problem gets to the point where you have to send in the Marines, then you are already operating at a disadvantage.
To replicate the Anbar Awakening in American cities would first require some law enforcement success against the most violent urban insurgents and several years of attrition and failure until Concerned Local Citizens chieu hoi.
Americans are already concerned citizens. What they don’t have is confidence that the police will exterminate the criminals, the way the criminals would exterminate informants. Bringing in military power shows that you are serious. using tanks and helicopter gunships on criminal gangs and attacks by criminal gangs, shows that you are willing to bring a more lethal weapon to the party than what the citizens of Los Angeles have been used to seeing. People gravitate towards power, primarily because of security and secondary because they see you as being dominant. Gang warfare is similar to tribal warfare. They respect strength and ruthlessness. That is. The people will also respect strength and ruthlessness, if only because you are hammering the shit out of gangs that once extorted money from LA folks and terrorized them in the streets.
The only real problem is if people see propaganda about you using “too much” force disproportionately on the gangs. But that would be the same response no matter where America sends combat troops to fight.
Obviously gangs, like terrorists, will not strike at hardened military targets or patrols. They will wait until the military leaves or is absent, and then target the vulnerable civilian population. Which is gunships and tanks will never be enough to fight an insurgency. You need counter-insurgency, and you also need counter-ambushes. Put out a gambit that appears weak and tempting, then let the criminals attack it.
Gangs want money and violence, so send in some bank cars full of money and then leak the route to the gangs. Wait until the gang separate themselves into those that want to conduct serious crime to those who just want to sit in their neighborhoods, then hammer the extreme gang leaders like Tookie. Once those are exterminated, the rest will fall in line.
The skills required to conduct such operations, will be required of the political leadership as well as the military leadership, if America is to stand.
How do you work around Posse Comitatus?
What are you going to do with all the Democrats and Liberals and lawyers and federally protected designated victim groups who oppose such a crackdown?
Reservists who are cops in civilian life have had a huge influence on how the war is fought. Soldiers and Marines who get out and become cops are going to have a huge influence on how crime is fought, but something really bad will have to happen before tanks roll in LA.
Police don’t exterminate criminals. The Corrections systems are full of unexterminated criminals.
How do you work around Posse Comitatus?
You probably can’t. If trainers can get the people to defend themselves, without the need for military warmachines on American streets, then that is a bonus. But I don’t assume that we have to do it that way.
Soldiers and Marines who get out and become cops are going to have a huge influence on how crime is fought
Have you heard about the Target Focus Training program? It is a program that centers around how to get individuals that are most at riskto be capable of destroying anything that threatens them or their loved ones. It doesn’t need the police, it just needs training. Training which the US military has the correct infrastructure and experience to conduct on a large scale. Special Forces have been training foreigners for decades now. Why should their expertise not be utilized for the benefits of Americans?
The police can only do so much, before the sheep must grow fangs.