November 15, 2006
Book Review - "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It"
Just when I think that the future can't be much darker for us in our war on Islamic Jihadism, Mark Steyn comes along to ruin things for me.
Consider our current situation: Iraq is in the throws of massive sectarian violence and may slide into Rwandan-style slaughter, Afghanistan is not-at-all secure, Musharraf has virtually ceded large parts of his country to the Taliban and their allies, most of Somalia, including it's capital Mogadishu, is controlled by the Supreme Islamic Courts Council, an Islamist militia, and Iran appears to be well on the way towards obtaining nuclear weapons. Did I miss anything?
Actually, as Steyn points out in America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, what I missed was the fact that the United States is now virtually alone in the world. Europe, he explains, is well on the road to being completely lost to the Jihadists.
On the surface, of course, it doesn't seem that way. Their leaders still mouth the traditional pieties, lamenting that "with only proper US leadership" and "less arrogance", why, we would all be together against the terrorists. Traditional institutions such as NATO and a European-dominated Security Council still prevail.
Further, it's tempting to think that of course we can't really lose to the likes of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Isn't Europe the rock of Western Civilization? Surely a continent that survived the Nazis, Communists, and other assorted fascists can take on a bunch of backward Islamic fanatics, right? I mean, maybe they'll get lucky with some terrorist acts, maybe even sneak a nuke into a city, but lose, as in foreign occupation? No way.
"Yes way" is Steyn's response.
Here is Steyn's argument in a nutshell; the populations of native Europeans are headed into steep decline. Not only that, but the radio of young to old people is rapidly declining. Over the past several decades they've set up an enormous welfare state which depends on lots of young people for old-age payments. European leaders, seeing that the young people simply won't be around when needed, have been encouraging massive immigration into their countries. These immigrants are overwhelmingly Muslim, and most have no desire to assimilate into European culture. Not only that, but, most or many of them plan on making Europe a Muslim continent, complete with Sharia law. Native Europeans, infected with leftist multiculturalism and a complete lack of a sense of nationhood, have no will to resist.
America, he says, will be alone in the world before we know it. In many ways we already are.
Combine a powerful argument with his world-famous Mark Steyn wit, and you've got a great book. It is at once deeply sobering and laugh-out-loud funny. Put it on your must-read list.
The Inexorable Power of Demography
In order for a population to maintain its existing numbers, there must be 2.1 live births per woman. More and it's numbers increase, less and they decline. The United States is at almost exactly 2.1. That our numbers are slightly increasing is due, of course, to immigration.
Europe as a whole is 1.38, Western Europe, 1.5 or less. A few country numbers: Germany and Austria 1.3, Italy 1.2, Sweden 1.64, Ireland 1.9, Spain and Greece 1.15. Russia has the lowest at 1.15, and France the highest at 1.89. On the other side of the globe, Japan is at 1.32, and while they'll have a benefits crisis, they don't have to contend with immigrants who want to change the very nature of their society.
All this leads to rapidly declining populations. The populations of Spain, Greece and Russia will start to halve every 35 or 40 years starting sometime mid-century. The population of Yemen will exceed that of Russia.
Besides the fact that the welfare-state will simply come crashing to the ground (it's a mathmatical certainty), no one knows what will happen economically when there are lots and lots of retired people relative to younger workers.
On the other hand, here are the birthrates in Islamic countries: Pakistan 5.03, Saudi Arabia 4.53, Iran 2.33 (though Ahmadinejad is trying to get it up), Afghanistan 6.69 and Yemen at 6.58
Calculators Don't Lie
Into all this come Muslim immigrants. Europeans want(ed?) them because of their labor and ability to fund their welfare states, and Muslims wanted to come because Europe is obviously a better place than, oh, say, Pakistan or Algeria.
Exactly how many Muslims are in Europe now is open to question, and the numbers are probably higher than advertised. However, most sources I checked conclude that about 5% of Western Europe is Muslim, with the total number being at around 23 million.
The Muslim birthrate in Europe is somewhere around 3.5 live births per woman.
The bottom line: Sometime towards the end of this century Western Europe will be majority Muslim. Get the picture?
Islam is Not Just a Religion
This is not the place for a full discussion of Islam, the law, and the nature of society. Suffice it to say that you just haven't been paying attention if you think that the difference between Westerners (whether Christian or not) and Muslims is trivial. We're not talking like the differences between Presbyterians and Mormons, or Jews and Hindus, for that matter.
The reality is that all Westerners, and Hindus too for that matter, live in countries that have been through or deeply influenced by the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment. This is why I'm not worried about the impact of Hispanics on American culture or society; fundamentally they're just like us.
Islam is another matter. There has never been an Islamic Martin Luther, much less a St Augustine or St Aquinas. I'd say Islam was stuck in the Middle Ages, but that would be an insult to Medieval Europe. I believe that Islam is reformable, it's just not on that path right now.
Radical Islam has exported itself to Europe. Melanie Phillips documented how bad the situation in the UK, who's capital was been dubbed "Londonistan" by French police officials. Islamism is an imperial project, says Steyn, and it's coming to a town near you.
It's not just the vast potential for terrorism that is the problem. Surveys show that up to 60% of these Muslims want Sharia law implimented in the European countries where they reside. Many or most of them have no wish to conform to Western standards, they want us to conform to them. Steyn, like any number of authors writing on this subject, provides example after example of demands that radical Muslims are making on their new countries; and time after time native Europe surrenders.
The problem is that the Muslim immigrants see the customs and law of Europe, and reject it. They see women who are free, and it offends them. They see that gays are allowed to live without being stoned to death, and it enrages them. They examine our legal system and believe it unjust because it is not based on Islam. They look at our democracy and seek ways to exploit it. They use our tradion of tolerance against us.
All Muslims? No. But enough Muslims? Yes. If there is a large group of "moderate Muslims" in Europe, it is a well-kept secret.
It's the Identity, Stupid
Population decline in and of itself would only be a economic problem; how to pay for all these benefits? A threat from radical Muslims would not be a problem in a culture and country that firmly believed in itself.
Add the two together, however, and you've got a disaster on your hands.
How Europe lost it's way is no great secret; two world wars, coupled with the threat of complete annihilation during the Cold War, prompted many to distrust or hate nationalism and put their faith in integration and international institutions. And it has, in this respect, worked; the idea of two major European countries going to war with each other is more remote than ever.
Sure, if the Islamists somehow cobbled together a traditional army and hit the beaches in Spain or Italy, Europe would rally to their defense. The problem, as Steyn points out, is that "the dragons are no longer on the edge of the map."
The reasons why Europe is not resisting are several. There is the lack of national identity that I mentioned earlier. There is also it's post-Christian state. Most Americans believe in God whether they go to church or synagogue or not. Most Europeans don't even believe in God. This results first of all in a lack of believing in anything, a lack of identity.
On top of that you've got leftist muliculturalism, which seeks to deny that any one culture or society is superior to any other.
All of this has led to a lack of identity. Islam is not only growing in Europe though immigration, but by conversion. Again, numbers are hard to come by, but there are all too-many news articles about the subject.
What Christian churches are left outside of Catholicism are in full-scale retreat. Most are desperate to retain whatever members they can, and believe that the best way to do so is to become like the society around them. This has led to a milquetoast version of their religion that is utterly unable to resist the threat that is all around them.
The funny part about it all is that if you had to invent an ideology that would be complete anathema to the liberal or leftist mindset, you couldn't do better than radical Islam. It's mysogenic, anti-gay, and theocratic. Yet to most leftists and indeed many liberals, the threat's simply not there. They'll tell you that the Islamists are just upset because we haven't solved the Palestinian-Israeli problem.
In the End
"Jihad can win", is Steyn's message. Although it may seem incredible to us to imagine the sort of changes that would forever change Europe, it is stability that is the illusion. Looking at the broad sweep of history, one realizes that not only do countries come and go, but peoples do to. Meet any Visigoths or Byzantines recently?
So yes, Europe as we know it can disappear. Before it does it will likely catch on as to what is happening, and we'll likely see mass riots or outright warfare, coupled with a rise of fascist parties on the right. We'll also see a mass exodus to the United States, which in my opinion would be a good thing. But in the end the tyranny of demography will prevail unless action is taken now.
What Can Be Done
Steyn doesn't spend much time here, prefering to spend most of the book simply laying out the problem. He does, however have some ideas, most of which are good ones.
First, he lays out our options
1. Submit to Islam
2. Destroy Islam
3. Reform Islam
As Steyn puts it, "because most of us don't take number one as a serious possibility, we're equally unserious about being forced to choose between two and three. But submission to Islam is very possible...."
Because "destroying Islam" is both impractical and immoral, our only option is number three. Ultimately, he says, we can't do this; only Muslims can. However, we can create the conditions for reform.
Some of the things he proposes are supporting women's rights in Islamic countries, rolling back Wahhabi "exports", ie Saudi-funded Mosques. In general, supporting liberty and democracy in Muslim countries is necessary, too. We must think more comprehensively about a ideological strategy as well as a military one. Forget the UN and NATO, they're worse than useless. Changing the government in Tehran must be a priority. Military action when necessary is required, though in general this war will not be won with bombs and bullets.
All of this stuff except ending the military parts are the types of things we don't do very well, but it's quite necessary that we learn.
Trends do not necessarily hold. It is possible that native Europeans will see an increase in their birthrates, or will suddenly come to their senses and enact measures to stop or seriously slow down immigration from Muslim countries. They might rediscover a sense of identity, and maybe even their Christianity. But it seems less than likely to me. Steyn's vision is, if anything, more frightening than even the prospects for defeat in Afghanistan or Iraq. The lights may be going out in Europe once more, and this time I'm not sure we can get them back on.
Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
October 26, 2006
Hanson Demolishes the Talkers
From NRO's The Corner today, here's Victor Davis Hanson:
In the last 24 hours I have heard some of the craziest things of this entire war.The Palestinians are complaining about the Israeli security fence on grounds that it perpetuates "racial segregation" — in a way perhaps suicide bombers do not? Or the state-run Palestinian megaphones with their usual "apes and pigs" rants?
At a meeting the other day with some political scientists, I was lectured by some that there was nothing such as jihadism in the comprehensive sense. That is, that Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. simply have entirely separate agendas, understandable (i.e., Israel, "occupation" of Arab lands) and particularist grievances, etc. rather than a deeply shared anger at the West that originates from a common sense of lost pride and frustration, brought on by recognition of failure when zeal and religious purity do not restore honor or influence in the age of globalization.
I thought these who advocated such nonsense might at any second suggest that because Mussolini's fascists, Hitler's Nazis, and Tojo's militarists all had quite different agendas, separate racial ideologies, and particular aims in WWII, then, they could hardly be lumped together as the Axis that threatened Western republics and needed a generic anti-fascist response. All during the Vietnam War, we were lectured daily about the intricacies of Vietnamese, Russian, and Chinese Communists — their rivalries, hatreds, and quite separate aims-as they combined to defeat the United States, and trumped their own tensions with an all-encompassing hatred of Western democratic capitalism.
There is also an Alice in Wonderland flavor to the current Democratic response to the Korean and Iranian crises. We talked to the Koreans all during the 1990s as they prepared nuclear materials.And now are told that we have a catastrophe since we have not recently talked to them. We talked all during the 1990s with Syria — and got nothing. Bill Clinton has always praised Iranian democracy; so, we talked to Tehran too, both stealthily and overtly.
So what is this obsession with talk, talk, talk? It reminds me of all those discredited British empty-headed pacifists and aristocrats who wanted to keep talking to Hitler after the fall of Poland, even after the fall of France, right up to the Battle of Britain.
Ditto that.
Posted by Tom at 9:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 17, 2006
Lenninist Lynne Gets Lucky
Here's how the AP story on the sentencing of Lynne Stewart, printed in the Washington Times, starts out
A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced yesterday to nearly 2? years in prison -- far less than the 30 years prosecutors wanted -- for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.Lynne Stewart, 67, smiled, cried and hugged supporters after U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl pronounced the sentence of 28 months.
The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between her client and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct."
But in departing from federal guidelines that called for 30 years behind bars, he cited Stewart's more than three decades of dedication to poor, disadvantaged and unpopular clients.
"Ms. Stewart performed a public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation," Judge Koeltl said.
"firebrand civil rights lawyer"? dedication to "poor, disadvantaged and unpopular clients"? "performed a public service...to the nation"?
What are this AP reporter and judge smoking? Lynne Stewart is a communist and member of the hate-America crowd if there every was one. If you don't believe me read what she herself has said
"We have in Washington a poisonous government that spreads its venom to the body politic in all corners of the globe. We now resume...our quests...like David going forth to meet Goliath, like Beowulf the dragon slayer...like Sir Galahad seeking the holy grail. And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us 'At the risk of sounding ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.'"
How does she view "Muslim fundamentalists"?
"They are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination....My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries...to liberate."
As for violence;
"I don't believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support."
"Civil rights attorney" my foot. She's part of the New Fifth Columnists who take the side of our enemy that's all there is to it.
For Additional Reading
Much more about Stewart's background here.
Powerline dissects the sentencing and says "Not Enough Jail Time". I agree.
Captain Ed says that the light sentencing of Stewart "demonstrates the fecklessness of pursuing terrorists through the civil courts." Ditto that.
Michelle Malkin calls it a "travesty". So do I. She points to an article in the New York Times that is very sympathetic to Stewart. Unbelievable.
Andy McCarthy at NRO provides valuable legal insight. He relates how he spent some time on the phone with a New York Times reporter trying to explain how no, a long sentence would not have a chilling effect on lawyers who defend terrorists if she receives a long sentence.” The reporter didn't get it.
The Wall Street Journal also editoralizes that given her crime she got off light.
Lastly, be sure to check out Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, where she's got a "videoblog" entry about Lennist Lynne.
Posted by Tom at 8:17 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
October 11, 2006
A Case of Taqiyya?
An Associated Press article printed in today's Washington Times caught my attention this morning. It was titled "Defender of 'liberal Islam' shunned"
LONDON -- Tariq Ramadan's call for modernizing Islam has earned him the hatred of Muslim traditionalists. The Bush administration sees him as a threat and has banned him from the United States. France banned him from the country in 1995, linking him to Algerian terrorists, but leftist organizations successfully campaigned to overturn the measure, and he is now welcome there.But underscoring the conflicting reactions provoked by this soft-spoken Muslim from Switzerland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair sees Mr. Ramadan as one of the best hopes for bridging the divide between the West and Islam, and has put him on a task force to tackle extremism.
Tariq Ramadan? Haven't I heard that somewhere? Reading on
To his admirers, the 44-year-old Oxford University scholar is the conscience of Western Europe's Muslims -- the man who can articulate what it means to play an active part in secular society while remaining true to the Koran ...Two years ago -- and days before he was to arrive in the United States to become a professor of religion at the University of Notre Dame, the United States canceled his visa. The State Department said he was barred for actions "which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization." Mr. Ramadan said the charge stems from his donation, then worth about $750, to a Palestinian charity.
I went to Melanie Phillips Londonistan, which I recently finished, and sure enough, there on pages 174-175. Widely thought to be close to the Muslim Brotherhood, he has made statements defending terrorists in Iraq, "Palestine", and Chechnya.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ramadan is on a special Muslim "task force" which advises Prime Minister Tony Blair on Muslim matters.
Looks like we might have a case of Taqiyya here.
From Wikipedia, Taqiyya "is the dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion." and "according to many Shia, Taqiyya can only be legally used by a Muslim verbally when he or she is being wrongly persecuted. "
Of course, should all know by this point that "wrongly persecuted" to Muslims means any and all criticism of the way the practice their religion. We haven't come to call it"The Religion of Perpetual Outrage" for nothing.
Again from Wikipedia, here's the brief on Tariq Ramadan
In February 2004, he accepted the tenured position of Luce professor of religion at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, USA. However, in late July 2004, his visa was revoked by the State Department, and he was forced to resign the position. [3]. Though the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declined to provide a specific reason for denying the visa, they explained that the Patriot Act allows the government to ban foreigners who “espouse terrorist activity.” ...In September 2006, a State Department statement said: "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization."[4][5]
Tariq Ramadan advocates that Muslims living in the West should not view themselves as foreigners or temporary residents of their countries, but rather as full citizens with full rights and responsibilities. In some respects, he argues for integration and not alienation from the surrounding society. Indeed, the main theme of his book, To Be a European Muslim attempts to bridge the gap between being a Muslim and being European.
..Ramadan argues that there need be no conflict between being a Muslim and being a full citizen in Western countries, active in the community and caring about it. He criticizes what he sees as an 'us vs. them' mentality in Muslim discourse on the West.
...Tariq Ramadan is criticised for his sometimes contradictory opinions, and for his refusal to accept the priority of civil law over religious law, as is the rule in all democracies. Many French intellectuals also accuse Ramadan of being "The Master of Doubletalk," of saying one thing to the non-Muslim public and the opposite to his Muslim audience. Perhaps most seriously, author Jean-Charles Brisard of the Terror Finance Blog has listed a number of alleged links between Ramadan and terrorism. [11]
Caroline Fourest analysed Tariq Ramadan's 15 books, 1,500 pages of interviews, and approximately 100 recordings, [12] and concludes "Ramadan is a war leader,"
Quite contradictory indeed. His defenders portray as an Islamic Martin Luther, his detractors a master of doubletalk. Ramadan has written several books which you can find on Amazon, the most important ones of which seem to be Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, and Islam, the West, and the Challenges of Modernity
On the other side we have articles like this one on Jihad Watch and this one at the Middle East Forum, tell an entirely different story about Ramadan.
I haven't studied the matter myself,but it does seem that Ramadan is indeed engaged in Taqiyya, presenting himself as the voice of reason to gullible Westerners, but in reality "wants to see the islamization of Europe" (Jihad Watch article cited above). Anyway, since the ACLU is defending him, I'm all the more inclined to think he's guilty as charged.
Posted by Tom at 9:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 28, 2006
The Nature of our Enemy Part III An Islamic World
On the one hand, there's a danger in reading too much into any one incident. On the other, sometimes they can be so illustrative.
Take the issue of Steve Centani and Olaf Wiig, the Fox News journalists who were told to convert to Islam or die. In the video, posted here on Michelle Malkin's site (and on YouTube), Centanni reads a statement, which says in part
I have embraced Islam, and say the word Allah. My leader is the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. Islam is not meant for just some people, but it is the true religion for all people in all times. Westerners are not following the wrong path. And I hope they realize that and change their ways,and I hope I can help them to do that. Islam helps people to love mercy, brotherhood, equality and justice....Disbelievers will be cast into an eternal fire. But Allah is also ever merciful, and the west can change it's ways and turn to the purifying power of Islam....
Islam is not fascism. Words lke that only serve to deepen the chasm between peoples.... The West is seen as waging war on Islam, and these words, "Islamic fascists", only reconfirm that belief among many.... Please, George Bush, please Tony Blair, open your minds to Islam, and bring peace to all people around the world....
Olaf Wiig reads a similar statement. Basically it's all "we are poor persecuted Muslims, please stop killing us with your bombs" stuff.
Prior to all this, however, there is a banner in the video that says
There is no compulsion in Religion. The right path is henceforth distinct from error
Right.
Let's see what we can make of this video
A Global Caliphate
First, as Glenn Reynolds observes, "It's not a religious war to us, but it is to them"
Their definition of victory is converting the whole world to Islam. To the Western mind, a conversion at gunpoint is invalid and pointless. But although it may be politically incorrect to point this out, up until recent centuries, Islam has been spread mainly by warfare and forced conversions. Only since the end of Islamic military power at the end of the 17th century was this ended.
No I am not saying that we should also treat it as a religious war. But as I said in The Nature of our Enemy, Part II: A Problem in Islam, Islam has a problem with violence. Islam itself is not violent, but the way in which it is practiced by a disturbingly high number of people leads to violence. This is ignored both by leftist Westerners and most Muslims alike.
The Nature of Religion
Now a quick note about the nature of religion is in order. If you are a Christian or Muslim, and do not believe that yours is the one and only true and right way to see God, then you don't believe in your own religion. If you are a Christian orMuslim, and do not in your heart want everyone else on the planet to convert to your religion, you do not believe in your own religion.
As for where you're going after you die, if you are a Christian then you know that this is a decision that only God can make. You do not have the right to "judge" people, or say where they are going (bty, this is the true definition of ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged"(Matt 7:1) to a Christian, it does not mean we can't comment on someone else's lifestyle).
The difference, if I need to point it out, is that in our modern world we Christians do not convert at swordpoint. Nor do we fight over religion. Islamic radicals still do. As Christians, we send missionaries out into the world (I've done this) to convert souls. We do not send soldiers to do this.
Now that's out of the way, let's get back to our subject matter
The Propaganda
I'll give the Islamic fascists this, they know what we're saying and what our news media is reporting, and do a good job of trying to turn it against us. I can see where the weak minded at home and abroad would be fooled. I can see in the days to come some leftie saying "see, I told you that 'Islamic fascist' was inflammatory!"
So Much for the "Grievance s" Argument
Fox News anchor Brit Hume nails it
Yes, and what an appealing faith these thugs must believe Islam is, that conversions have to be effected at the point of a gun. And what of the argument that all of the ills and troubles that beset the Palestinian people, that lead them to terrorism, are the cause of what they endlessly refer to as the illegal Israeli occupation.Consider the latest rounds of trouble in Gaza and Lebanon, two places from which Israel has withdrawn.
It has been noted that not for one day after the Israeli pullout from Gaza did the rocket attacks that came from Gaza ever stop. We’re not dealing here with something that is susceptible to a political resolution of the kind of which the State Department and many a president has dreamed.
We’re dealing here with a lawless enemy whose goal far transcends any side-by-side, two-state solution. That isn’t going to do it. We’re dealing with a terrorist, gangland-style enemy, which I think it’s fair to conclude, and this episode only further illustrates it, must be defeated.
Ditto that.
In Part I of The Nature of Our Enemy I detailed how our enemy is in fact Islamic Fascism, and not "a hundred small grievances."
Get Them
Centanni and Wiig were kidnapped by the Holy Jihad Brigades, a group unknown until this action. Fox News reports that
Senior Palestinian security officials said Sunday the name was a front for local militants, and that Palestinian authorities had known the identity of the kidnappers from the start.
What we must do is hunt them down and kill them. At the very least, they must be arrested and executed by Palestinian forces. And no this is not simply a "legal matter" that can be handled as in a police action. This should be considered an act of war It is important that we get these terrorists for several reasons.
As Cliff May points out,
I’m glad these guys are safe and free. I wish them well. But I hope there will be some attention paid by Fox and other media to the way in which kidnappings and similar threats coerce and intimidate journalists, and may influence their coverage.
Lastly, and most simply, they are both Westerners, Centanni an American and Wiig a New Zealander. New Zealand has sent special forces to Afghanistan (where they won praise from our guys for their ability to navigate in the mountains). If we do not get the terrorists who committed this act, Islamic fascists the world over will know that this is one more act that they can get away with.
Now let's not all forget about this story in the days and weeks to come, and make sure we get the terrorists who did this.
Posted by Tom at 8:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 22, 2006
The Nature of our Enemy, Part I
Who exactly are we fighting in this war, and why is our enemy so upset at us?
By "this war", I refer not to Iraq, but to what is called the "War on Terror."
Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought on the matter. One side says that we are at war with "Islamofascism", or Islamic radicalism, or Islamism, or jihad, call it what you will. The other side says that we are fighting people who are against various US policies. They fight us because they have a specific greviance.
Richard Fernandez has a typically insightful post at The Belmont Club titled "The Elusive War" in which he compares and contrasts the two views. He posts two articles, suggested to him by a reader, each of which typifies one of the sides.
First up is Michael Ledeen of National Review, who lays out his views in "The Real War". The war is not, he says, a series of small battles. If Israel had killed every last Hezbollah terrorist, if we won every battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, "we will only prolong the fighting." Rather, we are at war with Syria and Iran, and the ideologies that drive both of them. Money quote
The terror masters in Syria and Iran are waging a regional war against us, running from Afghanistan and Iraq to, Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. Alongside the ground war in the Middle East, they are conducting fifth-column operations against us from Europe to India and on to Indonesia, Australia, and the United States; the plot just dismantled in Great Britain provides the latest evidence.
On the other side we have Max Hastings writing in The Guardian a piece titled "Bush's belief in a worldwide Islamist conspiracy is foolish and dangerous." He accepts that "we face a real threat from Muslim fundamentalists", but it is what has caused the threat that separates him from Ledeen. Here, in a nutshell, is his argument.
There is no chance that the west will get anywhere with the Muslim world until the US government is willing to disassemble a spread of grievances in widely diverse societies, examine them as separate components, and treat each on its merits.I'm going to state my conclusion up front; I agree with Ledeen, and indeed would go even farther than he. While I am glad that Mr Hastings believes that we are threatened (a plus these days), I think he is completely wrong in his analysis. Richard Fernanez points out one obvious flaw in Hastings' argument
Max Hasting's striking phrase "yet we shall defeat them only when our Muslim community at large perceives that its interests are identified with Britain's polity" is as clever a case for surrender as I've ever heard.
Why I Don't Buy Max Hastings' Argument
First, let me deal with Max Hastings.
One reason why I don't buy the "legitimate greviance" argument is that the terrorism inflicted on us does not always correlate to any known grevience. Just two weeks ago two suitcase bombs were found on trains in Germany. The bombs "may be traceable to the Middle East", big surprise. Thankfully they were found before they went off. But what has Germany done to deserve Islamic terror? They did not participate in the invasion of Iraq, and indeed have opposed US policy at every turn since.
This past June a huge Islamic terrorist plot was foiled in Canada. The plot, which involved both bombs and the kidnapping of the Canadian prime minister, was against soley Canadian targets. Again, Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq, and most of it's newspapers, to say nothing of it's leaders, have spent a lot of time denouncing this or that American policy.
Further, if it's not one grievance it's another. Victor Davis Hanson goes through the "excuse after excuse" offered by the Muslims and their apologists. One time it was that we were "stealing their oil", then prices jumped to $75 per barrel. Another day it's American troops in Saudi Arabia. But, er, they're mostly gone now. Then it's aid to Israel. But Europe and the US give considerable amounts aid to the Palestinian Authority. StrategyPage takes a look at the history of Islamic terrorism, and concludes that "ruthless men have been using Islamic radicalism to create terrorists for a long time" and that "historically, a noticeable increase in violence by Islamic radicals occurred every three or four generations."
Lastly, there is is simply too long a history of anti-semitism among prominent Muslim leaders to believe that their grevience against Israel is simply based on land. Jonah Goldberg relates how the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini, made Nazi-like statements in 1942, well before the establishment of Israel or even the post-war influx of Jews into the area.
Also Not the Problem
"Islam" is not the problem. If it were, the war would be unwinnable. You simply cannot, and should not, attempt to destroy an entire religion.
Further, from what I see, the problem is in how the religion is taught in many places, and how it is used to promote violence and hatred. I'm not going to get into an analysis of the Koran, and don't think it necessary.
It is true, I think, that some religions lend themselves to fitting into the modern world better than others. Our Western models of democracy, secularism, and tolerance (true tolerance, not what the left teaches) are unimaginable without Christianity and other Western models of thought. It is very difficult to imagine these things rising out of Islam. But that does not mean that Islam and these things are incompatible. It simply means that they could not have been spawned or developed by the Muslim world. It does not mean that Muslims cannot adopt them.
What is "Islamofascism"?
A much better description of our enemy, and one that also tells us why they hate us, is "Islamofascism". The term, according to Roger Scruton, originated with Maxine Rodinson (1915-2004) "to describe the Iranian Revolution of 1978." President Bush recently referred to our enemy as "Islamic fascists", which caught him as much grief as Ronald Reagan's use of the term "evil empire", which tells me he is on to something.
Stephen Schwartz, writing in The Weekly Standard, offers a helpful definition
In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama'atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
"Fascism", he says, " is distinguished from the broader category of extreme right-wing politics by its willingness to defy public civility and openly violate the law." This is precisely what the terrorists we are fighting do.
This said, "fascism" is still a very elusive term. Jonah Goldberg points out that "there’s still no accepted definition of fascism among students of the phenomenon. " Everyone uses it, but I've read a hundred definitions and still can't tell you exactly what it means.
Be that as it may, since "fascism" is something that everyone is against, it is as good a term as any.
Next up: A Problem In Islam
Posted by Tom at 8:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 15, 2006
Losing the War
If we're not losing the war, then we're certainly not making any progress. I refer not to Iraq in particular, or Lebanon, or even the recent war in Lebanon, but to the entire war. Although the term "War on Terror" is used most often, it's really a war on Islamic fascism, Islamic fanaticism, or jihad, as you prefer. Whatever term we use, we're fighting those people who are motivated by Islam to kill other people, specifically Westerners, but more generally anyone who disagrees with them.
Let's cut to the chase; we're in danger of Iraq becoming a failed state, Israel failed to destroy Hezbollah and we failed Israel by agreeing to a cease-fire. Iran and Syria are emboldened and are encouraged by recent events to spread more terror, and Islamofascists have taken over Somalia. Political correctness at home and in Europe prevents far too many people from seeing the danger from unassimilated Muslim immigrants. The Democrats stand poised to take over the House and maybe the Senate, and if they get the former they'll start impeachment hearings, and if they get the latter may toss the president from office. At the very least they will try and force a withdrawal from Iraq, and will wreck our most valuable internal security and terrorist-finding intelligence operations.
Bad enough for you?
Let's get more specific.
Hezbollah and Lebanon
On the one hand, Israel didn't lose, it simply failed to win. The strategic situation between it and Hezbollah is largely unchanged. Israel destroyed much of Hezbollah at little loss to itself. In that sense, Israel is better off than it was one month ago. Further, no one can now deny that Iran and Syria were behind Hezbollah. For example, IDF forces found Russian-made AT-5 Spandrel anti-tank missiles in Lebanon that had been shipped there by Syria and Iran.
On the other side, Hezbollah's prestige went up, and the mere fact that it survived serves as an recruitment tool for Islamic terrorist groups everywhere. IDF generals believe that they were denied victory by panicked politicians. More importantly, Hezbollah rocket attacks continued until the end, and in any event it is unlikely that the terrorist organization will actually disarm. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's popularity is falling, as may his government.
An Unstable Iraq
No I am not saying that we've lost in Iraq. We can still pull it out. And what's going on there is not "civil war", as James Dunnigan of StrategyPage once again points out. But it is, he says " the prelude to massacre and mass expulsion", which is just as bad.
Althogh we may have gone into Iraq initially because of WMD, it is now and has been for some time part of the war on Islamic fascism, whether anyone likes it or not.
Either way, when Rich Lowry writes in National Review that we stand a very real chance of losing in Iraq, you better pay attention.
Iran and Syria
Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, a fact that we as a nation refuse to acknowledge. Never once have we struck Iran, for all the times it has attacked us through it's proxies, most recently of course in Iraq and Lebanon. We should not wonder that they consider us to be a paper tiger.
Ahmadinejad is the ever confident leader, convinced that he is winning. Not only doesIran spurn Western demands that they stop nuclear enrichment, their top nuclear negotiator said earlier this month "that Iran will expand — not suspend — uranium enrichment activities".
Yet Western liberals will continue to insist that with the right package of enticements Iran can be made to see reason. Just last week on the Sean Hannity radio show, I listened to a debate between David Horowitz and someone from The Nation who proposed just that. Stanley Kurtz sees a President Hillary trying to buy off the Iranians with a “grand bargain.”
This is madness. We are headed towards a showdown with Iran that will likely end in war, possibly nuclear.
Latin America
Although obviously not Islamic fascists themselves, leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia seem intent on allying themselves with the terrorists. They're currently able to run around making trouble without much intervention on our part.
Although Fidel Castro may die shortly, it is possible through Venezuelan influence, that the communists on Cuba may be able to keep power longer than many here think. Either way, Chavez will seek to complicate our plans to being democracy to the island.
Our "Episodic" Fighting
Rush Limbaugh said today that our fighting in this war is "episodic." He was making the point that we lack strategic vision. The West, specifically the US and Israel, fight piecemeal, one place at a time. We refuse to see that it is a wider war that encompases many areas of the world. For example, we fight hard in Iraq, yet seemingly refuse to recognize that it will be extremely difficult to succedd there unless we get regime change in Iran and Syria.
As I mentioned earlier, we can't even call the war what it is; a war on Islamic fanaticism or fascism. We use "War on Terror" because we know that CAIR and similar groups won't object. Politicians live in fear of being labeled "racist" by the media.
The Democrats
The GOP will most likely lose at least the House in November, possibly the Senate as well. If the Democrats capture the House, impeachment hearings are a certainty. This will put a halt to the war as the administration and country will be distracted.
We have seen how the Democrats couldn't care less about the threat of Islamo-fascism. On domestic policy they are infected with the troika of multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity, and in foreign affairs they will not adopt any policy unless most European governments agree with it. At the very least this handicaps our war effort with a "lowest common denominator", at worst it means appeasement of terrorist states like Iran and Syria and a complete end to the war.
The Democrats are reverting to the party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Far from being a help in the war, they oppose the very policies that made the exposure of the British airline plot possible.
Korea, 1952
By 1952 Korea looked like a war gong bad. After a disasterous start, we regained our composure, and through a daring amphibious attack at Inchon we destroyed the North Korean Army. As we pushed north, it looked like we had won. But then we were caught completely by surprise by massive Chinese forces, which streamed across the border, dealing us a series of severe defeats. Although we managed to stabilize the situation, we seemed trapped in World War I style trench warfare.
President Truman faced severe criticism at home for his conduct of the war. His popularity plummeted, and he decided not to seek another term.
Yet today Truman is considered one of our greatest presidents. My point here is not to speculate on how George W Bush is considered in the future, but rather that we must not let the trees obsure our view of the forest.
The Korean War was the first "hot" conflict in a Cold War that lasted over 40 years. Our ventures in Afganistan and Iraq, as well as Israel's war with Hezbollah, are the "Korean Wars" of today. They are the first battles in what is going to be a long war.
And no, I don't think that promoting democracy is the problem. In this I agree with Steven A. Cook, who wrote an excellent editorial promoting just that view in the Washington Post last week. Rather, I agree with Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester (UK), when he wrote an editorial in the Telegraph titled "multiculturalism is to blame for perverting young Muslims"
Just as with the Cold War, and all other wars too for that matter, there will be ups and downs. We are definately in a "down" time now. Things are likely to get worse before they get better. In retrospect, the Cold War seems so simple.
Posted by Tom at 10:26 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
August 10, 2006
The Airline Plot
In all of the news about the plot, revealed earlier today, by Muslims to bomb up to 10 airliners en route from the UK to the United States, this is I think the most interesting. From the Telegraph
Twenty-four terrorist suspects being held last night over an alleged plot to blow up as many as 10 transatlantic jets include middle-class, well-educated young men born in Britain. At least one of them converted to Islam only recently.As Britain remained on a "critical" level of alert, it emerged that among those arrested were the white son of a former Conservative Party worker, the son of an architect and an accountant and a heavily pregnant woman. Some had studied at university and came from families that owned several properties or ran their own businesses.
What's that now? Not from the slums? Not born and raised in Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
Nope. They were born in Britain.
Here's why this is important. Take a look at this poll of British Muslims taken by Channel 4 in the UK
(hat tip Andrew Stuttaford on NRO). Key Excerpts
- Almost a third of those polled would like to live under sharia law.- More than one in ten understand why British Muslims might want to carry out suicide missions in this country.
- Nearly a quarter thought that the 7/7 bombings were justified because of Britain's foreign policy.
- Almost one in five respect Osama Bin Laden to some extent.
- Two-thirds think that the poeple who publish the cartoons critical of Mohammed or Islam should be punished
- 45% think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by America and Israel
Yet if you mention these facts you get attacked by the likes of CAIR. Political correctness uber alles.
But there's no problem with Muslim immigrants in Britain or elsewhere. Let's just forget about that little incident with the cartoons.
Michelle Malkin has more on this. Much more.
The graphs she posts on her site show that by overwhelming margins these people do not believe that Arabs/Muslims committed the 9/11 terrorist attack and that they consider tthemselves Muslims before citizens of their own country.
Note - yes I know that according to her graphs 42 of American Christians answered the question saying that they considered themselves a Christian before an American. But to anyone who wants to make hay out of this; it's not the same thing and you know it. I consider myself a Christian first, but it's not the same as with these folks.
The British are in trouble. Years of multiculturalism and leftist political indoctrination have taken their toll. It is fantastic the police and intelligence services stopped the plot. But it should not have developed in the first place.
Meanwhile, Across the Pond
Our problem is somewhat different than what the Brits face. Ours is not from our Muslim immigrants, but from leftist Democrats who are determined to force our surrender in Iraq and across the Middle East. The far right, typified by Pat Buchanan, is guilty of advocating our defeat also. But it is the left that is dangerous because they can put people into power.
We all know about Ned Lamont and how he defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary in Connecticut. Whether Lieberman wins in November is not the point. Nor is it whether the "netroots" really had as big a role to play as they think they did (Lamont may have simply been the beneficiary of a "perfect storm").
Take a look at these comments left today at the Daily Kos, as gathered by Jim Geraghty at NRO
"how convenient to release this news the day after Lamont wins the primary. The politicization of "terror" reporting is so obvious."Now, Lamont was endorsed by Kos. Marcos even appeared in a TV commercial with him. Whether Lamont believes the same thing all the moonbats in these excerpts do is questionable. But he has no problem associating himself with them. And he could be in power come November."We need to wait and see - this could be another case of DOJ-style entrap & hype."
"Blair needs cover right now even more than Bush... Brittish government leaks claim Bush told Blair in advance about invasion of Lebanon. The people arrested were planning this for sometime in the future. Bumping the terror rating over here all the way to red over that seems sketchy. Brittan does have a far more effective anti terror mechanism than we or Israel, and a more reliable media. But don't let the accents fool you, MI5 is every bit as malevolent as the CIA or Mossad, prehaps more so."
"This is the price for close ties to Bush... Has anyone noticed that the planes targeted were all UK - US flights? Pretty clear symbolism there, I think."
"Wait for the backlash in the UK press - this will be laid at the feet of Blair for his unconditional support of US foreign policy."
"There may actually be a terrorist plot here. But given the false alarms and the tendency for the UK police to act stupid and run around bumping into things, I think some hard facts would be useful before we assume that there really is a viable plot to start blowing planes out of the sky."
"The US is now on "red alert," but only for incoming planes from the UK, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying nothing has happened to cause genuine concern, but this UK/US response strikes me as bull****... The report I saw stated that most or all of the 21 arrested were Pakistani; most or all were UK-born Pakistanis. Bushco is openly selling arms to Pakistan, but incoming flights from Islamabad apparently aren't worth a scratch of the head at this red-alert moment. Evil is incoming today on air flights from London and only London, dammit. Be afraid! Be very afraid of England and the evil it spawns!
Or would it make more sense to just lock down the loos on flights from the UK?
Sorry, this story just isn't passing the smell test for me."
"So the war in Iraq and all that profiteering there, all the death, results in making our airspace safer HOW??? Tell us again, Holy Joe Lieberman, how your GOP buddies' tough talk and money-grabbing war profiteering made us safer???""how convenient to release this news the day after Lamont wins the primary. The politicization of "terror" reporting is so obvious."
I listened to a remarkable call today on the Glenn Beck show. Beck is a very popluar radio talk show host, and even has a show on CNN (TV Headline News). It was the first call he took today, and it was so incredible that he played it again later. Beck let the guy continue his rant without interruption. The caller spewed all of the "it's all a Bush-Cheney-Blair plot" stuff you could imagine.
Accuse me of turning today's near-tragedy into politics if you will, but all I'm doing is pointing out that until we're all together on at least recognizing there is a threat from many Muslims we're not going to win this war.
Posted by Tom at 9:59 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 22, 2006
The Consequences of Failure II
Once again I find myself linking to a post at The Neo Con Blogger. I'm going to make this site one of my regular stops and suggest that you do likewise.
A letter is posted there, allegedly from a Major General in the Air Force. I'm not sure about the authenticity, but didn't see anything on snopes or other urban legends websites. It doesn't really matter, though, because regardless of who wrote it, the sentiments expressed are accurate.
The letter is titled This War is Real!, and following are some excerpts.
2.. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm)
...
6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?t would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
...So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Read the whole thing.
Previous: The Consequences of Failure
Posted by Tom at 9:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 18, 2006
Saddam's Links to Terrorists, Part 4 Million
Unless you you are posessed by Bush Derangement Syndrome, you know that Saddam had many links to terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda. A partial list of articles that I have collected on this subject include
Saddam’s Terror Ties
Bin Laden uses Iraq to plot new attacks
Case Closed
Iraqi funds, training fuel Islamic terror group
Second 9/11 Hijacker Tied to Abu Nidal, Iraq
Gunning for Saddam
The Saddam-Osama Memo
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror
It’s All About 9/11: The president links Iraq and al Qaeda - and the usual suspects moan
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
The Mother of All Connections
Iraq & Militant Islam
Saddam's Terror Training Camps
If all that's not enough for you, last week a Fox News series reported on Ray Robison, who's team translated and analyzed a series of articles which once again document Saddam's link to terrorism.
Liberals sometimes dismiss Fox as a right-wing propaganda machine. This is a mistake, as one should never completely dismiss a news outlet. Readers of this site know that I peruse all sorts of media outlets, from Fox News and the Washington Times to CNN and the Washington Post. Foreign sources from the UK Telegraph and Guardian to Reuters and the BBC have all been quoted on this site. Even the most biased outlet gets it right occasionally.
Part I, "Documenting Saddam's Link to Terror" , sets the stage.
"The U.S. government seized thousands of classified Iraqi government papers when Saddam's regime was toppled, and Washington recently released a trove of these documents on the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office Web site."The documents, many in Arabic and with no accompanying translation, provide multiple insights into events inside pre-war Iraq. The dossier, however, is huge and disorganized. Digging out its secrets is a laborious task — one that the U.S. government decided to leave to others.
One problem with the FMSO site is that the documents appear to all have two numbers, a document number and a .pdf number, making the tracking process more difficult. I've read about this issue elsewhere (I forget where exactly).
Robison is a former infantry officer with the 101st Airborne, he is now a military operations research analyst specializing in aviation and missile research. He gathered a team of linguists to translate, organize, and analyze the documents.
In Part II, "Terror Links to Saddam's Inner Circle", we get to the nitty gritty.
In this part Robison looks at Document ISGP-2003-0001412 (listed at the FMSO site as ISGP-2003-00014127.pdf)
The document "appears to be a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent, one Khaled Abd El Majid, about which little is known. It was "apparently captured in 2003", and is 76 pages long. It covers events taking place in 1999.
It's all rather complicated, but the document tells of two meetiings. The first one, translated and analyzed in this part of the Fox News report, tells of a meeting between a former vice president of Iraq, and one of Saddam's "enforcers", one Taha Yassin Ramadan, and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, described as an " Al Qaeda/Taliban supporter" from Pakistan and a contender for the office of prime minister.
Here are some excerpts of the analysis provided by Robison and his team. This first meeting took place sometime in 1999.
This document appears to provide evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate between the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia. It seems to provide evidence that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan. According to this notebook, the Taliban did this via Maulana Fazlur Rahman. The notebook later mentions that another man, Fazlur Rahman Khalil, was visiting Iraq as well, although no transcript of that meeting is provided. ...What is the relationship between Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Rahman often is described in news articles as the father or godfather of the Taliban. It seems clear that Rahman was close to Al Qaeda through his friend Mullah Omar, who sheltered Usama bin Laden prior to the allied invasion of Afghanistan. A leading news Web site in India has a 2003 article entitled Beware the Maulana! . It gives an extensive history of Rahman and explains how he helped to organize the men that would later become the Taliban under his friend Mullah Omar. It also describes links to Al Qaeda
And their conclusion:
The strong ties between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and their joint responsibility for terrorism, are clear and well documented. This translated notebook segment provides possible evidence that the Saddam regime and the Taliban were planning diplomatic and possibly operational ties with each other. Independent research indicates Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Fazlur Rahman Khalil were both close to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Maulana asked the Saddam regime to mediate with the Taliban's enemies to take off some of the pressure. A fair question is what would Saddam have wanted in return? One possible answer is the only thing the Taliban had left to offer: Islamic Jihad and extremists operating for his interests from outside Iraq. Other translations from this notebook appear to expose a commitment between the Saddam regime and the Taliban that goes beyond mediation in order to increase support among Islamic Jihad groups for Iraq via a secret intelligence relationship with the Taliban.
(emphasis added)
In Part III, "Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection", Robison and his team, using the same document linked to above, further explore whether the Taliban and Saddam and his inner circle actively courted each other, the purpose of which would be to establish an anti-American alliance.
Here they look at the second meeting described in the document. It took place on Nov. 28, 1999, with the same participants. For a full translation follow the link to the Fox News site.
Here again are excerpts from the analysis provided by Robison and his team:
Note the Iraqi official says, “We hope that they will win and control,” referring to the Taliban. According to this notebook, Iraq has clearly thrown its support to the Taliban, the epicenter of Islamic Jihad. This is a clear indication that Saddam had no problem working with Jihadists outside of Iraq. ...This excerpt from the notebook indicates that both the Taliban and Saddam Regime agreed to a secret relationship involving intelligence services. We do not know the scope or extent of that operational relationship, but this notebook and other documents give us further clues. It might well be noted that if Saddam Hussein was merely looking for an Islamic voice to take up his cause, there are plenty of Arab and Muslim organizations that do not depend on violence and terrorism directed at the United States.
(emphais added)
The Taliban, of course, harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network. Saddam was seeking a relationship with the Taliban. Therefore.... oh but no amount of evidence will convince some people. You either get it or you don't
Posted by Tom at 8:46 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 8, 2006
al-Zarqawi Dead!
News outlets are reporting that the must wanted terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musabal-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has been killled. From an AP story posted on MSNBC
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida’s leader in Iraq who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air strike, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday, adding that his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a look at his face. It was a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror.Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, al-Maliki said.
Loud applause broke out among the reporters and soldiers as al-Maliki, flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told a news conference that “al-Zarqawi was eliminated.”
That's what I call good news to wake up to.
What I found most interesting was that we discovered his whereabouts through tips provided by Iraqi citizens
Al-Maliki said the airstrike was the result of intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by residents in the area, and U.S. forces acted on the information. Casey said the hunt for al-Zarqawi began two weeks ago, and his body was identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.
CNN adds that jihadist websites have confirmed his death
A Web site used by Al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed al-Zarqawi's death and urged its followers to continue the insurgent fight.Another Web site used by the group issued a statement: "People of Islam, God will not let our enemies celebrate and spread corruption in the ground. Expect the right that was stolen to come back to us and destroy the Crusaders" -- an apparent reference to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Here's a quick roundup from the sources I think provide the best analysis
Iraq the Model has some additional information (hat tip Belmont Club)
Bill Roggio, writing on The Counterterrism Blog, attributes his death to Task Force 145
Task Force 145 was very likely the linchpin in the success in killing Zarqawi, Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, his spiritual adviser, and seven other lieutenants during a high-level meeting. Over the past two months, TF-145 has conducted numerous raids and killed or captured numerous high-level members of Zarqawi's organization in the area directly north and west of Baghdad. ...The tightening of al-Qaeda's network in and around Baghdad provided Task Force 145 an opportunity to focus on Zarqawi's organization. Task Force 145 systematically began to dismantle al-Qaeda's organization from the bottom up. Cell leaders, financiers, facilitators and military commanders were rolled up in a series of target raids, slowly degrading al-Qaeda's capabilities while opening a window to al-Qaeda's organization and operations. The raids provided intelligence for follow-up strikes, which ultimately led to the attack of Zarqawi's safe house.
I don't need to tell you to read the whole thing.
We get these details of who makes up Task Force 145 from StrategyPage
Currently, TF 145 is divided into four sub units. Task Force West has several dozen commandoes from the U.S. Navy SEAL DevGroup, and a company of U.S. Army Rangers. Task Force Central has several dozen men from U.S. Army Delta Force and a company of Rangers. Task Force North has a about a dozen men from Delta Force, and a company of Rangers. Task Force Black has a few dozen SAS commandoes, with a company of British "Rangers" (the new Special Forces Support Group). TF 145 has a small headquarters element, plus a large intelligence operation, most of which is back in the United States, and connected in real time via satellite. There are also SOCOM helicopters and aircraft present.
Today marks a great victory in the War on Terror, or the War on Islamic Radicalism, if you prefer. No it does not mean that the insurgency is over, or even that final victory in Iraq is assured. No doubt the naysayers, anti-war left, and other assorted cynics will sniff that it "doesn't change anything" or "about time" or whatever. We need not listen to them. This is not a war that will not be one World War II style, as we learned shortly after marching into Baghdad in April of 2003. Defeating an insurgency is more like eating soup with a knife; it's messy and takes a long time, but if you persever you can achieve victory.
Posted by Tom at 7:49 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
The Anti-Anti-Terrorists
During the Cold War there were three groups of people in the West
1) The pro-communists
2) The anti-communists
3) The anti-anti-communists
Contrary to what some would tell you, yes there really was a communist movement in the United States. While it never stood a chance of overthrowing our government, if given a chance it might have influenced policy more than it did. Fortunately, many communists were exposed, some of the spies, such as Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg.
Liberals like to tell us that they participated in helping to defeat the Soviet Union and-how-dare-you-suggest-otherwise. And this is partially true. More precisely, it depends on the timeframe. Prior to the late 1960s we did have a species known as a liberal hawk. They were typified by presidents such as Harry Truman and John F Kennedy Jr, by senators such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and by philosophers such as Sidney Hook. During this time, many social liberals were staunch anti-communists.
But all this had changed by the early 1970s. Many liberals spent most of the next two decades opposing US efforts to stop the spread of communism, especially in Central America. They began to oppose every weapons system, from strategic weapons such as the MX and B-1 to theater weapons such as cruise missiles and Pershing IIs. There was never a Soviet proposal they didn't like, and rarely one by Reagan that they did. Some, but not all, became anti-anti-communists, more obsessed with opposing the efforts of anti-communists than anything else. It was at this time that some liberals broke with the Democrat party and became Republicans, calling themselves "neo-conservatives." They retained their (what was considered them) social liberalism, but realized that the Democrat party no longer represented their views on foreign policy.
The New Paradigm
The War on Terror has spawned three groups which closely mirror the ones of the Cold War
1) The pro-terrorists
2) The anti-terrorists
3) The anti-anti-terrorists
Let's go through them one at a time.
The Pro-Terrorists
Fortunately, there aren't very many. Unfortunately, when they do rear their heads they aren't always labeled as such.
One example of a pro-terrorist is Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government and making false statements.
Examples of pro-terrorist groups would be Code Pink, who in December of 2004 donated $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq." Another is International ANSWER, which is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The various groups who participated in the June 2005 "International Tribunal", in which the sanctioned the killing of US troops in Iraq, certainly qualify as pro-terrorist(see section I. 11. in the link).
Although they portray themselves as anti-war, they're not. They're pro-terrorist.
Others are more borderline between pro-terrorist and anti-anti-terrorist. One wonders if the people who make up the Christian Peacemaker Teams are pro-terrorist or just naive "useful idiots."
The Anti-Terrorists
You do not have to believe that invading Iraq was a good idea to be an anti-terrorist, so let's get that out of the way right now.
Nor do you have to be a Republican. Democrats such as Senators Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden qualify as anti-terrorists.
However, you do have to think that since we are there we have to win it to qualify. Iraq is now part of the WOT whether anyone likes it or not. Failure to recognize that is crucial.
More importantly, though, is your answer to questions such as these:
What do you spend the balance of your time thinking about: how to win the War on Terror, or how terrible a person you think President Bush is.
Are most of your ideas on how to better interrogate suspects so that we get the information we need, or are you more concerned with protecting their real and imagined civil liberties?
Do you truely believe that we are in a war, or do you think that "the terrorist thing" is something best handled by international agreements and better police work?
Do you think we brought 9-11 on ourselves?
Do you think that the UN can play a useful war in helping to win the War on Terror?
Do you believe that the spread of democracy (which yes I know involves more than just voting) is crucial to defeating the terrorists?
I don't think I need to spell out which answers make you an anti-terrorist and which make you an anti-anti-terrorist.
The Anti-Anti-Terrorists
No anyone who complains about some aspect of how the Bush Administration is fighting the War on Terror is an anti-anti-terrorist. Yes, it is ok to question some of our intelligence-gathering efforts. But re-read the questions above. What do you spend most of your time thinking about; how to capture or kill terrorists, or whether some aspect of your civil rights are being violated? Yes civil rights are important, but if that's what you spend most of your time worrying about you're not being of help in winning the War on Terror.
Representative Jack Murtha is an anti-anti-terrorist. Cindy Sheehan also qualifies. Groups such as Moveon.org and the ALCU certainly seen to spend most of their time thinking of ways to thwart our efforts. For that matter, most of the "anti-war" groups listed on David Horowitz' DiscoverTheNetwork.org are anti-anti-terrorist, if not outright pro.
Worse, though, is when the national media join in. While Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post is capable of some very good reporting, sometimes I have to wonder which side of the WOT he and his newspaper are on, like when he breathtakingly reported what our military was engaged in a campaign to turn Iraqis against al-Zarqawi.
Sorry, but there is a Fifth Column in this country, and they are making it difficult to win.
Posted by Tom at 9:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 12, 2006
The USA Today Story
Note - sorry for my longer than expected absence from blogging. Between losing Bengal and a million other things going on, this is the first day in almost two weeks that I've had to blog)
As everyone knows by now, USA Today tells us that the "NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls"
The whole story smacks of a hit piece. It is less a story than an editorial. If you don't believe me read it yourself.
Once again, the left wants us to be more afraid of our government than the enemy. The reason, of course, that they're afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and couldn't care less about winning the War on Terror.
The story might not be true. We're supposed to take their word that USA Today checked out their sources, which are conveniently anonymous. Given the record of much of the msm, their word doesn't count for a whole lot.
The Bush Administration hasn't denied the story, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Contrary to the way the left wants us to run this war, yes it is a good idea to keep the enemy guessing and no it is not a good idea to announce all of our operations in the newspapers.
Suppose It's True?
If true, what the NSA is doing is collecting records regarding calls that were made. The NSA has records of calls, local and long distance, they know who you called. The object is to discover patterns in order to track terrorists. They do not, however, record, the content of those communications. They were not listening in. AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth have cooperated with the NSA in this venture. Qwest declined, citing legal concerns.
For the record I hope the story is true. I certainly hope we're doing stuff like this.
Besides, it's perfectly legal.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross goes through the basics over at NRO.
Two possible laws are at issue, Gartenstein-Ross says, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
FISA first
FISA distinguishes between “electronic surveillance,” which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and “pen registers,” which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications. Although the language of FISA is somewhat convoluted, information about what calls were being made that doesn’t involve listening in on the discussions themselves should be classified as a pen register rather than electronic surveillance under the statute.However, the definition of “pen register” in FISA shows that the statute doesn’t regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers do not “include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider.” That is precisely what was alleged in this case: The sources who spoke to USA Today said that the three participating telecommunications companies handed over information that was collected pursuant to their regular billing procedures. FISA does not implicate such action.
Ok, but what about the Fourth Amendment? Gartenstein-Ross points out that in Smith v. Maryland (1978) the Supreme Court held "that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial" From the decision
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must “convey” phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and “exposed” that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
So much for the claim that the program is illegal.
Questions for Congress
Turns out that the NSA isn't the only ones gathering detailed information about your personal life.
Congresscritters are too. Both Republicans and Democrats. Andrew McCarthy describes what they are doing
Collecting your names and addresses. Mapping out your telephone numbers and e-mail address. Making note of your interests. Paying close attention to how you spend your money.(Congressmen are) folding these bits of information about you and millions upon millions of your fellow Americans, and—you’d better be sitting down for this part—entering it into searchable databases.
Then, worse yet, (Congressmen are) using sophisticated computer programs to develop targeted strategies about how to deal with you in every aspect of your personal life.
"Modern American politics", McCarthy points out, "requires a fair amount of data mining."
While we're discussing Congress, have you noticed the outrage over how Senator Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) aides gathered private credit information about the GOP candidate for governor in Maryland, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele? About the calls for to investigate Schumer, or for him to resign? Neither had I.
History and More History
Abraham Lincoln suspended habius corpus during The Civil War. Easy to say now that it wasn't right, but he had a war to fight, one that makes our WOT look like childs play.
Are you familiar with FDR's domestic survelience program during World War II? Or that he gave what ammounted to secret orders to the US Navy to fight an undeclared war on German U-Boats well before Pearl Harbor?
It's easy to say now that his internment of Japanese-Americans was unjust, but the invaluable Michelle Malkin showed how it was hardly unwise.
Lastly, Mark Levin points out that the NSA program isn't nearly as intrusive as ECHELON, which has been in place for years, and no one in Congress complains about it.
The bottom line is that that their is nothing illegal or wrong with the alleged NSA data mining operation.
Posted by Tom at 7:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 30, 2006
And We Hate Everyone Else, Too
In my last post I wrote about in his latest diatribe Osama bin Laden effectively supports mass-murder by the government of Sudan.
Courtesy of Waled Phares of The CounterTerrorism Blog, here's a summary of Osama's outburst:
* One a long attack on the Cartoons crisis: Blood is needed to cleanse the matter.* Two, there is a Western war on Muslims and Islam.
*Three, Western policy towards Hamas proves this aggression.
* Four, the United Nations is an infidel and criminal institution.
* Five, there is a Western-infidel aggression against Muslim Sudan. The Black southerners are bandits and the Darfur Blacks are agents of the infidels
* Six, Iraq’s Jihad is to stop future US military bases
* Seven, a cultural invasion is underway: Arab TVs are to be stopped, Muslim liberals to be killed
* Eight, France is to be punished for the female Hijab affair
* Nine, Bosnia’s Muslims were not salvaged by the West
* Ten, The independence of East Timor is a defeat to the Muslims
* Eleven, India and the Hindus are the enemies in Kashmir
* Twelve, Pakistan’s Musharraf is to be killed
* Thirteen, Russia must be punished
* Fourteen: Salman Rushdie is not to be forgotten
* Fifteen: The masses in the infidel lands think like their leaders. Their public (enemies) is responsible
* Sixteen: Calls for Dialogue with the West are to be rejected
* Seventeen: Do not trust the “traitors” including Muftis and moderate clerics
* Eighteen: King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia ignores world realities
* Nineteen: (Western) civilization is attacking ours
* Twenty: It is of the duty of all members of the Umma to offer everything for Jihad, including their lives.
Did he miss anyone?
The serious point, of course, is that he doesn't seem to have any friends. Yes I am sure that millions of Muslims still thrill at his words. Yes I am sure that Muslims volunteer for al Qaeda. And yes, I know that tomorrow I could wake up to another September 11.
But I think you'd be hard pressed to say that al Qaeda is gaining strength, or that we have not put a serious dent in it's ability to operate.
And this is not just an observation about military or secret operations, clandestine cloak-and-dagger stuff either. I'm talking about geopolitical politics as practiced by people at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. Say what you will, they're shutting down al Qaeda, surely but slowly.
Oh, and please, no nonsense about "why can't we capture the tallest guy in Pakistan/Afghanistan?" I dealt with that here.
You just have to realize that it's not all going to be front-page stuff. Richard Miniter's excellent book Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror, is a good place to start if you're not familiar withwhat I'm talking about.
Bottom line: bin Laden's got no friends and presides over a gravely weakened organization. They're still dangerous, just as Germany or Japan were in 1944, but we are winning.
Posted by Tom at 9:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Osama bin Laden Supports Genocide in Sudan
In his latest diatribe, released last week, Osama bin Laden put himself on record as supporting mass-murder of Muslims who live in the Sudan.
Walid Phares has the transcript, and even provides the original Arabic, if you're conversant in that language.
Here's bin Laden on the Sudan
"The West tries to seperate the south, attempts to establish an army there, and is supporting (the south) with money and arms and direct them to call for separation from Sudan.""The US adopted logistical and moral support to this army (SPLA) through its international tools such as the United Nations and pressured the Khartum Government to sign an unjust agreement that allows the south to separate after 6 years."
"Let Bashir (Sudan's President) and Bush know that this agreement has no value whatsoever and does not engage us. No one has to concede any inch of Islamic land and the south will remain an unseparable piece of Islam's land, by Allah, even if wars will continue for decades to come."
...(Waled Phares: Bin Laden called on the Mujahideen in Sudan and the Arabia Peninsula to prepare for a long war against the Crusader bandits (in Darfur). Our objective is clear, he said:) "It is in defense of Islam, its people, its land, not defending the Khartum Government. We have a great disagreement with this Government: It failed to apply the Sharia and let the south go."
"The (Jihadists) need to scout the area and get ready for fight on the tribal region of Darfur. The rain season is coming forward, which may obstruct movement. Which is why the occupation (Western-UN) postponed its advance for six months. We should take advantage of factor time to provide huge amounts of land mines, snipers and anti-tank launchers. "
In other words, "I'm going to attack the people who are trying to save impoverished Muslims from being mass murdered."
What a guy.
Austin Bay points out that for a guy who claims to fight in the name of Islam, he sure wants to kill a lot of Muslims:
Muslims, however, remain bin Laden's biggest enemy, perhaps not in theory and propaganda, but certainly in the flesh-and-blood world of murder and human massacre. Bin Laden, al-Qaida and its various affiliates have killed more Muslims than any other religious group, and Darfur is an example.Since early 2003, nearly 200,000 people have died in the Sudan government's war with Darfur rebels. The Sudan government backs a variety of Islamist militias, many of them operating on horseback or in wheeled "technical vehicles" armed with light machine guns and rocket launchers. Darfur's rebels are a mixed bag of farmers, villagers and pastoralists. The rebels are also an ethnic mishmash, though most of them are black Africans. For the most part, they are Muslims, however, with a leavening of tribal animists.
This reminds of of the class on the French Revolution that I took in college. I remember most clearly the day the professor pointed out that once the monarchy had been overthrown, the revolutionaries quickly turned on each other. The Jacobins went after and murdered their political opponents, mostly the Girondists.
The wolves devour each other.
Ok, so Osama hasn't succeeded in overthrowing anyone. But you get my point.
And, to be sure, he isn't on the side of the government. As he says, "Let Bashir (Sudan's President) and Bush know that this agreement has no value whatsoever and does not engage us." The reason for this is that Osama lived in Sudan for many years, with the approval of it's government, and was expelled by that government in 1996 (after President Clinton turned down an offer by "Bashir" to hand him over to us).
A Bit of Background
The United States and the UK have been trying for several years now to put an end to the near-genocide that has been going on in the Sudan. Simply put, the government in the northern capital city of Khartoum is engaged in it's second mass-murder campaign.
Sudan gained its independence from Great Britain in 1956. The country has been rocked by civil wars. The first, an ethnic conflict between northern Arab Muslims and southern Christians and Animists, lasted from 1956 to 1972. This war ended with the south winning the right to self-government. The second civil war, again between the government backed forces and southern rebels, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), began in 1983. In January of 2005, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the government in Khartoum reached an agreement to end the war and reform the government and structure of the military. The third civil war started in 2003 as a rebellion in the western province of Darfur. As in the first two wars, the fighting is between northern Arab Muslims and southern Christians and Animists, although the government maintains that the Janjaweed, the Arab militias actively involved, are not operating with government aid or approval. The discovery of oil in the south, and property rights and religious and ethnic race-hatred remain primary causes for the oppression of primarily black Christians and traditional Animists in both the southern portions of Sudan and in Darfur.
The government has committed terrible attrocities in all of the above wars. Directly or indirectly, it is engaged in mass-murder.
And Osama is effectively on the side of the murderers.
Posted by Tom at 8:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 28, 2006
The Zarqawi Video
The insane man who is responsible for murdering thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and other coalition troops released a video last Tuesday. From the CENTCOm website
A man identifying himself as Al-Qaeda's Iraq frontman Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appeared in an Internet video on Tuesday in what would be the first public appearance of one world's most wanted militants in at least three years."By God, America will be defeated in Iraq," said the man identified as Zarqawi.
Not so fast, buster.
A complete transcript of the video can be found on the CENTCOM website here. Bty, you really ought to bookmark the site and make it part of your regular reading. You can also sign up to receive their email bulletins, which is how I found out about the video transcript.
I'm not going to try and analyze it myself, as I haven't got the time.
Here's Waled Phares of The Counterterrorism Blog. He makes 7 observations regarding the video. Read the whole thing, but here are two
4. A third assertion is to blast the Sunni politicians who "ventured" into supporting the current Parliament, Government and Armed forces. Those "Sunnis" are the internal enemies of Zarqawi, for they have shifted the community into the Iraqi political process by accepting to integrate the various layers of Government. In his eyes, these politicians, including the speaker of the assembly, a Sunni, are obstructing his plans, and therefore his leadership.5. A fourth assertion is about the other "insurgents." Few weeks ago, the chat rooms aired a number of releases from the "al Qiyada al Muwahhada lil Muwqawama." The "Unified Leadership of the Resistance" is a federation of other Jihadists and insurgents. They have rejected the extreme behavior of Zarqawi, especially the violence against Shiites and Iraqi civilians. At the time, observers in the West thought this was a rejection of Zarqawi as a leader of al Qaida. In fact this was a move by other Jihadists to distance themselves from the misdeeds of al Qaida-Iraq. The "Leadership" didn't criticize Bin Laden per se, but said Zarqawi is deflecting energies by waging an indiscriminate religious war (takfiri) against the Shiites.
Looks like there's some dissention in the ranks. This is no huge surprise. The letter we intercepted last summer (and released in October) from OBL's deputo Al-Zawahiri's to al-Zarqawi showed dissatisfaction with the way the latter was running the campaign in Iraq.
Bill Roggio analyzes the military and propaganda messages in the video. Roggio has moved to The CounterTerrorism Blog, so reset your bookmarks. Among his points
1) MANPADS. First and foremost, as Evan Kohlmann has noted, some of the terrorists standing guard during the scene in the desert are brandishing shoulder-fired surface to air missiles (MANPADS). While this indicates al-Qaeda in Iraq has this capability, very few Coalition aircraft have been shot down in Iraq. The likelihood here is Zarqawi's 'command element' has top priority in fielding these weapons systems. ...5) The briefing. Zarqawi goes a long way to show he is the military planner and tactical commander. He pours over maps with four other masked terrorists. In one section of the tape, he appears to be pointing at the region around the city of Kirkuk. But remember that this scene, as all the others, were planned through in advance. Zarqawi knows U.S. intelligence will be thoroughly dissecting this tape, and may want to through the Coalition off of his scent.
Again, it seems as if Zarqawi is worried that he's losing control, or at least the confidence, of his fellow terrorists.
Douglas Farah, on the other hand, believes that it and and the latest bin Laden Tape Show Growing al Qaeda Propaganda Strength
What is interesting about the new bin Laden and Zarqawi tapes, besides some of the analysis done by my colleagues on the Counterterrorism Blog, is the fact that al Qaeda has grown increasingly adept at getting its propaganda videos quickly enough to be relevant to current events. This is new, and shows increased capacity and increased interest in keeping their message out in front, even it it may hint at internal problems.
Andrew Cochran, however, notes that while propaganda is all very fine and good, it is no substitute for battlefield victories. I hate to say it, but the VC and NVA didn't win any substantial victories against us in Vietnam, but they beat us in the end anyway. Victory is determined by achieving your political goals, which may or may not be achieved by tactical battlefield successes.
A story in todays Washington Times quoting an Arizona State University study shows that the jihadists propaganda very seriously as a weapon
The report found that jihadist operations use consistent patterns of outreach that establish them socially and religiously, generate public sympathy and intimidate opponents. Threats, in fact, are part of terrorist "talking points.""Jihadis pursue these strategies using sophisticated, modern methods of communications and public relations," Mr. Corman said. "There's evidence in the documents that jihadis segment audiences and adapt their message to the audience."
Meanwhile, the always valuable StrategyPage believes that it shows that al Qaeda is on the verge of defeat.
Trends are often difficult to make out in this murky