Jihad Watch Board Vice President High Fitzgerald shows that the State Department's myopia and miscalculation is nothing new:
Reinhard Gehlen was a Nazi, Hitler's Intelligence Chief for the Eastern Front, and a man up to his neck in murder. But he and his former Nazis managed to fool the CIA into thinking they were of value. After the war a number of Americans, some outright immoral, others merely guilty of the shallowest and stupidest kind of false machiavellianism, wanted to use Gehlen's supposedly valuable "network" in the East. The CIA fell for Gehlen's pitch, and contributed millions to him until, finally, in 1956, it stopped. And as anyone might have concluded, the network was useless and riddled with double agents who, as so many Nazis did, now worked for the KGB -- that is, for its variously-named predecessors such as the NKVD. There were those who were useful to the Americans in Eastern Europe.But it was not Gehlen and his Nazis who were useful, but rather the former anti-Nazis, many of them Jewish, such as those associated with the Red Orchestra. Some day it will all come out, and all sorts of people, from Buffalo Bill's grandson to the suave mustachioed brother of a celebrated Harvard archeologist of White Russian descent, will get their due. And then there were others --what in god's name did Gehlen and his murderous turncoats contribute to the defense of the West? Nothing. And what is worse, they muddied the waters, and often misled.
The kind of CIA men and State Department men who effectively killed denazification themselves deserve to be studied for their own prejudices and stupidities. The spirits of Breckenridge Long, and Loy Henderson live on in Michael Scheuer and others who, at this particular moment in history, as in the 1930s and 1940s, are in fact, given their obvious prejudices which causes them to misread the situation, security risks. At MI5, or its predecessor, Vernon Kell appointed Maxwell Knight, a fascist and antisemite. In May, 1940, Churchill cashiered Kell. Then, as now, antisemitism is not only distasteful -- but now it is far more: it is a security risk. Anyone who displays its symptoms is unlikely to be sufficiently clear-headed to deal with the worldwide Jihad. Churchill did not tolerate such security risks when he became Prime Minister. And such security risks cannot be tolerated now.
As for Gehlen, he did less for Western security and the ultimate liberation of Eastern and Central Europe than did Leopold Labedz, sitting in his London flat, editing articles for Survey, or than Melvin Lasky, editing the CIA-funded magazine Encounter, the best magazine of the last century and possibly the best thing the CIA has ever done. Would that the kind of people who were behind that intelligent decision were in the CIA today. Or perhaps they are just joining up, at this very minute. But that appears doubtful.
The tutelary spirits of those in the State Department who deal with such matters, that is to say, matters connected to the Middle East and to Muslim terrorism, are two: one is that of Breckenridge Long, the Assistant Secretary of State who was so instrumental in keeping Jewish refugees from being accepted into the United States before and during World War II; the second is the late and unlamented Loy Henderson, he of the doleful countenance, who was so instrumental in moving heaven and earth in keeping the United States from recognizing the nascent state of Israel, and did what he could to help smother it in its cradle. The palpable want of sympathy of Long and Henderson continues to this day -- only now it is aided and abetted by the prospect of working as hirelings of Arab governments and the fear of recognizing the true nature of the Arab opposition to Israel -- which is simply a case of a classic Jihad against an Infidel sovereignty in the midst of dar al-Islam, carefully redefined as a struggle for "nationalist operations" of the recently (post-1967) invented "Palestinian people."One regrets that the Secretary of State appears unaware of this problem. The refusal to understand the tenets of Islam in some quarters, precisely because a true understanding would make Israel's case stronger, and the Arab case weaker, is not surprising. In the 1930s, those with an inherited or acquired animus against "the Jews" were the last to see or admit to the threat that Hitler posed -- for precisely the same kind of reasons.
That is why even those who are not outraged at the hypocrisy of the treatment of Israel had better become outraged at the larger issue: the failure to come to grips with the Jihad as a natural and logical expression of central tenets of Islam, and not, as the State Department would still have us believe, simply the beliefs of a "handful of extremists," something that expresses a "sense of humiliation." No, it is not "humiliation" but a feeling of being thwarted, because Islam "is to dominate and not be dominated," as the celebrated phrase puts it. Any evidence that this is not happening goes against the natural order of the universe and is intolerable to Arab and Muslim beliefs and amour-propre.
The State Department is not, as a whole, a nest of ninnies, but in the area that is now of most concern -- that of the understanding of Islam, it certainly seems to be. Of course, there are those who have a glimmering of such understanding, who are horrified by the appeasement and apologetics that have characterized so much of what has gone on among those who deal with the Middle East. These include those now retired to posh positions elsewhere, and who like to assure one and all that "everyone agrees on the final disposition of things -- a two-state solution." This is said with a tone of complacent self-assurance by the likes of Edward Djerijian and his colleagues. But the evidence that this is an absurdity, that it ignores the uncompromising division of the world between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb and the real nature of the relentless Jihad against Israel (it is Israel in any dimensions that is the problem for the Arabs and those Muslims over whom they hold sway) is not even addressed. When people start prating about what "everyone knows to be true" or start invoking the word "solution" for something that in fact will exacerbate the problem -- that idiotic "two-state solution" -- then one's mental antennae should quiver.
In its coddling of the Palestinian Authority and relentless pursuit of moderate Muslims, those manning the relevant desks at the State Department show that they, at least, have learned little since the Nazi period. The same kind of impulse that allowed support for Reinhard Gehlen, because he or those under him could not possibly be anything other than stout anti-Communists, could they? is at work in the failure to analyze Islam, its theory and practice. This is partly inertia: the holdover-effect of decades of ignoring Islam, or still worse, believing it to be a Bulwark Against Communism and therefore A Good Thing (see all those Stinger missiles lavished on muhajirun in Afghanistan, see CENTO). It is partly the effect of decades of propaganda, either by the companies that constitued ARAMCO, or by those who could for their own benefit "recycle petrodollars" with various contracts for arms, hospital management, and so on -- in the AWACS fight nearly a quarter-century ago, United Technologies (arms) and Whitney (hospital management) led all those disinterested American corporations that were fully prepared to insist that Saudi Arabia was the truest-bluest ally of the United States and "the American people" that it could possibly be. But Saudi Arabia in 1980 was just as malevolent toward Infidels as it is now; the doctrines of Islam, and of Wahhabi Islam, were not born yesterday, or developed as a response to any behavior by the American government in the past 25 years or indeed in the entire period of its existence.
And then there is just laziness. How much easier it is to parrot party-lines, rather than actually sitting down, reading and re-reading Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, reading the real scholars of yore (of whom a representative sample is now easily avaiable in "The Legacy of Jihad," a compilation of texts old and new from Andrew Bostom). How much easier to go to receptions at various Arab and Muslim embassies, to take absurd figures like Edward Djerejian (now at James Baker's -- 'nuff said? -- Institute for somethingorother at Rice University), whose every prediction, every take on things in the Muslim lands, is vitiated by reality, every day. A confederacy of dunces, a nest of ninnies, well -- you are free to come up with your own brand-new terms of venery, just like Julian of Norwich.
Hugh,
Not being familiar with Julia of Norwich, I ran a search and wonder if this is who you meant?
Julian of Norwich
The beloved anchoress and mystic who believed "All shall be well."
Justamomof4:
Since I know that that is indeed the one to whom Hugh was referring, I have taken the liberty of correcting the article.
Thank you.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Julia/Julian/Juliana may seem to present a variant on the Victor/Victoria problem: boys playing the women's roles on the Elizabethan stage, as in some super-talented Hasty Pudding show; transvestism for fun or profit; even the Christine-Jorgensen presto-chango that only modern surgery can provide.
In the case of Julia/Julian/Juliana, I knew she was a woman, and instead of calling her forthrightly "Julian of Norwich" or adopting the use of "Juliana" as many now do, I chose another way. Instead of feminizing her with an extra "a" my memory with unwonted brutality lopped off the final, misleading to modern ears, dangling-man indicator, so as to leave her, Julian of Norwich, with the unmistakably female name of "Julia." The surgery was unnecessary; the insurance should refuse to pay the surgeon.
I should have consulted my old friend Richard Rolle of Hampole, who would have insisted that I call "Julian of Norwich" by her birth name, and left it at that.
Whatever dandelion cloud of unknowing wavered in the wind has now been blown away. Julian of Norwich, anchoress and writer, or Juliana of Norwich, but not Julia of Norwich.
Despite the recent string of arrests of jihadists in the U.S. and raids on mosque, Hugh is right. If there are any honest, courageous people in the CIA, they are promptly removed by the administration, so that they don't tarnish the already black image of our staunch two-faced friends and allies in the "War on Terror."
Between our State Department, FBI and CIA a colorful observer once stated, "We're Screwed, Blued and Tattooed." Could they really be any more inept, unqualified and out of their depth?? They don't seem to hire individuals to fit the need but hire like-minded friends and relatives of friends -- mostly fellow travelers who hold secret memberships in National Suicide pacts.
Are our lives dependant on these weak kneed, double jointed, loose bladdered, double talking nin-com-poops? G-d help us. And we thought Katrina was a disaster!
I'm currently reading a book, The al Qaeda Connection by Paul Williams. Has anyone else read it? Is there any creedance to what he says because he only underscores -- BIGTIME, the ineptitude and critical danger we are all in due to the idiots in these Government Agencies paid to protect us.
Robert, any comment on this book?
It is sothe that synne is cause of all this peyne, but al shal be wele, and al shall be wele, and all manner of thing shal be wele.
Julian of Norwich, Shewings
al shal be wele, and al shall be wele, and all manner of thing shal be wele.
That's easy to say, isn't it?
It's nice to hear, too.
-- or "behovely", as Julian would say.
'Behovely' or not, it's a bugger to spele.
And all this being so, it seemed to me that it was impossible that every kind of thing should be well, as our Lord had revealed at this time. And to this I had no other answer as a revelation from our Lord except this: What is impossible to you is not impossible to me. I shall preserve my word in everything, and I shall make everything well.
I regret I have to use a modern translation.
I'm going to put it on my screensaver as a stressbuster for the office - make a change from all those piggy things.
Maybe having a boy's name did her head in and that's why she couldn't spell. St Vivian of Harwich had the same problem.
Course, we don't know that Julian was her real name. She was probably brought up near St Julian's church in Norwich and that was where she lived as an anchoress for some years after her revelation. She may have been named after the saint, or just taken his name when she took her vow of confinement.
Her real name could have been Gladys, or Tracy, or Esmerelda. (unlikely)
Good point, Granny W. On that basis I'm going to call myself St John of Tufnell Park. Don't fancy the Ancrene Wisse though - not much call for it round my way.
Interested,
I don't think Julian's poor spelling was unusual; it seems most English writers from her time clear up to the 19th century spelled English erratically. One often sees the same word spelled differently in the same sentence (as for example in the sentence I quoted, "al" and "all"). It's almost as if Julian learned her orthography from Internet chat rooms.
Dr Pepper - I know that, I was having a laugh. Promise not to do it again!
She was a groundbreaker, the first woman to write a book in English.
Have either of you ever visited the rebuilt church of St Julian on the site of her old church and cell?
There used to be an anchorage at Westminster Abbey, occupied at different times by a man or a woman. Some were quite reclusive. One in particular was not subdued and is said to have hurled abuse out of his window at the king, abbot or whoever else had offended him whenever they passed.
Granny W - no - last time I was in Norfolk I went to the seaside instead! Still, fair play to her - she's managed to hijack this thread from beyond the grave.
Would an anchorage count if it had an internet connection? Maybe not.
Definitely.
They were confined to the spot but the world came to them. Mother Julian did sewing to support herself and her servants (who did her leg work) and was visited by all sorts of people, including Marjorie Kemp who wanted her advice. I think she would have taken to the internet like a duck to water.
Women like us couldn't admire her under Islam and she couldn't have existed there anyway.
I've heard of Marjorie Kemp. Wasn't she the woman who thought her husband was rubbish in bed and so became very devout? This is without googling, so probably a gross simplification.
But you are right that these women could not have existed under Islam. As for us, I think we'd have been stoned long ago for something or other.
The Mystic of Kings Lynn was a bit off the wall and consequently never taken as seriusly as Julian.
If we wern't stoned for our quick tongues it would have been alcohol consumpton.
Good night.
It's almost a disease, the propensity of scholars and diplomats to fall in love with the culture of their area of expertise. So it is that the China-hands at State end up becoming advocates for China inside the US gov't...and those at the Mid-East desk - wittingly or otherwise - become another moving part of the Arab/Muslim grievance machine.
It takes a focused mind to resist the seduction of gracious and accomodating hosts.
Hugh
Thanks for recalling Leopold Labedz, Melvin Lasky and the Encounter magazine. Like you said a bulwark against the Communists and their fellow travellers. God bless those men who came out blazing month after month against Soviet Union, the Noam Chomskys and Susan Sontags. And the longish book reviews would sometimes save you the trouble of reading the books themselves.
Did Whittaker Chambers write for the Encounter magazine? I recently read an old essay by Chambers and was bowled over by his politico-philosophical perspicacity.
Whittaker Chambers did not write for Encounter.
Some ex-Communists did -- Mervyn Rees, for example, who signed his well-written dispatches "R."
Encounter was the most interesting magazine in the English-speaking world during its existence. It was C.I.A. money well spent. Would that the C.I.A. spent that kind of money now on such an undertaking.
Hugh, A very interesting and thought provoking piece. The parallels with Naziism and Communism in the 1930's through the 1950's are so striking. Especially the denial on all levels. And the outcomes that seem inevitable now, were a close run thing all down the line - as this war is and will be far into the unknowable future.
The psychological process that succumbs to continual wishful thinking, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary, seems to be the staple in every farce.