How will official Europe and the State Department react to news that Zarqawi has a network in Europe? Judging from the understanding of and response to jihadist infiltration and intimidation in some quarters, I would guess that they will say that they're glad he's taking an interest in something besides violence, and that broadcasting is such a rewarding field. From the Telegraph, with thanks to Daryl:
A wave of arrests across Europe has thrown new light on a European terrorist network being developed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most prominent insurgent in Iraq.A growing number of terrorism investigations in Britain, Germany, Bosnia, Denmark and most recently Spain and France are linked to the man who has masterminded countless suicide bombings in Iraq, personally beheaded hostages and bombed three hotels in his native Jordan.
Some of the suspected networks appear to be involved only in supporting his operations in Iraq. But counter-terrorism officials are worried that Zarqawi could be planning to use his base in Iraq to start attacking Europe.
Security officials are particularly worried by indications that he wants to recruit white extremists who will be more difficult to detect than Arabs or Asians.
"Zarqawi thinks he is bigger than Iraq," a British source said. "He is spreading his tentacles in Europe. There is a sense that attacks are inevitable.
"Even before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi had a network in Europe that provided funds and recruits. The same pipeline will sooner or later pump the other way, from Iraq to Europe."
One of the refrains, or slogans, or pre-fabricated phrases that is a substitute for thought, about the Iraq tarbaby is: "We will fight them over here so we won't have to fight them over there."
This phrase is idiotic on its face. There is no particular border for those promoting the Jihad with the instrument of warfare, combat, "qital" -- which is the category under which Muslims would file their acts of terror. Neither Zarqawi, nor Bin Laden, nor members of Hamas, Hezbollah, Laskar Jihad, Lashkar-e-Toiba (now put in another two hundred names of groups publicized and unpubglicized, and millions of names of individuals ready to go to work should the occasion present itself), nor any of the other past, present, and future terrorists wakes up and says "First I have to fight the Infidels here, and only after that's been taken care of will I be able to fight them over there." It's nonsense.
Indeed, it is not MoveOn.Org, but rather Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the French magistrate in charge of the most important anti-terrorist activities, not limited to prosecuting people after the fact, or after the act, who has declared that Iraq has helped to attract new terrorists. One need not accept that, because it seems that anything anywhere can be an excuse for new recruits to flock to the cause, but at least it should be noted, the nesxt time someone mindlessly repeats "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is a silly idea. There is no boundary to the fighting. And there is no boundary, either, that divides those who believe in Jihad conducted through terrorism or military means, and those who prefer to conduct the Jihad by spreading Saudi largesse to prevent the dangerous, becuase undirected by Arab and Muslim money, study of Islam, or those who spread the Jihad by demanding here, there and everywhere that Infidel societies transform themselves -- first a little, thence to more -- to accommodate Muslim requirements, Muslim demands, even though in every major and even minor respect Islam is not consonant with the Western idea, enshrined in the political and legal framework of the West, of the inalienable rights of the individual (and not communal rights), including of course the complete freedom of conscience which must include the freedom to choose one's own religion, or to abandon it all together (and that is one thing Islam cannot tolerate -- you can join the Army of Islam, but you can't get out). And, in Western democracies, the mere swelling of Muslim ranks and therefore of perceived Muslim power (and politicians keen to be elected will become aware of that power, and as can be seen, are willing to submit to its dictates) is along with the relentless campaigns of Da'wa (every Muslim is suppoed to be a missionary, and many are) that target the most vulnerable members of Western society (prisoners, immigrants, those who are economically or psychically marginal), the most effecdtive weapon of Jihad remains migration to the Lands of the Infidels, and the constant expansion of Muslim populations both within Dar al-Islam (with a constant stream attempting, by all illegal and legal means, to enter and remain within the Lands of the Infidels), and within Dar al-Harb, the House of War, where the Infidels still live and rule, but among whom millions of Muslims have been allowed, in a policy of negligence, to settle and remain, not in order to be transformed, not in order to transfer their loyalty to fellow citizens who are Infidels or to the Infidel nation-state and its laws and principles and understandings, but to remain loyal, as a Believer must, only to the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers, and to Islam and, therefore, inevitably, to the Jihad.
The British press are preparing the way for "properly interpreting" the attacks to come. You see, the attacks are caused by the rabid imperial GWB, with Tony Blair complicity, who stirred up Muslim resentments by attacking Iraq on false pretenses. Then,the local militant Zarqawi and other Palestinian "freedom fighters" flocked to formerly peaceful and non-threatening Iraq to set up bases for plotting terror attacks on the EU. Whatever happens, it's all George Bush'es fault.
Hugh, the notions of attacking the enemy on his own ground, and combating all his means of waging war on us, are not mutually exclusionary. I don't recall anyone saying that by fighting them there, we don't have to fight them here, which is what your phrasing implies. To say our policy is not coherent, that is, being implemented on all fronts, by all of our agencies and means, does not mean that going to the dens of our enemies to kill them is in error. You can not defend such an immense and commercial nation such as ours by sitting back on defense. Whatever else our failures in recent years, and there have been many, going on the offensive after those who would bring violent jihad to our shores and against our citizens was the right thing to do. Keeping them on the run means they put more effort on saving their skins than on planning and implementing mayhem. Is this enough to win the war, repelling the current jihad? Not at all.
We can not win this by military power alone, not by a long shot. Nor am I saying that we are winning, not at this juncture. But our military actions have killed and detained thousands, even tens of thousands, who would otherwise be free to plan new attacks on US citizens at home or abroad. That's a good thing. Muj who would otherwise have gone to Europe or the United States are now dead muj in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a good thing. So are a lot of muj who otherwise might have stayed home, had they not felt obliged to repel the infidel invader. Also good. As noted in another post, some have learned that talking jihad and actually waging jihad are two very different things, and if they convince some of their peers that maybe they should focus on that internal, greater jihad instead of being a pawn in someone else's caliphate fantasies, then that's a good thing, too.
Continue to hammer on the need to confront the jihad (and da'wa) in all its manifestations. But burning a strawman that says "fight there and not here," creates only smoke and no light.
Mr. Fitzgerald is absolutely correct: we have helped organize, train, and provide practical experience in the deadly arts to thousands of European and North American Muslims who by virtue of them growing up in the West are capable of wreaking more substantial havoc than groups sent from Islamic countries for that purpose. Tens of thousands of Iraqis now know the modus operandi, tactics, limitations and weaknesses of American troops and have developed effective counter-tactics to exploit such inherit weaknesses of an undermanned, overstretched, and yes under-supported presence fighting in an urban terrain against a shadowy foe which is supported by the local population.
The complete ignorance of Islam, Arab tribal culture, the history and inner dynamics of sectarian and multiethnic Iraq by all ranks in the military and civilian leadership is indeed astounding. Moreover, despite the passage of time hence, it has not shown any sign of diminishing. Iraq will never be democratic in the western sense of the World; elections do not necessary translate to liberal inclusive democracies. Rather, I could tell you what democracy means in Iraq: power for the invaluable group, sect, party or ethnicity over other groups. The U.S. has involved itself in a shepherds’ quarrel over access to the local water hole and we are dying trying to give every tribe its share. However, do not think for a minute that once we leave, centuries of hostility and desire for power will not drive all the tribes to fight... After all, that is their nature and culture from time immemorial.
"I don't recall anyone saying that by fighting them there, we don't have to fight them here.."
-- from a posting above
The phrase is not mine. It has been repeated, ad nauseam, by George Bush and by members of his administration, and it is certainly a phrase repeated, with increasingly less certainty, by some soldiers in Iraq. I have heard them, when interviewed, repeat this phrase on every conceivable occasion, as if this were self-evident, and constituted a sufficient defense of the policy in Iraq.
How about rephrasing it for Iraq and neighboring countries that might be distracted and preoccupied with a Sunni-Shi'a conflict:
"Let them fight among themselves as much as possible over there, everywhere in Dar al-Islam, and among Muslim commnities in the West, so it is harder for themto promote the Jihad over here."
Longer to say, not quite as easy to fit into the Procrustean bed of television and radio sound-bites. But much more sensible.
Addendum to the reply above:
"I don't recall anyone saying that by fighting them there, we don't have to fight them here.."
-- from a posting above
The theme of "we must fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" sets up in the minds of those who accept this idea that there is no problem with Muslims now within Infidel lands, and that the only problem is a discrete group, largely centered on Iraq (to which we are told all "Jihadis" will naturally flock -- the "honeypot" metaphor that some find so compellling), that can be defeated, wiped out, so that "victory" or still worse, "total victory" can be achieved in this misnamed "war on terror." Every single part of this, every element, is wrong. Flatly wrong.
Google the phrase "fight them over there" to see how often it has been used. Or google "fight them over there" along with "Bush."
And along with that phrase, used verbatim, look for variants on it.
Consider for example, the disastrous speech Bush gave in September 2003 (about the first week) -- a speech that caused me to realize he hadn't a clue, and his entire business of replacing "an ideology of hate" with an "ideology of hope" (words he still lives by -- he has what he thinks is an idea, and then the idea has him), and once that "hope" exists among Iraqi Muslims, and then other Muslims in the Middle East, and then Muslims everywhere, there will be no more "ideology of hate." Tell that to the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira -- go home, boys, we don't need you anymore, we've replaced all of you with the "ideology of hope." Yes, I know we could be rich and still "hope" for the destruction of Infidels, and apparently the past conquests, throughout history, merely whetted the appetites of Muslim conquerors for more, and the only thing that stopped them was when they were either defeated, or faced a natural barrier (the Sahara), or were simply militarily too weak to conduct Jihad successfully by military means, and lacking today's oil wealth, could not conduct it by economic warfare, and lacking the Muslim millions now behind enemy lines, could not conduct Jihad through Da'wa and demographic conquest save in those few places where Hadrami traders had brought Islam and eventually turned trading posts into military encampments (the East Indies, now Indonesia).
How did Bush put it in that speech? He put it thus:
“And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.”
Not the precise words "we must fight him over there so we do not have to fight him over here."
But identical in meaning. And Bush and those parroting the Party LIne (I pity the poor soldiers who feel they must do this, or actually come to believe it), including some parents of those killed who of course want desperately to believe that their son's life was not sacrificed in vein, that the policy must make sense, because it is too painful to believe otherwise. Some families of those killed and wounded, despite the great and understandable desire to believe that policy, have not accepted it. And not all of the, believe it or not, have turned out to be of the disturbingly vacuous, and dangerously appeasing kind -- who know even less about Islam than the man they oppose, George Bush.
That slogan -- "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" -- is all over the place. I can't imagine why you, poster above, would have written "I don't recall anyone saying that by fighting them there, we don't have to fight them here.."
The phrase is as much a staple of the sloganeering as is "we can't cut and run" or "we just can't leave."
Not merely a substitute for thought. But actually a dangerous idea -- that we can "fight them there" and that's all we need do, if we do it successfully. No, the Jihad is everywhere that there are supporters of and believers in Jihad. That is, everywhere that there are adherents of Islam, if they mean what they say.
Hugh, my contention is that you have phrased it as an "either/or," and it is not such a proposition, nor have the President or any soldiers I know said as much. And if it were an either/or proposition, then I argue for the affirmative, it is better to fight them there than to fight them here. That should be self-evident.
Now, if narrowly limited to the context of fighting "terrorists," it might be an either/or, but it is not in the context of resisting a widespread jihad. We agree there. The USA hasn't done a very credible job of combating this jihad on many other fronts, for many, many reasons, not least of which is blissful ignorance that such a jihad is even underway. We agree there. And it would be nice, wouldn't it, if they would only fight each other. We agree there, too. But no matter what we do, some of them are going to take up arms and train to attack us, and I'd rather kill them there than here. Now, as for all the "missionaries," I envision a different means of taking care of them, but that is not the point of this post.
"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."
We are fighting him at X and Y, so that we do not have to fight him ("meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities") at Z. That seems pretty either/or to me. Either we fight him there, and defeat him, or we will meet and have to fight him here.
Just because neither an "either" or an "or" was used, does not mean that they were not clearly implied. And there are so many other such statements.
Tell me: do you think Bush has instructed people in the true duration and scope, or in the varying instruments, of Jihad?
Of course not. He has done nothing of the kind. Out of his own ignorance, timidity, inability to articulate the problem, possibly a residual respect for a "religion" (he's got religion, and it turned him around, so religion must be a good thing, and isn't Islam "one of the world's great religions"?).
Has he ever said something like:
"Iraq is only a small part of a much larger problem. Even if a stable nation-state is established there, we have few grounds to assume that it will be a model for other states in the area, ruled and populated as they are by Sunni Arabs who may not be pleased at the transfer of power to Shi'a from Sunni, and from Arabs to Kurds.
OR:
"The war against the Jihad will not be decided in Iraq. And it is silly to talk of "victory" in what will be a long, difficult, and taxing -- taxing on all of our most cherished assumptions as well as in other ways. No, Iraq is merely a theatre of that war, and we should understand that."
OR:
Fill in ad libitum. Anyone can do it.
He, Bush, and the others -- Rice, Rumsfeld, tutti quanti, including those enthusiasts whom so many think of as the Great Hopes but they too are sentimentalists about "democracy" -- are all determined not to do the work of studying Islamic tenets and the history of Islam, and to stay within the narrow confines of what so far has been permitted. 1) Laziness 2) Timidity 3) Stupidity 4) Cupidity 5)ll Of the Above?
I'm going to check #5. And I should warn you -- I do very well on tests.
Please notice that the "Bristish source" said that "Zarqawi had a network in Europe before the invasion of Iraq". I make this point, that sometime in the future when there is another attack Europe will be blaming the US saying that it is our fault.
Why the squabble over Jihadist killing in Mesopatamia? Is not shooting Jihadists through the chest an inherently good thing?
DISLOYAL HARVARD DISLOYAL GEORGETOWN DISLOYAL USC DISLOYAL COLUMBIA
Remember, Iraq is a demo project set up to answer the question whether Moslems be civilized or not.
Regardless of where you stand on this the most important question on earth, you must abide by he Iraq War (already won nicely) and the Iraq Occupation (faltering).
If the Moslem Man flops on the democracy uptake (and he most certainly will), then my vote is to dump Mesopatamia and overtake Saudi Arabia. Nice and defensible, more oil, greater symbolics.
Hugh, it is not an either/or proposition, any more than fighting Naziism or Communism was an either/or. The combat is on many, many fronts, some of them not even involving or naming Islam. As an armed conflict, better to kill them there than kill them here, or worse, arrest them here. Even better would be to contain all of them there, as you have often urged, and with no argument from me. Are we failing on many fronts? You betcha. You know from an earlier series of posts we had that I think the President's failure to educate the American people, to steel their will for a long conflict, has been his most significant failure, one with looming consequences. Does that mean we shouldn't be reaching out and touching those who are actively planning mayhem for us? Not on your life. Even if that is not sufficient to win this conflict (and I certainly don't think it is), and even if the President doesn't know what will be sufficient to win this conflict, it is still necessary to kill those who would actively try to kill us.
Agree with Have_Mercy & Hugh
Bush's strategy isn't working and won't work because THEY ARE FIGHTING IN AN OLD WAY WHAT IS AN ENTIRELY A NEW FORM OF WARFARE. These are small
guerilla groups/cells who can easily 'hit 'n' run' and disperse to regroup again.ALWAYS FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE UMMAH & SAUDIS. Morever they are using high Tech communications and weapons to
create havoc in a Global Jihad.THEY CANNOT BE PINNED DOWN TO ANY ONE COUNTRY ; IT IS OBVIOUS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT THEM ON EVERY FRONT. My objection to invasion of Iraq was that
this is a complete waste of billions, soldiers &
civilian lives, and America will be seriously weakened by it - at a time when she has never needed more to be strong. Jihadists are already claiming victory in Iraq!
The blind spot in Bushs's thinking is the assumption that any country will become a democracy - if he had bothered to read & understood Koran he
might have had doubts.
If Zarqawi and his team start terrorist attacks in Europe, the people of Europe, will still stick their heads in the sand and keep repeating the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. Eventually blame will fall on the US. I am firmly convinced that the West has already started to commit suicide. The wrists are already cut we are only waiting to bleed to death. As our collective heads are sawed off with blunt butter knives our elites will lament about how EVIL the Imperialist Western world is and how we deserve this fate for the crusades. The US and the EEEEVIL JOOOOOOS will receive most of the blame.
SnowDawg
Europe isn't lost yet...Dutch minister
Rita Verdonk- the one Imans refused to'shake the
hand of a woman' has PROPOSED A BAN ON BURKAS. Also Netherlands are SETTING NEW TESTS FOR IMMIGRANTS.Admitted this has taken murder of Van
Gogh and death threats to Dutch politicians to make them ACTUALLY NOTICE WHAT IS HAPPENING but they are DOING SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT MUSLIMS.
Look upon it as a shampoo advert : the cure for
dull, lifeless hair won't happen overnight but 'it will happen.' It might take more riots [such as promised by arch traitor Galloway],bombings and mayhem to make Brits aware
they are in lots of doggy poo [no disrepect to you SnowDawg] besides this & pig shit will be a
protection against Muslims as garlic cloves are against vampires.[Mind you probably a burka clad
woman is nearly as scary as a vampire].
Also Brits struck me as more keen on pets than their children :especially they are a nation of dog lovers. When Muslims try to ban dogs and pork
they will react as Anglo Saxon berserkers instead
of PC Dhimmis waiting in a queue.
Cheers
Only a fool believes that we won't see Muslim troops attacking in our streets. Even those that were "saved from Saddam" and then trained by Americans will eventually remember that they are Muslim and their first duty is to Islam and gratitude to the infidel is both humiliating and irrelevant.
The phrase" I would rather fight them over there than here" utilizes a military strategy that it is better to go on the offensive against one's enemies than assume a strictly defensive campaign. Grant attacked, McClellan made fortifications and requested reinforcements. Generals Patten and Montgomery drove their forces into enemy territory. The Maginot line was a useless defense, as the blitzcrieg simply went around it.
With the capmaign in Iraq, Zarcowi is preoccupied with holding Islamist teritory. His time, resources and energy are thus used for this effort, which results in little resources or time available to attack elsewhere. This is probably why no attacks have happened in the US since 9/11.
It would be extremely difficult to be successful with a strictly defensive strategy. How many thousands of miles of border are there on the north and south of the USA? How many hundreds of thousands of cargo containers come into the country? How many millions of tourists and visitors get visas to come into the US? If we sit back and simply wait for the jihadists to come to us we are at an immense disadvantage.
To use a sports analogy, if your team is attacking the opposing team's goal, so that the opposing players are doing all that they can do to keep you from scoring a goal, then they are not down on your end of the field and are certainly not scoring against you.
"Zarcowi[sic] is preoccupied with holding Islamist teritory. His time, resources and energy are thus used for this effort, which results in little resources or time available to attack elsewhere. This is probably why no attacks have happened in the US since 9/11."
-- from a posting above
Zarqawi holds no territory. Nor is he the only threat, or the chief threat, and if he were killed tomorrow while visiting the gravae of Osama Bin Laden this would mean little. And to think it would mean much is dangerous. His time, his resources, his energy -- you have it backwards. It is the American time, resources, energy, that are being squandered in Iraq, while Iran goes its way, Europeans take stands of cosmetic defiance and then here and there retreat (as twice in the last week in England), and the American public remains confused, with the wrong people attacking the Iraq policy for all the wrong reasons, and those who defend it look sillier and sillier (see today's piece by Victor Davis Hanson, in which neither the words "Islam" or "Jihad" appear in a pollyannish misinterpretation of just about everything in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East).
quote: "I am firmly convinced that the West has already started to commit suicide. The wrists are already cut we are only waiting to bleed to death. As our collective heads are sawed off with blunt butter knives our elites will lament about how EVIL the Imperialist Western world is and how we deserve this fate for the crusades. The US and the EEEEVIL JOOOOOOS will receive most of the blame."
What a huge pile absolute nonsense. If you care to study history is that people, when they are actually attacked, will defend themselves at any cost. Western civilization, as it exist today, is more threatend by socialist idiots (like neo-nazi's and people like Red Ken) than it is by islamic terrorists. The islamic threat is very real to the West, but since the beginning of this threat (since the raise of the Ottoman empire) they did not succeed in overthrowing ANY western nation (but poorly defended Spain :P) and they never will, because they do not know how to build things. Just look at islamic nations. They are oil-rich, but yet, they are soooo backward, retarded and stupid. People like that will never accomplish ANYTHING.
The big Z,
where is he?
His tentacles reach
around the globe,
his preachers preach
where ever they want,
he's the bully on the street,
meet the big Z,
with pockets of money
from arabia, you see
he sets his soldiers
inside the enemy lines,
how fine for him,
he knows what war is for,
it's allah's cause.
But his secret weapon
is the womb, and there
the battle is taking place
that will change the face
of the world.
Hugh,
I've only been hanging around here for a couple of weeks, but I've got to ask you: What would you do?
You think those on the right (Bush's camp) are wrong to think democracy can succeed in the ME and that those on the left are blind to danger within.
So I ask you again: What would you do? Rain nuclear death on the ME? Outlaw Islam? Declare open season on Muslims?
If you were somehow king of the western world, what specifically would you do to deal with the Jihadists out there?