From our inexhaustible Clueless Department: "Why not test bin Laden's 'truce' offer?" by Douglas A. Borer, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and the author of "Superpowers Defeated: Vietnam and Afghanistan Compared." From the Christian Science Monitor, with thanks to David:
MONTEREY, CALIF. – One of the hardest decisions a president of the United States is obligated to make is that of going to war. It is a decision, however, that pales in comparison to the degree of difficulty in making peace when one's enemy remains unvanquished. With the release of Osama bin Laden's latest media communiqué offering a truce to the US, President Bush must decide whether to stick to the moribund old cliché "we don't negotiate with terrorists," or whether he should use this as a potential opportunity to redirect global politics along a path that serves US national interests....If our goal is to reverse this trend, the question is simple: Are we better off negotiating with Mr. bin Laden? If we can capture or kill him, certainly the US can rightfully claim justice has been served against the perpetrators of 9/11. Because revenge is the sweetest of our dark sweet dreams, bin Laden's demise will bring no small degree of personal satisfaction to many people. But if we kill him with a well-aimed smart bomb, or if he remains in hiding as a living symbol of a growing anti-US resistance in the Muslim world, will the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan lay down their arms? Leading US government officials have said time and again that bin Laden's death or capture will not engender these results. Thus, if our wisest men have decided that our present policy toward bin Laden will not help reduce the threat of terrorism, what might help? Does our yearning for revenge outweigh the potential value we might gain by negotiating with bin Laden?...
Borer shows no awareness, none whatsoever, of the terms in traditional Islamic law under which Muslim forces offer a truce. But in that, of course, he is by no means alone.
What is it about professors that makes them the people with the least common sense of all? As far as I knew, Bin Laden's 'truces' didn't include the US and Israel, and even if it did, any 'treaty' from him would still be worse than useless. Of course, these supposedly-learned elites spend too much time in their ivory towers, cocooned away from the real world and real world problems, and one of the real world problems not only of today, but of the last 1,400 years is Islam itself, and PC and this sort of naivety only makes this problems even worse.
Does this man know what the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, which Muhamamd -- uswa hasana -- entered into in 628 A.D. with the Meccans -- stands for? Does he understand that a hudna is only engaged in when the Muslim side has determined that it needs time out to grow stronger, to attack whenever it can -- and that such an attack is not facultative, but required.
Perhaps this professor gets his views from the comical Mark LeVine, who a few days ago (Jan. 22,2006) published a piece in The Boston Globe in which he airily stated, with the air of great authority one has come to expect of Mark LeVine, that the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya was "broken by the Meccans."
Now this description of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah is not merely wrong; it is the exact opposite of the truth. It was Muhammad who sought, and found, a flimsy pretext to break the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. It was Muhammad who told his followers -- for all time - that "war is deceit" and explained that he had known what he was doing all along. Barely 18 months into this treaty that was supposed to last 10 years, and after the Meccans had scrupulously fulfilled their side of the bargain (letting Muhammad and his followers into Mecca to perform the imra, or Lesser Pilgrimage), Muhammad's ranks had swelled; he felt able to attack, and did so.
How do Muslims themselves see the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya? They see it -- if Mark LeVine or Douglas A. Borer could take time from their busy schedules to find out -- as a magnificent act of trickery, by the gifted war-leader Muhammad. No permanent peace can ever exist between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. It makes no sense in Islam, to say that non-Muslims could continue to live, unsubmissive to Muslim rule and ultimately to the imposition of the Shari'a (the ideal that may be put off until conditions are right). That would be to allow part of the globe to remain permanently non-Muslim. But the world belongs to Islam, and to the Believers.
Here are a few places to start: Hughes's "Dictionary of Islam" (a classic). The various editions of the "Encyclopedia of Islam." Antoine Fattal's "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam." Majid Khadduri's "Law of War and Peace in Islam" where the classic statement, by a Muslim scholar who, at the time and place of his writing, was inclined to tell the full truth, of what the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah stands for, is clearly set out.
Now don't expect the likes of Douglas Borer or Mark LeVine to comprehend this, or even to have done the necessary elementary research. For if you were going to write about the Islamic "hudna" with Infidels, wouldn't any sensible person begin with Majid Khadduri, and Antoine Fattal, and the most obvious collective works of reference (keeping in mind special cases, such as the entries provided by that apologist for Islam Montgomery Watt)? Wouldn't that only make sense?
Readers may wish to look at a previous piece on Mark LeVine, which they can find by clicking on "Articles above" and scrolling through "Hugh Fitzerald" toward the end, or by googling "Mark LeVine" and "Posted by Hugh."
Then, appetites whetted, and gluttons for mental punishment, they can do something that will provide minutes or maybe even more of innocent merriment.
Just click on the following website: http://www.meaning.org/levinebio.html
and look carefully at the picture of "Associate Professor" Mark LeVine (your taxdollars at work, residents of California) and also at his modest self-description.
Read it aloud to your friends. Have a good time.
So many years spent getting a Ph.D., and still an idiot. What a waste.
Does this man know what the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, which Muhamamd -- uswa hasana -- entered into in 628 A.D. with the Meccans -- stands for? Does he understand that a hudna is only engaged in when the Muslim side has determined that it needs time out to grow stronger, to attack whenever it can -- and that such an attack is not facultative, but required.
Perhaps this professor gets his views from the comical Mark LeVine, who a few days ago (Jan. 22,2006) published a piece in The Boston Globe in which he airily stated, with the air of great authority one has come to expect of Mark LeVine, that the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya was "broken by the Meccans."
Now this description of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah is not merely wrong; it is the exact opposite of the truth. It was Muhammad who sought, and found, a flimsy pretext to break the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. It was Muhammad who told his followers -- for all time - that "war is deceit" and explained that he had known what he was doing all along. Barely 18 months into this treaty that was supposed to last 10 years, and after the Meccans had scrupulously fulfilled their side of the bargain (letting Muhammad and his followers into Mecca to perform the imra, or Lesser Pilgrimage), Muhammad's ranks had swelled; he felt able to attack, and did so.
How do Muslims themselves see the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya? They see it -- if Mark LeVine or Douglas A. Borer could take time from their busy schedules to find out -- as a magnificent act of trickery, by the gifted war-leader Muhammad. No permanent peace can ever exist between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. It makes no sense in Islam, to say that non-Muslims could continue to live, unsubmissive to Muslim rule and ultimately to the imposition of the Shari'a (the ideal that may be put off until conditions are right). That would be to allow part of the globe to remain permanently non-Muslim. But the world belongs to Islam, and to the Believers.
Here are a few places to start: Hughes's "Dictionary of Islam" (a classic). The various editions of the "Encyclopedia of Islam." Antoine Fattal's "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam." Majid Khadduri's "Law of War and Peace in Islam" where the classic statement, by a Muslim scholar who, at the time and place of his writing, was inclined to tell the full truth, of what the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah stands for, is clearly set out.
Now don't expect the likes of Douglas Borer or Mark LeVine to comprehend this, or even to have done the necessary elementary research. For if you were going to write about the Islamic "hudna" with Infidels, wouldn't any sensible person begin with Majid Khadduri, and Antoine Fattal, and the most obvious collective works of reference (keeping in mind special cases, such as the entries provided by that apologist for Islam Montgomery Watt)? Wouldn't that only make sense?
Readers may wish to look at a previous piece on Mark LeVine, which they can find by clicking on "Articles above" and scrolling through "Hugh Fitzerald" toward the end, or by googling "Mark LeVine" and "Posted by Hugh."
Then, appetites whetted, and gluttons for mental punishment, they can do something that will provide minutes or maybe even more of innocent merriment.
Just click on the following website: http://www.meaning.org/levinebio.html
and look carefully at the picture of "Associate Professor" Mark LeVine (your taxdollars at work, residents of California) and also at his modest self-description.
Read it aloud to your friends. Have a good time.
Robert posted:
"Borer shows no awareness, none whatsoever, of the terms in traditional Islamic law under which Muslim forces offer a truce. But in that, of course, he is by no means alone."
While I understand this statement being made towards the text you posted of Professor Borer's statements, when you read the full text of Professor Borer's statements, it is clear to see his mentality here.
He is not making a statement that we should negotiate with OBL, but rather asking the question (in order to stimulate strategic thinking in his students) if the US has anything to gain by such negotiations.
Obviously Robert, you are right, negotiating with OBL is pointless from the standpoint of securing anything from the terrorists themselves. Instead, I think the professor was trying to determine if anything would be gained by the US in the domestic and foreign affairs departments of diplomacy. According to the professor's statements, if a "truce" was brokered with OBL and he violated its terms, the US would gain political ground in the war on terror as we would be able to prove that OBL's truces were gift wrapped poop.
This is not uncommon in strategic thinking from a warfare perspective. Obviously kicking their butts is the best thing, but there may be several steps to getting to that point. My major argument against such negotiation, even for diplomatic gain, is that the price for OBL's "truce" violation would be American lives.
So, before everyone starts bashing me for these comments, let's recap what I've said:
The professor didn't explicitly make the statement that we should negotiate. He presented a hypothetical situation in order to promote critical strategic thinking from his students. These students, like it or not, will one day be in positions (top politicians, Chiefs of Staff, etc) in which they will have to consider these arguments. I'd prefer to have politicians and soldiers who have encountered this type of consideration before the situation arises than to have those that do it "by the seat of their pants"
שלום
Mid East "academics" HAVE to play by the rules defined by Muslims who are usually in charge of these departments, if they care about they career, and if they want to get tenure. "Professor" Levine is just trying to make a living.
He is an insignificant maggot.
"Insignificant"? Read his own view of himself at his website.
"Mr. Podsnap stood very high in Mr. Podsnap's opinion."
Hitler and the Japanese Imperialists tried sending out "truce" feelers as their fortunes went sour, and the answer back to both was: "Nuts!"
The answer to Osama is: "Deliver yourself into Coalition custody or prepare to be hunted till you die. You lost all bargaining power, beyond unconditional surrender, after 9/11."
And ramp up production of predator drones and hellfire missiles.
US_Infidel:
There are lots of PHds running around, particularly in academe and government, who shouldn't be paid to count paper clips. Hugh cited a prime example immediately above.
Given that Jill Carol - the Christian in a burkha - is from the CSM and still in captivity, go easy on them for carrying such an article. If and when they get her back, then probe them on dhimmitude.
Infidel Pride-
So the Muslim captors of CHRISTIAN Science Monitor reporter Jill Carol lied?
Or did the Osama-Zarqawi p.r. machine get word to the murderers that it might look bad, right at the moment they are wheedling to gain a phony "truce", for a bunch of gun-toting guys to kill a helpless woman?
Or are they just cash-strapped and looking for ransom?
She knew the risks.
No deals.
Hugh,
Took your advice read Mark Levine's modest and self-deprecating comments about himself (thanks for laugh).
I feel he was only being so modest because he only had a 1,000 word limit to work with. If he had the space he might have included a few more important paragraphs and they might have looked something like this
Mark Levine stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the finest minds of the post 9/11 era. The least of these minds would not be him. In fact, he stands with his head a little above the shoulders of the other musicians and enlightened historians of these troubled modern times. Mark Levine's intellect serves as a beacon to all of creation. From lowliest slugs to the most enlighten of men all are drawn to magnetism that is Mark Levine.
Mark Levine masterfully weaves art, music, interpretive dance, finger-painting and history, in a beautiful tapestry that boldly and courageously ignores 1000 plus years of canon material. Mark Levine will not allow facts to infer with his bold reinterpretation of recorded history.
Mark Levine does not allow his superior intellect infer with his communications with others. Mark Levine speaks to his audience in a patronizing patient language that even the simplest among us can clearly understand.
Mark Levine does not walk on water; He parts it, so as not to get his world-worn Birkenstocks wet
Women love him, Men want to be him, and Children think he is just swell.
All hail Mark Levine!
He makes history fun, cool and a whole lot less scary!
As a taxpayer I was growing impatient with the performance of our military academies. With a turncoat installed in Annapolis, now we turn to West Point and Black Forest to see what they are going to do to fill their void of of Moslem-sensitive professors.
Yes we know the left hates the west, what else is new?