Just when I thought we were making progress, what with Bush's talk a few months ago about the caliphate. But now it looks as if the Administration is back in full dhimmi mode. "Too Many Cooks, and So Far No Broth," from US News and World Report (scroll down), with thanks to Angie:
Infighting is plaguing revision of the administration's three-year-old National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. An implementation plan now under debate calls for heavy emphasis on waging an ideological war against radical Islam, promoting democracy, and stopping weapons of mass destruction. But the plan is bogged down, mired in interagency squabbling over turf and tasking, sources say. "There are just too many chefs," says one observer. At least the participants have agreed on one key change: Worried that they will offend Muslims, they've replaced the word "jihadist" with "extremist."
Yes, we must not offend Muslims by calling our enemies what they call themselves and formulating our policies accordingly. Oh, no. It is much preferable to lose the war than to offend anyone.
Lose the war? Certainly. Not militarily. Culturally. Socially. You cannot possibly defeat an enemy whom you are afraid even to name.
Banner to hang in park across from White House:
IT'S THE JIHAD, STUPID!
This is the first part in riding a bike; naming your enemy. If this can't be done, the battle is lost before it begins. No, the white house is not clever by three. This dissembling comes from the top down, not the other way around. The very semantics involved in 'The War On Terror.' is the same. A fear in naming the enemy. Fear based, not fact based. The whole 'idiology' of a billion faithful in an old venerable religion, corrupted by a 'handful' of 'evildoers'(one of the many words used in substitution for Jihadis). Of course, the ultimate outcome of such a fear based idiology is the UAE ports deal. Expect more dhimmitude in the next two years. More coddling of the UAE, The Pakistanis, the 'nascent democrats in 'palestine,' our friends the Saudis, showing the firm hand to the hapless Olmert in Israel, having a prayer breakfast in the WH over the dissolution in Iraq, and, if that doesn't work, inventing a new set of semantics to deal with the reality on the ground in Iraq, imploding before our eyes. Interesting that one of the great conservatives(this is another word used with creative semantics by our chimp in chief), WF Buckley finally turned on Iraq. No doubt he has not done this sooner to give W the benifit of the doubt. And for anyone out there who still believes the Prez must not 'cut and run,' I'm reminded of one our greatest Presidents Ronald Reagan who got out of dodge in Lebanon, once he realized a. they were nuts and b. the blood of one American was not worth a single one of those nuts. Nobody called The Gipper a coward. How many Americans would have died had we inserted outselves within the Lebanese body politic, trying to 'keep the peace.' No, he was too shrewd, too honest for that. Reagan could admit a mistake. He wasn't beset with all of the psychological problems inherent in a person who cannot admit defeat on any level.
That's a critical theme: WE CAN LOSE THE WAR. Too many people think overwhelming military force - which we can't use for too many reasons to count - is going to protect us. Deterrence only works on rational actors fighting a conventional war. But we're not fighting rational actors in our modern sense, and the war is completely unconventional by our 21st Century way of thinking.
Exhibit A
Fatwas of death on cartoonists.
Where does that fit into Clausewitzian analysis or mutual assured destruction?
We'll spend years trying to shoehorn this conflict into now irrelevant reference points and doctrines. Or, we can believe our eyes and ears and counter the threats.
Fatwas of death on cartoonists, as ridiculous as it seemed at first, cowed most of Europe, the EU, the American media, and many politicians. Modern is obviously overrated.
"This is the first part in riding a bike; naming your enemy..."
-- from a posting above
Today We Have Naming of Parts.
Today, and Everyday, at JihadWatch.
US News and World Reports vague reference to
the participants
begs the question . . . who was participating in - or influencing this agreement by wishing no offense upon the enemy?
Did David Forte, the White House's Islam expert, recommend avoiding the use of the word 'jihad.'? Wouldn't want to offend those Muslims by saying anything that would be confrontational or not reek of appeasement.
My tendency is to take it a step farther and use a broader brush by refering to them as Islamic Fundamentalists who are embracing jihadism.
What percentage of Muslims would give support to these articles in the Hamas charter if they have chosen,and embraced the path of dar-al-harb against western ideologies?
Article 5 Hamas Charter:>> As the Movement adopts Islam as its way of life, its time dimension extends back as far as the birth of the Islamic Message and of the Righteous Ancestor. Its ultimate goal is Islam, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution. Its spacial dimension extends wherever on earth there are Muslims, who adopt Islam as their way of life...
Article 8 Hamas Charter:>> Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.
“If you want to succeed in warfare, you have to know your enemy and know him well by Analyzing the means of the “War on Terrorism”, you might come to the conclusion that policy-makers world-wide simply ignore this rule. . This is a fight against the symptoms we should call Islamic fundamentalism. We are reacting to a threat we have not been quite willing or able to understand. So who and what do we fight?
In the fight against terrorism in the long term, we need to combat the sources of the newest totalitarian version of Islamic fundamentalism: Jihadism. Jihadism is an ideology, an extreme and militant interpretation of the Quran, It claims to pave the way for the rule of Allah. Therefore, infidels must be either converted or be killed. Anyone who opposes this concept has to be eradicated. . The fact that hardly anything can stop these “holy-warriors”,and the rather frightening conclusion is that the Jihadists and their interpretation of world affairs have gained more and more support among even MODERATE MUSLIMS during recent years.
The feeling that the West in general and particularly the United States treat Muslims with ignorance, and disrespect has been fueled by military interventions during the last decade and the support of autocratic regimes in the Arab world. We need to consider the social, political, and economic circumstances under which radical thoughts easily finds their followers. The failure of Arab leaders to modernize their countries, to show the willingness to reform and allow a more democratic society also heavily contributes to Islamic fundamentalism and jihadist attitudes. The ideology of Jihadism is gaining influence world-wide. It is about what people perceive and think, how they tend to interpret the world, and what consequences they gather from it of which a great deal of it is fed to them by an onslaught of misinformation (propaganda)to further the totalitarian causes of the demogogues,dictators. and despots that rule the Islamic countries
I think we are still far from developing a strategy that can effectively eradicate the roots of Jihadism. But sites like Jihadwatch help to form an understanding of what we are dealing with so as to understand what drives the Islamic fundamentalists in the Islamic world.
We are making a mistake by not calling it what it really is--- (JIHADISM)
The concept of jihad is an intrinsic part of the problem. That's quite clear.
Consequently, the administration's strategy does seem a little like trying to wage a propaganda war against Nazism while tiptoeing around the concept of "the master race".
I appreciate they have a problem. There is a huge number of Muslims worldwide (and, thanks to mass-immigration, actually in the countries of the West). All Western governments fear to offend Muslims en masse in any way lest that push them in a more radical direction.
Yojimbo,
All Western governments fear to offend Muslims en masse in any way lest that push them in a more radical direction.
What does it say about the inherent fragility of Muslim commitment to freedom and consensual government if we have to walk on eggshells around them lest they explode near soft targets? While I agree this is the concern driving policy, it's a frightening assumption to make at the top of any discussion.
As one cannot defeat an enemy they cannot name, neither can one defend a right they also cannot name.
Few Americans Know 1st Amendment
Sad. Tragic.
Stupid, stupid, stupid! What are our fearless leaders thinking? Lead, follow, or get the #@&* out of the way!!!
Time for those in power to read, then re-read Patton's speech.
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html
We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.
Carolyn2-
A lady after my own heart.
Bush and his pussyfotting planners seem to be watching "Ernest Goes To War" for their motivational videos.
I would only add Cato's tocsin:
The Jihad Must Be Destroyed!
The Jihad MUST Be Destroyed!!
THE JIHAD MUST BE DESTROYED!!!
So disgusted I couldn't even spell "pussyfooting".
By way of a mea culpa, let me add a quote:
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Winston Churchill.
The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism is no doubt infiltrated by the near and the far enemy. Nsct (pronounced nisket) is a joke and I spit on it for the Oriana Fallaci Brigade.
"The Well Known Causes of Concern"
via Sixthcolumn
"Don't miss a single word of this one." via Hattip: LGF
By David J. Jonsson
Contents
"Creating a Global Ports Empire
Islamic Economics: Not an Exotic Addition to the English Country Garden
Dubai Ports Operating Shariah Compliant Ports
Implications of Financing with Sukuk Bonds
Impact of High Oil Prices
The Well Known Causes of Concern
Dubai Key Transfer Point for Illegal Shipments of Nuclear Components"
"...The Well Known Causes of Concern"
Soaring oil prices and a vibrant UAE economy are expected to further boost the private wealth of UAE citizens in the coming three years, according to recent estimates. With some 53,000 dollar millionaires, the UAE already has a greater net worth of billionaires than does the United States. UAE's private wealth sector is expected to grow by a staggering 12.5 percent per year, exceeding the average rate throughout the Gulf."
(NOTE)"It also boasts the fourth largest gas reserve and third largest oil reserves in the world (excluding the Canadian tar-sands), and is the second largest economy in the GCC after Saudi Arabia..."
Sirseth is no doubt right about the wealth in the UAE, and we may add Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. So how come the allegedly anti-capitalist "left" never sees fit to criticize them, to point out how they continue to practice slavery, exploitation of foreign workers, oppression of women, Judeophobic incitement, etc. etc???
We are making a mistake by not calling it what it really is--- (JIHADISM)
sez 'Mackie' above.
Still wrong. Jihad is the central duty of every Mohammedan. To kill and be killed in the way of Allah is a commandment in the Koran, "to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy" and there are 164 more Jihad verses to prove it. Nobody is exempt except the old and the sick and the brood which remains behind. Fighting a war on 'Jihadism' is just like fighting the WoT, fighting the strategy instead of the ideology, which is ISLAM.
No 2 ways about it.