"Q is a military man who just returned from Afghanistan, and has also spent considerable time in Iraq. Q is unflappable and unfoolable, and he knows from extensive personal experience what is in the hearts and minds of all too many citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Had he heard Hamid Mir's soothing words, he would not have been misled for a single moment: he has seen too much, and knows too much." -- from the comments by Robert Spencer here
This is the main hope: the officers and men who, though they were told nothing except pieties about Islam and about how to be "culturally aware," nonetheless discovered certain home truths on their own.
They found out about Islam, and what it teaches, and what attitudes naturally arise among those who consider themselves Muslims and live in societies suffused with Islam.
They learned that while Muslims may try to wheedle money or other aid out of powerful Infidels whatever they can, they will never feel permanent or heartfelt gratitude to those Infidels. Why not? Simply because the Infidels remain Infidels, and the Muslims, Muslims.
They learned that among all too many Muslims the idea of the "nation-state" hardly matters -- or that it matters far less to Muslims than it does to non-Muslims, for among Muslims who value the teachings of traditional Islam, the real divide is between Believer and Infidel.
They learned that a Muslim's loyalty extends in concentric circles outward, from himself to his immediate family, to his extended family, to his tribe, and sometimes to those who share his ethnic or sectarian identity. But it does not extend to the idea of "Iraq" or to "Afghanistan," or indeed to any administrative unit known as a nation-state. Instead, it may extend to the umma -- the worldwide Muslim community.
They learned that Islam is full of violence and aggression, and without any spirit of compromise (an idea anathema to Muhammad), so that those who think the Sunnis and Shi'a will be able to compromise, with the former accepting their new, reduced role in Iraq, one that more accurately reflects their numbers in the total population, and with the latter somehow yielding enough power to satisfy Sunni demands, are ignoring the nature of Islamic societies and of Islam.
They learned that those who sent them off on a messianic mission did not know, and certainly did not provide any guides for others to know, about Islam. How could the Administration, after all, send troops to Iraq in order to "help the Iraqis" who "all want freedom" and to "help them create a new Iraq" if they had also explained to those soldiers the real tenets of Islam, and the 1300-year-old split between Sunnis and Shi'a, and the Arab supremacism which the Kurds keenly felt, and which is rooted in the very nature of Islam, and goes back to its very origins?
They learned that the generals themselves did not know, and never made time to find out about, Islam, instead accepting the ludicrous reading lists provided by such people as John Esposito and others of that ilk (see here about "The Reading List of General Vines").
They learned that the civilian leadership, both Republican and Democratic, largely consists of people too busy to sit down and study on their own. Instead, they are too reliant on brief summaries prepared by junior aides who are not likely to know much themselves, and certainly not to have the self-confidence to deviate from the accepted alternatives (Bush's messianism or the unrealistic "realism" of Baker and Scowcroft). These are people who are eager to substitute for reality their own sense of things derived from meetings with smooth, outwardly westernized, plausible Arab diplomats and exiles and other nonrepresentative representatives of the Arabs and Muslims. For example, in what way did Prince Bandar represent the real Saudi Arabia, except insofar as he was a master of deception well-versed in leading American Infidels by the nose (a skill naturally valued among Muslims)?
May people like Q rise high in the army. May they rise high, if they choose, in politics. May they exploit their exploits for the sake of getting elected, and then changing the atmosphere, and the understanding, first in Washington, and then, by degrees, in the other capitals and countries of the West.
Re: "Why not? Simply because the Infidels remain Infidels, and the Muslims, Muslims".-Hugh
Yes, it's the supremacism, stupid. The belief-system makes one superior.
The American Military have never been stupid. They think ahead, for instance, a US Naval Attaché in early 1900 Japan wrote a report that was strikingly similar to what would eventually become the battle plan for the Empire in WWII. Learning the truth first hand is one reason why I thought it was necessary to go to Iraq. Today’s Officer Corp has an opportunity if they reach out and grab it, to go down in the annals of American military history alongside the great Military men of the last 230 years. One of my favorite quotes is from General Patton,
"A man must know his destiny… if he does not recognize it, then he is lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times, fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder… if he has the imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what fork in the road he should take, if he has the guts, he will take it."
tgusa, "Learning the truth first hand is one reason why I thought it was necessary to go to Iraq."
EXACTLY. We don't need the western academia bullshit version of Islam, nor did we need to see Saddam's "election" results of 100% approval. We needed to find out the results of a secret ballot. To find out what Iraqis REALLY thought. And then with the lessons learned from Iraq we can decide what to do about the rest of the Middle East, given that Iraqis are the least radical of all the Arab Muslims.
All the information is at hand now. The solution is documented for anyone who can be bothered to read it.
Send the leftist lapdogs to Afghanistan. Maybe then they'll quit thinking Islam wants peaceful coexistence with the West.
So the Muslims have no aspiration to be a part of a nation state, but instead, it (their aspiration) may extend to the umma -- the worldwide Muslim community
However, those who think that the Sunnis and Shi'a will cooperate with one another do not know Islam.
Muslims will live together in the Umma, but not in Iraq.
Which is it? Or do you really know? It's like you are so desperate to show that the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is so bad, that you will even condradict yourself to do it.
Do you know what, if they want to live together in an Umma, let them. I would be happy with that. The thing about Islam that is imperitive to understand is that they want to prescribe it for everyone. They want world domination, and they are not happy to live with me, a free speaking Englishman amongst the same as their neighbour.
So it's going to keep coming, and when the military men get to the top in politics, they are still going to have to send men abroad to fight - in Iraq or some other distant Kaliphate.
Unless we change their mindset. And I think that democracy in Iraq is a good start. I don't think that men will be slaves to a religion or an ideology. And I don't think that they should be slaughtered because of it. And if they can't change themselves, then they should be helped to do it.
And I'm sorry, I still don't follow you, and in fact I just think that you're down right dangerous.
"Peaceful Muslims should not ignore or deny this, but should acknowledge the aspects of Islam that are giving rise to violence, and repudiate and fight against them".
Instead, the people who ask the question: "Why do so many Muslims believe that a mandate to harm unbelievers is true Islam?" are attacked by the "moderates". Thus the "moderates" join the "extremists" in an attack against unbelievers.
The truth is that "moderates" would ignore unbelievers and attack the "extremists" by marches, by preaching, by demonstrations, if they are "moderate". Instead, they tell unbelievers to ignore the "extremists" and not ask questions as to why so many Muslims believe that a mandate to harm unbelievers is true Islam.
The truth is that both "moderates" and "extremists" have a supremacist attitude and believe that their belief-system alone is absolute truth. This assumed supremacist attitude is what causes both "moderates" and "extremists" to attack unbelievers for asking questions.
I do not believe that any belief or belief-system should be treated as objective truth. I am not required to accept a belief as an absolute-fact. I do not have to accommodate a supremacist attitude of a believer in a belief-system that asserts that only believers have the absolute truth. I am entitled to believe as I wish about anything, and to critically analyse Muslim or any other beliefs with facts that contradict the dogmas of the belief.
Beliefs are not proved scientific facts. Many Muslims believe their belief-system should not be questioned, and even believe that they have a mandate from the belief-system to attack me or even to kill me for asking questions. Why do many Muslims believe that?
I don't want to be told that the "extremists" do not represent true Islam. I want to see the "moderates" marching, demonstrating, debating the "extremists" and telling the "extremists" that I have a right to believe as I wish about anything so long as I do not impose my beliefs on others.
Hopefully, that happens more often. There is also the other side where military personnel became so identified with the locals that they returned and become Muslims, convinced about the good side that they see. Saudi Arabia, for example, leaves copies of Qur'an, Islamic literature, etc, where the US servicemen can easily access. If anyone ever do this to any Muslim soldier or army (say with the UN), you can be sure you will get a lot of flak.
The truth of course, is that there is a good side and a dark side. It depends on which side they see and believe.
I find it odd that God only talks directly to one guy when He reveals the truth. I don't believe that.
"So the Muslims have no aspiration to be a part of a nation state, but instead, it (their aspiration) may extend to the umma -- the worldwide Muslim community
However, those who think that the Sunnis and Shi'a will cooperate with one another do not know Islam.
Muslims will live together in the Umma, but not in Iraq.
Which is it? Or do you really know? It's like you are so desperate to show that the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is so bad, that you will even condradict yourself to do it."
-- from a posting above
There is no contradiction. Loyalty to fellow Muslims, fellow members of the umma, will trump any loyalty, such as it might possibly be, to Infidels.
That does not mean that always and everywhere this or that group of Muslims is not happy to have the Infidels (for example, the American soldiers in Iraq) kill others, deemed Muslims, on their behalf. Sunnis would be delighted if the Americans killed members of Shi'a militia, and would be just as delighted, or even more so, if American soldiers suffered greatly in doing it.
The Shi'a are of course delighted that the Americans got rid of Saddam Hussein, and are delighted to see them fight Sunnis here and there and everywhere.
Amd one should not overlook the way in which some Sunnis regard the Shi'a not as Muslims in any case, but as Infidels (see the statements of Al-Zarqawi and his successors), or the way that some Shi'a regard the Sunnis.
A nice example of a Muslim trusting fellow Muslims of a different sect is Saddam Hussein, transferring more than 80 planes of his airforce to Iran, in order that they might be protected from American bombs, during the Gulf War. Even though Saddam Hussein had, unprovoked, attacked Iran in 1980, and conducted an eight-year war against Iran, his instinct was to trust Muslim Iran. Of course the Iranians kept the planes; they were perfectly happy to keep those planes from being destroyed by the Infidel Americans, but equally happy not to return them to Saddam.
Noting that Muslim loyalty is to fellow Muslims does not mean that there is no hostility between and among Muslims.
i wish Q the best of luck. we need a statesman to come from somewhere, and soon.
ref the General's Reading List, i did read somewhere that Marine General James Mattis chose
'Defeat into Victory' by Field-Marshall Slim, about WW2 in Burma.
i hope he found it helpful, as it is the record of a man coming back from defeat,leading a multi-national-cultural force, fighting a fanatical, ruthless and resolute enemy, in a country with a wretched climate and topography, whose population was largely hostile to his presence.
Mirth-minded members of the small but choice French delegation may welcome the title's calembour, offered in the same spirit as that displayed on many occasions by the celebrated sonneteer and Bawd of Avon who, in addressing a Dark Lady, alluded to what "doth point thee out."
"This is the main hope: the officers and men who, though they were told nothing except pieties about Islam and about how to be 'culturally aware,' nonetheless discovered certain home truths on their own."
Hugh, not surprisingly, the word gets around quickly. Many in the military are now quite aware of the nature of Islam before they go on their first tour due to the knowledge passed on from those who went before them. The Pentagon might put Armstrong, Esposito and the like on the recommended reading lists, but the experiences of one’s peers holds a lot more weight.
tgusa, "Learning the truth first hand is one reason why I thought it was necessary to go to Iraq."..
I read that and thought, "tgusa" volunteered to go fight in Iraq, but reading further I understand that I was wrong.. that tgusa is just another chickenhawk, so ready to send others to die in battle, but not himself.
And, thanks for the anachronistic excuse to invade Iraq.. WMD's, were a lie, no connection between Osama and Sadam, bringing democracy to Iraq (the excuse dredged up after the WMD excuse was proven to be a lie) isn't working..so now we have "Learning the truth is one reason to invade Iraq"...who are you Dubya, Rove, Tony Snow which of the administration apparatchiks?
Nariz,
You are nothing more than a jihazi w/o the guts to say so. No you are more, you are also an ignorant moron who lives in a BDS bubble. Do images of Bush plague your dreams? Do you wake up in the middle of the night with wet bed sheets? You know about as much about Iraq as you do about who I am or what I have or have not done. I will not waste any more time arguing with you, our men have already figured out what you are up to. Plus, you are obviously incapable of understanding anything that is not written in crayon. Take your donkey and get lost. Or are you so thick you can’t even see when you are being ignored.
While the audience I would most cherish would be that of men in the military who have served, or are serving, or willl serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in much smaller numbers, in a few other places (that need not be mentioned), this is particularly true of this article. I hope that if servicemen are in fact coming to JW, and to this thread, that they will circulate this article to others, whatever else they do or do not forward. One hopes that frustration or annoyance with high muckamucks, pushing their messianic nonsense, will not lead too many of those officers and men to abandon both the military and other possible expressions of intelligent patriotism. One hopes that some will indeed regard what they now do, after having been in Iraq and Afghanistan, as even more important in the war of self-defense against the Jihad: to enter graduate studies related to Islam so that they may help dilute the effect of the apologists who have seized control of university departments concerned with Islam and with the Middle East; will enter politics, so as to bring realism to the civilian corridors of power; or will remain in, and rise high, in the military, in order above all to spread, and help others to spread, a view of Islam based on a familiarity with the tenets (based on knowing Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira), and the attitudes and atmospherics of Islam (which they observed, and experienced, in Iraq and in Afghanistan). Only thus will policies needed to constrain and contain the varied instruments of Jihad, and to work to divide and demoralize and weaken the Camp of Islam, be constructed. From knowledge, and not the repetition of cliches and dreamy banalities.
Unless we change their mindset. And I think that democracy in Iraq is a good start. I don't think that men will be slaves to a religion or an ideology. And I don't think that they should be slaughtered because of it. And if they can't change themselves, then they should be helped to do it.
And I'm sorry, I still don't follow you, and in fact I just think that you're down right dangerous.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 13, 2006 12:36 PM
My God, if you know anything at all about islam then you should know that "men will be slaves to a religion or an ideology!" That is the entire problem; muslims are mindless slaves to the ideology of islam and they do not want democracy! If SECULAR democracy could be established in islamic nations and supported by muslims, that would be great and would solve many of today's problems but it CANNOT AND WILL NOT HAPPEN. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the constitutions are based on Sharia, so the people of those countries voted for islamic law. That's the only "democratic" aspect of those current governments. And the barbaric Palestinians elected a radical islamic terrorist organization to represent them, a real mandate for "democracy."
You may not be a religious person and consider religion irrelevant. If this is the case, you are very foolish to assume that your stance on religion is universal. Islam is the most radical, fanatical, and totally dominating religion in the world and it has not changed or moderated one bit in almost 1400 years. To suggest that this "mindset" can be changed is wishful thinking. Islam has and can be controlled, but democracy cannot be imposed on people who do not want it.
How do you "help" muslims "change?" Haven't we sacrificed enough of our brave soldiers and squandered enough of our money trying to help the muslim savages in Iraq? What do we owe these bellicose barbarians? We got rid of their brutal dictator but I have come to the regretful conclusion that we would better off if he had remained in power, and so would the Iraqis. It was not our obligation to depose Saddam and "free" the Iraqis. If the Iraqis wanted "freedom", they would have had their own revolution like the Iranians. I'm sure many Iranians long for the good old days of the Shah. When you think things are so intolerable that they can't get any worse, they always do.
Why do you consider Hugh's suggestions to be "dangerous?" Why not let these tribal warriors kill each other with wild abandon and let their neighbors invest manpower and resources in the internecine melee, instead of sacrificing our men and money to a hopeless cause?