In Human Events this morning I discuss a simple truth that American policymakers prefer to ignore:
Last Friday an Afghan interpreter shot dead two of his employers, American soldiers serving in Afghanistan. He was able to gain access to them, of course, and to be in their presence, because he had won their trust with his translation work and they let their guard down.Their trust was misplaced; and they were not the first American soldiers to die in this way and -- tragically -- likely won't be the last. This episode yet again illustrates a key but almost completely overlooked difficulty that hamstrings our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well: there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a potentially violent jihadist short of elaborate behavioral profiling such as the Israelis do on air travelers.
The U.S. military denies that he was a jihadist at all, saying that he was a "disgruntled employee" angry about pay and treatment. Our military is so awash in political correctness that they -- to paraphrase the words of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey -- would think it more tragic if their commitment to "diversity" were damaged than if another massacre such as the Fort Hood murders occurred.
The denial that the Afghanistan bomber wasn't a jihadi doesn't ring true, any more than did the official denials that the Fort Hood jihad massacre had anything to do with jihad. I myself once had a job in which I was disgruntled about pay and treatment; perhaps not so oddly, I never opened fire. There is obviously more to this story than is being revealed, and most likely, here again what is being left out has to do with Islamic jihad, and with the impossibility of distinguishing a "moderate" from a "radical" Muslim.
Given the almost universal acceptance of the iron dogma that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, this impossibility may come as a surprise. But in reality, there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence whose authorities have renounced and rejected violent jihad and Islamic supremacism, and declared that anyone who holds to the idea that Muslims have a collective responsibility to wage war against Infidels and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law is a heretic.
If there were such a sect or school in Afghanistan or elsewhere where there is an American military presence, one could rely on the peaceful group and shun the group that taught violence. But there is no such group. Contrary to popular belief, not only is the principle of jihad warfare against unbelievers not the province of a "tiny minority of extremists," but it is taught by every mainstream sect and school of Islam.
The U.S. government, of course, denies this fact and bases numerous policies upon the assumption that the vast majority of Muslims share universally accepted notions of human rights, and abhor jihad terrorism. The deaths of these two soldiers are the fruit of that false assumption -- and just as they were not the first casualties caused by this mistaken idea, they will not be the last.
This is not to say, of course, that nothing at all can be done with the locals in Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan is not unique to that country: the locals can be paid off to fight, but even then their loyalty is not guaranteed. And once the money flow stops, they will fight for the next paymaster -- and when no paymaster is there, they will fight each other. This is a weak reed on which to build a reliable alliance, and has already been shown to have been a spectacular failure in Pakistan, where the U.S. government has showered billions over the years upon the Pakistanis in order to induce them to fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, only to see a good amount of that money funneled to those very groups by jihadist ideologues within the Pakistani government. Yet the Pelosi Congress's solution to this problem was to triple aid to the Pakistanis, without devising any improved mechanism for accountability.
Ultimately, the Obama Administration is going to have to make some hard decisions about the level of access that Muslim employees and collaborators of all kinds are given to U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But this will require Administration officials to take off their politically correct blinders and face some hard and inconvenient truths. If they do so, these two soldiers who died in Afghanistan will not have died in vain.
Troops in Iraq who have tried to train, tried to go out on missions with, Iraqi police and Iraqi soldiers, know just how indifferent they are to their missions, how often they simply don't show up, or leave early, and how often, too, when the Americans have been ambushed, local Iraqis manning checkpoints seem always to look on with total indifference, as it American casualties do not bother them in the slightest, and they have nothing to do with it.
But, I have been informed by those who served in Iraq, very often, it is clear, the local Iraqis were perfectly aware that such an attack or ambush was about to take place, and scuttled away, to a safe place, from which to watch, and take pleasure, in whatever carnage could be wrought, or at least attempted, among the American troops.
In Afghanistan I don't think the level of meretriciousness is quite so high. But it's there. How could it not be? How could those raised up in Islam, inculcated with the suspicion of, and hatred towards, Infidels that "reconstruction" projects, candy and soccer balls for the kids, and a touching faith in mortensenian three-cups-of-tea style deep and true trust and affection being created between Infidel Amerian and Muslim Afghan -- true no doubt in a handful of remarkable cases, and untrue with everyone else, and as always, it is the "everyone else" upon whom sensible policies should be based, if the goal is not to squnader, but rather to husband men's lives, and money, and materiel, and morale. That should be the goal -- but is it?
"War is deceit." - Mohammed
Don't say you haven't been warned.
More stupid infidel dogs please report to the dogmatic Islamic meat grinder.
And no Koran reading allowed, kaffirs!
" The denial that the Afghanistan bomber wasn't a jihadi doesn't ring true, any more than did the official denials that the Fort Hood jihad massacre had anything to do with jihad. I myself once had a job in which I was disgruntled about pay and treatment; perhaps not so oddly, I never opened fire. "
In other words you have no evidence that it was a jihadi attack.
and by the way disgruntled employees have been known to open fire on their employers, this believe it or not has happened before (but not with you obviously)
"The U.S. government, of course, denies this fact and bases numerous policies upon the assumption that the vast majority of Muslims share universally accepted notions of human rights, and abhor jihad terrorism. The deaths of these two soldiers are the fruit of that false assumption -- and just as they were not the first casualties caused by this mistaken idea, they will not be the last."
Nonsense, its war and the enemy is bound to try to infiltrate. These are isolated incidents, do you know how integrated afghan and coalition units are?
But you dont even have evidence that this jihad related, you just saw an occasion to push your "all Afghans are muslims and are ordered to kill infidels" nonsense on your readers.
Excellent the way Robert Spencer ends on a positive and hopeful note.
Exterminate the trolls!
Robert,
I can't believe that the main street media have not picked up that statment that George Casey made (about Fort Hood). I don't want to pick on a member of our fighting men,a group of men who risk their lives for us, but I think for next year's awards, he looks be a front-runner for Dhimmi of the Year
Mp11, I think you miss the main point of this piece when you argue that there is no hard proof this attack was not a direct result of a jihadi mentality set into action. Yes, in fact, this may be one of those rare cases where a disgruntled employee simply went "postal." So what? Much more importantly, thanks to Robert's scholarship this piece teaches us:
"But in reality, there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence whose authorities have renounced and rejected violent jihad and Islamic supremacism....Contrary to popular belief, not only is the principle of jihad warfare against unbelievers not the province of a "tiny minority of extremists," but it is taught by every mainstream sect and school of Islam."
This fact of islamic jurisprudence is what Robert states is denied by the US government. Now do you contend that this statement of Islamic jurisprudence is "nonsense?" Can you cite Islamic authorities to the contrary? Please do if you want to be taken seriously. The refusal of the US government to acknowledge the true nature and brutality of the Islamic faith is the theme of this piece, not whether this particular Muslim did or did not go postal.
Moreover, I read nowhere in Robert's piece where it is written per your quotation marks "all Afghans are muslims and are ordered to kill infidels." Am I missing something or did you attempt to attribute these words to someone when, in truth, no one uttered them? That conduct demonstrates a lack of ethics in addition to what appears to be a lack of knowledge.
So in sum mp11, if you cannot enlighten us with teachings about Islamic jurisprudence and you engage in lying by creating false quotes, maybe you should read a little more before trying to argue. We invite you to do so.
"Moreover, I read nowhere in Robert's piece where it is written per your quotation marks "all Afghans are muslims and are ordered to kill infidels." Am I missing something or did you attempt to attribute these words to someone when, in truth, no one uttered them?"
Come on buddy, dont act like you actually care about evidence.
Here you go man :
"No one, of course, is considering the possibility that no matter how helpful we are to the Afghans, they will still hate us because of core teachings of Islam regarding Infidels."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/rockets-hit-us-consulate-site-in-afghanistan.html