| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
This week, Myrick said she began contacting other co-chairs of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus, such as Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), Rep. Richard "Bud" Cramer (D-Ala.), and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) about setting up a meeting with Coughlin and Pentagon officials to find out the circumstances behind the firing. -- from this article on the firing of Stephen Coughlin
That is good news. For this article by LTC Joseph Myers is one of the clearest, best, and most important statements ever posted here -- or posted anywhere -- about the failure of the American government, and the Bush Administration, to begin to think and reason clearly about what it must do if it is to understand the worldwide, long-term, even permanent threat of Jihad.
The statement by LTC Myers saddens, and stirs, and infuriates. One is saddened, stirred, infuriated that such a piece had to be written by an American military man, in order to denounce the stupid and cruel and dangerous decision to fire Stephen Coughlin (oh, sorry: not to fire, but "not to renew his contract"). His firing leaves us at the beginning of a very long, likely endless (but manageable, if we come to our senses in time) conflict with one of the very few people who understands the matter, Stephen Coughlin, shortly to be out of the Pentagon -- while one Hasham Islam (and who knows how many others like him?) sits contentedly in his office, just down the hall, no doubt, from his supposed boss and puppet, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.
Meanwhile, there remain the incoherence and the squandering of men, money, and matériel, the sheer stupidity about doctrine, the timidity about learning too much that in turn might require taking steps that people don't know how to articulate or explain -- because they are ignorant, and mentally lazy, and have been for decades. There remains the rigidity, the not wishing to figure out how a situation (for example Iraq) can be made to work to our advantage. It can only be made to work to our advantage if we are willing to ruthlessly exploit the Camp of Islam's pre-existing divisions, rather than to attempt naive and sentimental feelgood missions based on the assumption that "democracy" is transplantable, and that the very word "freedom" means the same thing to "ordinary (Muslim) moms and dads" in the Middle East as it does, say, to those who attend caucuses in Iowa or New Hampshire or in any other of the remaining forty-eight, and that surely "prosperity" and "freedom" will somehow -- the "how" of that "somehow" is never stated, never explained -- lessen the threat that comes from the doctrine of Jihad, and from Muslims all over the world. Some are ruling the states of Iran and Saudi Arabia, some are breeding rapidly in the historic heart of the West, and some are simply content to say and do very little, but in the end will go along, as they must, for so it is written, in Qur'an, and Hadith, and Sira.
I wrote above that the piece saddens, and stirs, and infuriates. Mostly, right now, it stirs. It stirs one to be implacable in one's disgust at those who have misunderstood so much, and been so lazy in their misunderstanding, and have made other men pay, some like you and I mere taxpayers shelling out our share for that trillion-dollar continuing folly in Iraq, and some with their lives, like the two American soldiers killed by an Iraqi soldier supposedly fighting with them -- despite the official line, this is not the first time it has happened in Iraq -- for a goal that is unattainable and that in any case, from the Infidel point of view, makes no sense.
Rage and disgust should not get in the way of ice-cold analysis. But keep track of those whose stupidity, rigidity, timidity, and cupidity have gotten us into this. Keep track of all those who, of all parties, have been the recipients in ways direct and indirect, of Saudi, Kuwaiti, Emirati, and other Muslim Arab largesse for so many years, as this country failed to come up with either a foreign policy, or an energy policy, over the past thirty years that might have made sense, because it would have been based on a clear-eyed understanding of Islam.
We can't take much more of these fools. The army, losing its young officers, can't. The civilians, forced to spend hundreds of billions unnecessarily every year, can't. The country, forced to endure the continued in-migration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are apparently flooding in without a single attempt to do the obvious: halt all Muslim migration, and help support those in Europe who wish to do the same thing, because Western Europe is even further along the road of decay and disarray, if such were possible, than such decisions as the firing of Stephen Coughlin demonstrate is the case here.
Rage however you wish. But rage.
Posted by Hugh at January 18, 2008 5:52 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"halt all Muslim migration, and help support those in Europe who wish to do the same thing, because Western Europe is even further along the road of decay and disarray," --posted above
Oh yeah. Obvious.
Posted by: jennasmith![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 18, 2008 6:16 PM
People do not want to believe what this immigration portends. They do not want to accept that the seeming morality of protecting religious minorities is not appropriate in the case of those who admire Mohammed, those who are furthering the ends of a retrograde social philosophy, those who are full of smiling lies and an intent (or ultimate effect) of domination.
Our great-grandchildren will have to struggle with an implacable enemy inside the gates, when the battle could have been won at far lost cost.
at January 18, 2008 6:19 PM
Our great-grandchildren will have to struggle with an implacable enemy inside the gates, when the battle could have been won at far lost cost.
Stillbreathing,
Just like a previous generation had to pay far more to defeat Hitler after 1940 than would have been called for only a few years earlier.
We haven't learned from history, so we are condemned to repeat it. Too many people want peace at any price and that is what we'll get. The problem is the only price the enemy will accept is our total surrender.
Posted by: PMK at January 18, 2008 6:33 PM
Greetings:
One can only hope that Congresswoman Myrick's effort to expose these "fifth column" activities will turn into some kind of "Joe McCarthy" moment and alert Americans to how and how much their goverment and politics have been infiltrated and abused by the Islamists.
Posted by: 11B40 at January 18, 2008 6:47 PM
Speaking of RAGE....
What are the readers of this blog actually DOING to inform others of the threat facing us? I see so many reading and typing responses to brilliantly written posts like this one, but where are the ACTIONS and the IDEAS we need to fashion some kind of response OFFLINE?
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: JihadHotline(360)326-6730 at January 18, 2008 6:50 PM
"One can only hope that Congresswoman Myrick's effort to expose these "fifth column" activities will turn into some kind of "Joe McCarthy" moment"
That would be nice except for one little hitch: Most everyone thinks McCarthy was evil.
Posted by: cantor at January 18, 2008 7:24 PM
For years I tried to tell everyone I met how difficult I escaped the dangers living in a Muslim country. My American friends don't have ear. Some threw cold should at me. When I asked, "Where will you go when Muslims rule over you?"
"Uh, it won't happen here," that's their answer.
Hell, life is too good here, even for Christians who rap bible.
Yeah, it's easy to spit bible verses, but oh, crap, when come to vigilance, the people have none.
It's too late! I am done! Don't bother, now.
The attitude of American leaders are the attitude of most people I encountered.
Our children will groan and you will never lift their head again.
Too sad to say that mine are amongst yours.
at January 18, 2008 7:39 PM
No, not for publich, but I will send you email.
Posted by: ssa at January 18, 2008 8:11 PM
Fine. c/o Robert.
Posted by: Hugh at January 18, 2008 8:29 PM
"The attitude of American leaders are the attitude of most people I encountered." -- ssa
Yep, it's not just a problem with our "leaders"; but hey, it's always nice to shift the blame and make the problem easier than it is.
Posted by: cantor at January 18, 2008 10:08 PM
I find it amusing that as our policy planners, military leaders, and intelligence analysts are finally embarking on a winning strategy against Jihadi terrorism, that you are infuriated by it. Fortunately, David Horowitz's hate campaign against Islam is seen by most people, in government and out, for what it is - an extreme, untenable, and morally corrupt position held by a tiny minority - much like the fundamentalist radicals of Islam are a minority of their religion.
Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 1:05 AM
Just remember the first word in PC is "political". Shame on the DOD for letting politics trump common sense, and shame on those whose minds are so warped by their politics that they see everything in life as revolving around their idiotologies.
at January 19, 2008 1:24 AM
I just read Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty" speech, which, in the days when American children were taught history, was known to everyone. Its direct relevance to the present situation, especially when it speaks of delusive hopes and of a storm not only gathering but actually on its way, struck me greatly.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Posted by: Paolo at January 19, 2008 9:32 AM
Paolo,
I've never read this speech in its entirety, until now. Only the last seven words were considered worthy of repeating, by the time I was in school--what contempt for eloquence our educational system has!
Thank you for posting it. It's both stirring and thought provoking.
Posted by: Abscedere at January 19, 2008 11:14 AM
Jefferey Carr is either a muslim or an idiot, which is it?
Posted by: JohnLadd at January 19, 2008 10:41 PM
Hugh wrote:
"For this article by LTC Joseph Myers is one of the clearest, best, and most important statements ever posted here -- or posted anywhere -- about the failure of the American government, and the Bush Administration, to begin to think and reason clearly about what it must do if it is to understand the worldwide, long-term, even permanent threat of Jihad."
Indeed Hugh, indeed. ALL of the continuing laudation issued as a result of what Joe Myers wrote is spot-on accurate. In fact, Joe stated what no other senior, active duty military man has stated publicly to date, with the lone exception of Maj. Coughlin's thesis, which itself had a certain level of obscurity until recently.
There is a reason for this that is crucial to understand.
What Joe Myers wrote was a PRIVATE EMAIL response to what Bill Gertz reported about Maj. Stephen Coughlin's Pentagon confrontation with Hesham Islam in his "Inside the Ring" column of January 4, 2008.
Joe Myers had given NO ONE permission to publish that E-mail. NO ONE.
Just imagine the potential problems, with respect and consideration to what has occured in Maj. Coughlin's life, that Joe Myers is now subject to, both from Hesham Islam and other Islamists within the DoD, and their Dhimmi's who allow them to exist at the Joint Staff level of the Pentagon and elsewhere within the DoD.
I pray to God we do not see an article entitled "Saving LTC Myers" anytime soon. The rage I hold within myself over what has occured to Maj. Coughlin will be miniscule in comparison.
Posted by: Sean Osborne at January 20, 2008 7:11 AM
If LTC Myers gave no one permission to reprint his letter, then it should not have been reprinted. No would-be justification is acceptable. I don't know the story of where it was originally published, or how it got posted here, but it must have been put up with the assumption that permission had been granted.
Apparently, that was incorrect.
at January 20, 2008 8:33 PM
I've had formal ROE established with LTC Myers for well over two years now. Joe set the rules - I've adhered to them to the letter.
Upon seeing his E-mail ("Joint Staff Islamic Law Scholar sacked....") being posted in the blogosphere the next day, I decided per established ROE to send Joe an email inquiry.
His response was to confirm "The e-mail has already hit the blogs...just say it is circulating and in the public domain OBE... I have not "given anyone permission to publish."
Overtaken By Events. Yes, assumptions were apparently rampant; made without any inquiry of Joe. Lessons learned at this point.
at January 21, 2008 10:01 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)