What does Sun Tzu say about if I know my enemies but not myself? ;-)

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 3, 2008 2:33 AM

" The 'body-count' syndrome is actually a "trap" laid by Al-Qaeda into which the Americans have "fallen" blindly, added Lebanese-American researcher Fawaz Gerges, an international relations specialist at Sarah Lawrence College, New York.

"You cannot win this war on the battlefield, because there is none," said Gerges. "You're facing an unconventional war. The more you rely on military might, the more you lose the war of ideas against Al-Qaeda and the militants.

"In Iraq, we fell into their trap, we gave them more ideological ammunition.

"So many Muslims all over the world are now convinced, and this feeling is so entrenched, that the war in Iraq is not against Al-Qaeda, but against Islam."

So, Muslims whom we're to believe are inherently peaceful and minding their own business on their personal interior spiritual struggles will turn 180 degrees on a hair-trigger and behave like al-Qaeda, whose ideals are supposedly antithetical to theirs?

Gerges detects a growing appreciation of this phenomenon "even at the heart of the American administration," expressing his belief that a "new understanding" exists which casts the outgoing George W. Bush's war against Al-Qaeda as "counter-productive.'"
-- from the article above

Fawaz Gerges is a doubtful authority on anything. His main interest is the care and feeding of Fawaz Gerges. He is also an apologist for Islam, and he sees an opening, by declaring the necessity for an "ideological outreach" that will naturally require the services of, and pay very handsomely to, a certain Fawaz Gerges.

The government would do well to watch out for that man-on-the-make, the demander of big fees (why, when asked if he would merely write a letter to help some Egyptian Christian who feared persecution if he was deported, Gerges demanded many thousands of dollars), the "consultant" to ABC (or is some other network that has been inveigled into being impressed by the likes of Fawaz Gerges?). Too bad that Sarah Lawrence did not realize, when Gerges was first hired, and then made his way up, and up, and up, did not realize that his rise was eminently resistible, and that the chair held by the great Adda Bozeman, the very lady who, long before Huntington, identified various "cultures" and, in particular, was worried about Islam (this was 30 years ago), about its meaning and its for her undeniable menace (her papers can be found at the library of Sarah Lawrence, her books can be bought), should never have been inherited by so transparent, so different in every way from the scholar of international affairs Adda Bozeman.

It is true that the war is primarily ideological and not, at this point, military. It is untrue that the kind of solution that the fawaz-gerges suggest -- starting with giving the Arabs what they want in their demands for further reductions in the size of Israel, and consequently further reductions in its ability to exist as an independent Infidel state, and not as a dhimmi state living not by right but by sufferance -- will be of any use, to Infidels in this, now obvious to many, titanic struggle.

I'll find a little more on Gerges in the Archives and post it here.

Posted by: Hugh at February 3, 2008 2:46 AM

Here's something:

Fitzgerald: Fawaz Gerges and that "reforming Islam" grant money

Fawaz Gerges, professor and television "analyst," wants to make sure that Infidels are greatly impressed with all the "ferment" and movement toward "reform" that is supposedly visible all over the "world of Islam." It is guff and blague, but useful for a transparent propagandist for Islam, and the peoples and states suffused with Islam, all over Dar al-Islam.

Someone who is apparently impressed with Fawaz Gerges is one Anthony T. Sullivan, founder and main beneficiary of a "consulting firm" known as "Near Eastern Support Services" (think James Akins, think Eugene Bird, think Raymond Close, and you'll know exactly what is going on here). Recently Sullivan managed to hornswoggle the editors of "Modern Age," a publication put out by the Intercollegiate Studies Association (which should put one in mind of Richard Weaver, Friedrich von Hayek, and Josef Pieper, not of Muslim apologetics, and certainly not of Fawaz Gerges), into publishing his piece all about that ferment, that "reform," within Islam that Infidels should do nothing to disrupt.

In this Sullivanesque view, a view that Gerges pushes, some kind of "battle goes on for the soul of Islam." In order to ensure that the Good Muslims triumph over the Bad Muslims, Infidels must be attuned to, solicitous of, Muslim sensibilities. No critical scrutiny of Islam. Acceptance of what self-anointed "moderate Muslims" ("moderate" in what way? to what end? for how long? with what degree of certainty?) tell us to think about Islam, as an inoffensive faith somehow kidnapped or hijacked or captured by Bad Muslims, who haven't a textual leg, apparently, to stand on. And not only must Islam be free from Infidel scrutiny and criticism, but key words must be left out of the Infidel vocabulary altogether. Gordon Brown has apparently told his Cabinet not to use the word "Islamic" near the word "terrorism," lest the British government offend.

And in Washington, a man closely connected to the Saudis, James Guirard -- some say the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi lobby, all-powerful as ever, channel their views right through him -- keeps pushing the view that the word "jihad" should never be used by Infidels, but only the word "hirabah" that the Saudi government favors, a word which lets Islam as a belief-system off the hook, and implies simply an ideological disorder that can in time be cured.

The article by Anthony T. Sullivan in "Modern Age" perfectly encapsulates this line of apologetics. No doubt its appearance will enable Sullivan to hike the fees that his Near East Support Services charges to sky-high levels, when he makes his pitch, or pitches his woo, to members of the Al-Saud or Al-Maktoum or Al-Thani or Al-Sabah families -- but really, we all have to eat, don't we? In this article Sullivan tries to convince us, yet again, that the world of Islam is in a ferment, experiencing a veritable orgy of self-questioning and "reform." And Sullivan quotes, to this deliberately misleading effect, Fawaz Gerges: "We are in the throes of a ...new wave [of democratization]."

About this one can say several things.

1) It is flatly untrue. Those naive hopes about "the opening up of the Mubarak regime" were smashed with the same club that the Egyptian police use to smash political opponents. The truest Egyptian democrat now sits in an Egyptian jail. Ditto with the supposed "opening up" of Saudi Arabia -- purely trivial and cosmetic steps.

2) It ignores the fact that the principles of modern advanced democracy are flatly contradicted by Islam. The will expressed by the people, mere mortals who should be submissive to Allah, does not count. What counts is the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an, and glossed by the Sunnah. This is something that Bush, Rice, and many others simply don't understand. They don't understand that Islam is a total belief-system, a Total System, doubly totalitarian, claiming to regulate every area of a Believer's life, and laying claim as well to the entire globe.

3) "Democracy" when it is temporarily practiced always leads to more, not less, Islam. This is because the discontent of Muslims, over bad government, will always take on an Islamic cast, and always lead to more Islam, not less. And that is true whether or not the discontent is justified, as it is, certainly, with the corruptions of Abbas and Fatah, or Mubarak and his Family-and-Friends plan, or the Al-Saud, the Al-Maktoum, the Al-Thani, the Al-Sabah, and all the other despots and potentates and beglerbegs and pashas of this world that some insist, absurdly, as seeing as somehow akin to our own world, when it is nothing like it.

I don't know if Gerges has gotten on the gravy train of government and foundation grants to study, or promote, the "reform of Islam" that he and others, eager for the same grant money, keep talking about. Perhaps his television retainer, and other fees, are enough. But in Fawaz Gerges' case, I doubt it. No, I'm sure some "reforming Islam” grant money (Vartan Gregorian's Carnegie Foundation? Or some other innocent, shelling out the dough?) has gone, is going, or will go his, Fawaz Gerges', way.

Surely you don't disagree.

[Posted by Hugh at July 9, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at February 3, 2008 2:48 AM

"Addressing ideology is more effective in neutralizing the threat we face than taking out a few high-value targets who can be replaced."

I don't know how we can address the ideology without addressing the very foundations of Islam itself. The ideology of the Jihadists and terrorists is Islamic theology.

We certainly can't reinterpret Koranic verses for Muslims, or tell them that the life and sayings of Mohammad in the Hadith were inaccurately reported.

Trying to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear isn't going to do the trick.

It seems to me that the only way to address the ideology of the Jihadists is with honesty. We should be telling Muslims that Mohammad was a self-serving fraud, and that the Koran is no more the eternal, unalterable word of God than Huckleberry Fin.

The U.S. should be supporting a "radio free Islam" dedicated to telling Muslims the truth about Mohammad, his teachings, and the consequences to themselves of being in bondage to Islamic theology.

The problem can't be addressed in any other way. Will it work? who knows, but honesty is the best policy.

Posted by: rational at February 3, 2008 2:58 AM

Michel Moutot has observed a situation. He has derived a problem. Then he forgot about the situation and demonstrated that the perceived approach was bad.

Where are the body counts he cites? I don't see them. The "current state of winning" in Iraq comes not so much from killing the big dog AQI people. It comes from tracking the bloodthirsty monsters down and either eliminating them or bringing them to justice.

If all Muslims are thugs then we are, indeed, trading one set of thugs for another. And that may well be the case. It is presumed that we have not studied our enemy and don't adequately know it. (The penetrated Pentagon suggests this at the highest levels.) On the other hand might the people who need to know already understand what they are fighting and be trying something new? I do have my suspicions in this regard.

With specific regard to Michel Moutot's article I see a lot of what we are doing wrong and rather little in the specific example of what we should do that is the correct solution. That is just as well. I rather dryly note the singular lack of success the French have with their own internal problems with Muslims.

And I do know that as an engineer I have a low tolerance for people who bitch about not doing it right without laying out specific strategies for doing it "right".

We must fight the ideology. That is granted. Now I ask, "Yes, and then what?" Let's lay out specifics. What are the various things that can be done and how must they be implemented? I have seen some good, if impractical, suggestions. And I have arrived at others by observation.

Holding the bad ideologies up to the light of critical inspection, letting the inadequacies be known, and so forth is good. Now, can we get wider coverage than simply Jihad Watch or Front Page Magazine? Can we push Ali Sina to the mainstream? Can we get Robert more into the mainstream? (David is wonderful except as a public speaker. Robert - well, I'm a fan of his.)

I am sure there are other ways to undermine the ideology we're fighting. "Light of day" is important. And it is just as important to reveal OUR ideology in the full light of day in contrast to what we claim is a broken ideology. And we must make sure that it is known, "This is how we attempt to live our lives today, tomorrow, and into the future." Then the comparison with the broken ideologies becomes more apparent. This is HOW. The heck with "why". And it's how we, the people of the United States of America, strive to live. We recognize we fall short. We try to fall less short, tomorrow. Robert's doctrinal comparison of generic Christianity and Islam is a very good tool.

(And Stephen Coughlin's Master's thesis is a good place to start for understanding why we must make this work.)

{^_^}

Posted by: jdow at February 3, 2008 5:18 AM

Of course, the Bush GWOT is a farce. Early in 1998, Jamaat-i-Islami (Islamic Society) invited Osama bin Laden to attend their annual convention. Bin Laden declined after US missiles were sent at his genocide camps. On September 15, 2001 - with Americans being pulled out of the WTC/Pentagon rubble - Bush took Oval Office dictation from an Islamic Society of North America jihadi, and vomited, "Islam is peace." After billions have been wasted on nation building money pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, jihadism pollutes the entire world. While doing nothing to maintain a Judaeo-Christian presence in the Middle East, Bush is working slavishly to advance Turkish, Bosnian and Albanian interests in Europe.

Problem: Bush designed a foreign policy that would serve the anti-secularist ends of his Saudi masters, and used American troops as cannon fodder in that depraved pursuit.

Solution: practise nation-destruction in the muslim cess pools. Constitutionalize anti shariah policies, and deport any muslim who EVER did anything to advance the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat Tabligh, Wahabism, Jamaat-i-Islami, etc.

Anti-semitism is action, and here it is from Barry Lando, a producer of CBS "60 Minutes." Lando engages EVERY possible form of specious logic to attack Israel. Again, why is the Israeli's existence not accepted as an integral aspect of Western Civilization.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20080201_giving_israel_a_pass/

Posted by: supercargo at February 3, 2008 5:38 AM

"Addressing ideology is more effective in neutralizing the threat we face than taking out a few high-value targets who can be replaced."

Perfectly, critically true, but there's a hitch: a government is a poor instrument for this purpose.

Our troubles in this connection stem from the enervation of the philosophy and moral/ethical code of the free world, most particularly the United States, and its displacement by moral and cultural relativism. We should also note the assault on Western moral confidence made possible by government-run schools in which our spratlings are systematically propagandized about Western "racism," "genocides," and similar invented sins. One way or another, successive generations have had their fidelity to free ideals undermined, perforated, and displaced.

Except when bluffing at the poker table, you can't beat something with nothing. This is particularly true in matters of ideology. Governments have weapons and material resources, but only populations can have ideologies...and ours is all but shriven from us.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at February 3, 2008 6:03 AM

Waging war on tactic will bring us nothing but tears.

What if waging war on a tactic is the best that we as a people can do? What if Bush’s decapitation tactics are the most brutally ferocious actions that the American people can stomach?

Dealing with the theology of our enemies requires us, at a minimum, to be mean to at least some Muslims just because they are Muslims. It requires us to deny some, if not many, Muslims entry into our country just because they are Muslim. It requires us to state that there is no place in America for someone who cleaves unconditionally to the central tenets of Islam. It demands that we communicated to the people of benighted Muslim polities that we will never suffer good Muslims to possess nukes. And we all know that the only commandment of the post-Christian, multicultural, welfare state is that thou shall not be mean to preferred minorities.

For those of us who believe our very survival depends on taking the war to our enemies with a brutal ferocity the 06 elections were a debacle. The party that left Reagan got its clock cleaned by the party of moveon.org. The party of moveon.org will permit us to worship no gods but the false gods of political correctness. Moveon.org betrays everything necessary for a Free people to survive.

If you believe in God now is the time to pray for our beloved country.

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?

Posted by: Ralph127 at February 3, 2008 7:57 AM

Newsweek reports that Taliban is buying their way out of Afghan prisons. Ergo: nation building isn't working. Ergo: Bush will continue nation building.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107576/output/print

Our media is saturated with comment on oil prices, but they refuse comment on the consequences of the transfer of Western assets to islamic terror entities. Then there is the other major transfer: Karzai protected Pashto heroin wealth. US troops have no presence in Helmand County, which the UN has noted is the the main source of heroin production in the world. Dutch and Canadian troops have reported that every inch of territory captured from Taliban in 2006 was returned to them after the Afghan entity was handed control of the territory. And Karzai has issued numerous condemnations of US air attacks on his beloved Pashto heroin dealers.

Posted by: supercargo at February 3, 2008 8:13 AM

Amazingly, our ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, recently said (see AP, JPOST 2/2) that an unintended consequence of the Iraq and Afghan campaigns was to strengthen Iran. I couldn't believe it when I read it. Here was a refreshingly honest and realistic statement, and self-critical to boot.
Now the question is, can we formulate policy that avoids those negative, unintended consequences as we set off on another nation-building exercise for "Palestine"?
Already, the Olmert dhimmi regime has halted construction in key Jerusalem areas that Bush had pledged to let Israel retain, but now wants off-limits. I guess the new peaceful Palestine is rising.

Posted by: jewdog at February 3, 2008 8:32 AM

"This article includes one point that we at Jihad Watch have been making for years: Addressing ideology is more effective in neutralizing the threat we face than taking out a few high-value targets who can be replaced".-Marisol

This is indeed the central theme of JihadWatch and until the Qu'ranic and theological dogmas of Islam in this matter are honestly faced we will get nowhere and Islam will be a danger to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. In many ways "moderate" Muslims are between a rock and a hard place on the matter. They can't admit the facts re the theological foundations of Muslim violence (physical and psychological) because of malice, embarssment or fear. The last two reasons are the major problem.

I can just imagine some Muslim at the Mosque getting up and saying "You know what: JihadWatch and others who say that domination and violence is central to our religion, that Jew-hating is a feature of Islamic dogma, etc. are right. We can't point to anything they say as being inaccurate. All we can do is fart platitudes or go into smear mode re the truth. Maybe we should stop the bullshit".

How long would it be before that guy is in trouble and gets paid a visit?

Posted by: Frank at February 3, 2008 8:36 AM

Yes, its the give a person a fish and you kept his family fed for a day, teach him to fish and you've done them a lifetime service.

How about, convince your leader who the real enemy is and you've kept the country safe.

If your leader is a blockhead like McCain, trying to hide his record with bluster and by wrapping himself in the flag, we are screwed.

Leader of lemmings.

We now truly need divine help.

Posted by: dgene at February 3, 2008 9:11 AM

The problem for "moderate" Muslims is that once they honestly admit that the dogmas of Islam mandate Jihad and other supremacist behaviors the whole religion could collapse. But not to address the facts (read Spencer's Blogging the Qu'ran) guarantees deception and self-deception on the matter. However, once the questioning begins within Islam-the cat will be out of the bag.

The Soviets faced a similar problem. In the 1970's the rhetoric and behavior of the USSR was extremely aggressive and condemning of the West. However, the entire system was failing. Even Brezhnev (privately) admitted to his daughter that communism was "a total failure". Yet, he led the gallery in extolling the democratic-egalitarian nature of communism because he sensed that once the truth was admitted the whole system would collapse as it did eight years after Brezhnev died in 1982.

The need for "Summits" and the constant danger of nuclear war with the USSR was based on the fact that the Soviet system was a failure and a lie. They could not admit the truth. They were between a rock and a hard place on the matter. So the scam continued...

http://englishrussia.com/images/brezhnev_times.jpg

Posted by: Frank at February 3, 2008 9:13 AM

BTW, there were many apologists for the Soviets who took a similar attitude as apologists for Islam ("don't upset them"). They condemned the critics of the Soviet system and called them "extremists", etc. Even Pope John Paul was condemned for his criticism of the Soviets (Brezhnev wanted him dead for that). However, once the criticism began within the system (Solidarity, etc.), it did not stop and the USSR finally was completely exposed as very corrupt and anything but egalitarian. Once the Soviet facade fell "reform" went straight to collapse.

But there was a whole gallery of people in the West and elsewhere who accepted Soviet deception and chose to decieve themselves about the true nature of the Soviet system. The situation with Islam is deja-vu again. The truth is that the source of the conflict with Islam is in Muslim dogma-as the Cold War conflict was rooted in Soviet dogma.

Posted by: Frank at February 3, 2008 9:41 AM

Not referring to any of the comments at JW or any of the above excellent comments it above; a couple of things that I have observed in general.

First, almost everyone, everywhere you travel now recognizes that islam is an issue -- a threat. A few years ago, most people knew that islam was some obscure religion.

Second, everyone seems to acknowledge that a confrontation involving islam is unavoidable and at some level violence, killing of innocents, hostage taking, suicide bombings, is to be expected.

Third, most people recognize that negotiations will only postpone the unavoidable.

Finally, most hope the problem simply goes away and refuse to do what must be done in order to merely survive the coming onslaught.

Truly amazing.

Posted by: witness at February 3, 2008 10:17 AM

He shot an arrow in the general direction of the target, but missed the mark. Al Qaeda and their leaders are an effective symbol of leadership and inspiration to jihadi groups, and it sure would not hurt the cause to get them.

On the other hand he does get it right that ideology is the "uniting umbrella" and the ideology is found in the Quran and Milestones.

I look at this war as multi-layered: the kinetic front must be fought, the political front must be fought, the economic front must be fought, but we will never pull the roots out if we don't directly confront the ideology and the flaws in unreformed Islam as well.

Posted by: Thanos at February 3, 2008 11:03 AM

"We've lost 126 soldiers since we've been here. One hundred twenty-six of my soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of Multinational Division Central, in a Jan. 23 briefing with military analysts. "And I'll be [darned] if I'm going to advocate giving up ground that they died for. We are just not going to do that. The place will go back in a heartbeat."

"If you've got an area that you've taken away and you walk away from it, 96 hours later the enemy is back--and he's intimidating the population (and) he's killing innocent people," said Lynch. "So we just have to manage this transition very diligently."

Posted by: pez at February 3, 2008 11:19 AM

"(Using) body-counts as a criterion to measure effectiveness is a bit like Guantanamo:"

????????????

"air-strikes and the elimination of 'wanted' individuals not only prove fruitless, but actually become counter-productive."

Strike 3.

The writer of this article is a buffoon and does not know himself; or he does know himself and wants to hide what he sees, but is still a buffoon and does it poorly.

Obviously, Islam itself is the source of Islamic fundamentalism. The Quran is a 25 cent version of the The Art of War; and should be called "The Art of War for Imbeciles"

Posted by: Layer Seven at February 3, 2008 11:37 AM

Why won't these Analysts just come out and be up front with what they wish to convey. Like, if Surrender is their solution, Just say so.

Why get so wordy beating around the Bush, confusing everyone with what your trying to say. Use the space to better inform us the benefits of just lying down like a Rug.

After the Rolls and Wrinkles are kicked out of us, Whats next? A good Vacuuming, cleaning us of everything? Of course, good Rugs will not have anything dropped on it afterward so, there goes Supper. Good Rugs usually end up in good Homes so expect many Guests to stop by to admire and walk on such nice Rugs. Alas, so much traffic will be wearing on the rug. In time it will lose its luster. Fore, like most nice things subjected to over use. They wear out and need replacing. Not to worry, there is a World full of Rugs out there.

If only they would just lie down.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at February 3, 2008 11:38 AM

War has always been very complex.

To succeed, it would require effective use of espionage, logistics, technology, allies, information controls, and many other things more than anyone at jihadwatch could ever conceive.

Besides the effective use of all these at hand, the US's most important asset is its people.
A nation with the largest smart population can win. "Smart" is a comparative word, and I will not make it a subject here.

In the field of espionage, human intelligence was totally destroyed by Jimmy Carter, and it has only been rebuilt since 9-11. We still have a long way to go to become established in this area.

Logistically, the US military has been quiet fearsome in the eyes of the world, but the counter logistics could not be implemented in full force because of constrains imposed under the International Laws, invented in the west. Example: It's illegal to cut off food and water supplies to Gaza, or Waziristan etc. In general, the USSR was defeated mostly by our counter logistics. We starved them economically by having all our allies, including all the Muslim nations, join in the worldwide economic embargo. The FBI shut down the USSR's electronic manipulation of the international banking. Similarly, the US has attempted to freeze money from flowing into terrorists' hands, but it has not been 100% effective because of their traditional practice of Hawallah. Many westerners bitterly denied that Hawallah is still effective, but faithful Muslims are like an old fashion American farmer who will look for the rightful owner of a $100 note he found on a sidewalk. Tribal loyalty is incomprehensible in the mind of the west, but it is kept alive in the eastern hemisphere. The only way to stop the Hawallah is by a complete elimination of currency, but this itself is the "Mark of the Beast."

I will not discuss the technological aspects of the war because the US has the technology.

The west used to have strong western alliance, but Europe is dying and Russia is no longer one.

In the area of information controls, the US mainstream media have not been of much a help--sadly, the media have aired the enemy's propagandas. However, outside of the US, our military has been very successful in the counter propaganda efforts, especially in Iraq, but we have strong oppositions at home who complain about the US for brainwashing them. another of the failures we have in information control is the leak of classified information from the CIA and at the States Department, as well as, to a limited extent, the FBI.

As I have said, "War is very complex," we can talk endlessly. A citizen of a country can only contribute a drop in the ocean of this complexity, for which reason, the US's greatest asset is still its people, including whites or non-whites, and Muslims or non-Muslims.

It is the people who must know this: "If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle".

Posted by: ssa at February 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Al Qaeda's relation to the danger we face from Muslim terrorists is analogous to the relation of Microsoft to computer technology.

If some megalomaniac Bond villain for some lunatic reason wanted to destroy all computer technology, but in his infirm calculations determined that the best and only way to do that would be to destroy Microsoft, anyone could see that this might temporarily cripple the computer industry, but that the underlying causes of that computer technology -- American and generally Western genius -- would, if unimpeded, simply over time regenerate that computer technology.

However, most people in the West (notwithstanding the undocumented anecdotally based optimism of the poster "witness" above at February 3, 2008 10:17 AM) are themselves in an ideological straitjacket of their own collective making -- one that for complex reasons (ultimately boiled down to a perversely excessive self-criticism coupled with an irrational ennoblement of Third World cultures necessarily inclusive of Islam) prevents them sociopolitically and psychologically from connecting the dots beyond Al Qaeda to the swamp of Islam.

Posted by: cantor at February 3, 2008 11:46 AM

The conflict is very simple: Islamic civilization and Western civilization cannot co-exist together. The two civilization have two very different law codes, that are derived from very different sources.

The issues that we are fighting over are:

(1) Equal treatment of all people (women and non-muslims) under the law.

(2) Freedom of speech and the concept of the individual.

(3) Seperation of state and religion.

These are fundamental difference that cannot be resolved by democracy.

Let us look at Iraq for example. They have based their constitution off Islam (No. 3), thus women and non-muslims are not treated equal (No. 1), and speech is not free (no. 2). Is that a victory?

Even worse, Islam is invading the west and is winning. They might not be pitched battles, but they are victories. Just look at those three above again. Each is being eroded by Islamic forces. They use money and influence to payoff the greedy (Bushite conservatives) and use "guilt trips" to weaken the stupid and soft (left wing liberals).

Together it is a perfect storm. One is blinded by the world economy and the other is blinded by the multiculturalism.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at February 3, 2008 12:23 PM

"The more you rely on military might, the more you lose the war of ideas against Al-Qaeda and the militants."---Gerges, from article

Well, he's half right. We are losing the "war of ideas", and personally, I don't think it's a winnable war.

Those Muslims dedicated to killing and conquering non-Muslims will never agree to disagree. For them, it's all or nothing. That's their side of the war of ideas, and what can be done with that? We might as well try reasoning with reptiles.

"the word "jihad" should never be used by Infidels, but only the word "hirabah" that the Saudi government favors, a word which lets Islam as a belief-system off the hook, and implies simply an ideological disorder that can in time be cured." (Hugh, quoting James Guirard )

Oh, goody! More dictation concerning what we are allowed to say. Thank you, Mr. Guirard, but when people are attacked in the name of "Allah" and "jihad", then jihad seems to be the appropriate word to use.

"Hirabah" (I just looked it up) means: terrorism. That's fine, but also used in tandem with this particular word is a quote from the Qur'an, 5:33 :

"The punishments of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom save those who repent before you overpower them; you should know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Ever Merciful." (Qur'an 5:33)

Confusing, no? This sounds to me like more of the silly PC "anti-Islamic" nonsense, and that those involved in "hirabah" are considered to be waging war against Allah.

Any idiot, even I, can tell that this verse does not apply to Muslims, but to so-called Infidels.

If this verse is being invoked along with the request to use "hirabah" for "jihad", then why don't we hear about these terrorists being duly punished? This is so transparent as to make air look murky!

"And it is just as important to reveal OUR ideology in the full light of day in contrast to what we claim is a broken ideology." (jdow)

I agree with this statement in principle, but in practice, it might not be so easy. I suppose we could begin from the UDHR, and work from there with examination of the common denominators Western governments share. As such, though, we don't have a single, unanimous ideology.

"Waging war on tactic will bring us nothing but tears. (Ralph127)

War on Tactic! An excellent description, Ralph127!

Posted by: Abscedere at February 3, 2008 1:27 PM

I am wary of claims that "war is complex", in part, because President Bush would probably make such a claim. In fact, war is not so complex as it is difficult to accept the measures required to bring it to a successful conclusion. In the case of our spat with the Middle East, it is apparent that the problem is islam. Accepting that fact - and the implications - is the hard part.

We cannot draw out this conflict. If there is one certainty upon which we can hang our hats, it is the certainty that democracies will not sustain a long war. Enemies are destroyed by massive, debilitating strikes - strikes coming so quickly so as to preclude recovery between them. Enemies are destroyed through the destruction of their economic engines - the Middle East's economic engine, oil, is particularly vulnerable.

To win the war in the Middle East quickly, we must seize the enemy's oil fields and, thereby, destroy his economy. Further, I propose that we raze the infrastructure of islam. It goes without saying that islam and muslims have no place in the West.

Our current prosecution of the war is akin to fighting Nazi Germany by declaring war upon the Waffen SS - and behaving as if the rest of Germany played no role in the contest. We are very fortunate that FDR thought more clearly than our present leadership.

Posted by: HotSpur at February 3, 2008 1:54 PM

Infidel Pride asked:

What does Sun Tzu say about if I know my enemies but not myself? ;-)

Master Sun does not say, but I would imagine he would counter with the question, "If you do not know yourself, why do you fight?"

He who knows the enemy and himself
Will never in a hundred battles be at risk;
He who does not know the enemy but knows himself
Will sometimes win and sometimes lose;
He who knows neither the enemy nor himself
Will be at risk in every battle.
--Sun Tzu, The Art of War (Owen Lock, trans.)

Posted by: Dennis_Mahon at February 3, 2008 2:13 PM

'One is blinded by the world economy and the other is blinded by the multiculturalism.'

Not quite:

We are blinded by the world economy. And we are confused by the multiculti-diversity politcal correctness that is perverting our society.

The Muslims don't have these problems.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 3, 2008 2:20 PM

I suspect Sun Tzu omitted that fourth leg of his elegant tripod -- What if I know my enemies but not myself? -- for good reason: he probably assumed it was self-evident that if you lack self-knowledge, you will be incapable of knowing your enemies.

Posted by: cantor at February 3, 2008 2:20 PM

"Addressing ideology is more effective in neutralizing the threat we face than taking out a few high-value targets who can be replaced."

All well and good, except that in this case the ideology is ISLAM. It is seen as a religion. Addressing the ideology means addressing Islam. People won't accept it. Even those who claim to be horrified by the acts of the terrorists get angry and defensive when you dare to suggest that their religion is the problem. They rally round the terrorists rather than inquire into what they are being taught.

"If you've got an area that you've taken away and you walk away from it, 96 hours later the enemy is back--and he's intimidating the population (and) he's killing innocent people," said Lynch. "So we just have to manage this transition very diligently."
posted by Pez

Our soldiers are being pressured into retreating from Islamic lands and then the local population is being intimidated? Blame the locals! They're the ones who had a chance to stand up to the terrorists and instead joined hands with them. Instead of joining forces with those dreadful infidel soldiers, they maintained solidarity within Islam. Please, no one should shed a tear over "intimidated" people.

"Waging war on a tactic" could bear fruit if we were allowed to wage war. As long as we have to try and distinguish between "good" and "bad" Muslims and try to surgically strike only the "bad" ones, we're losers. If the people are going to support the terrorists, then the people should suffer the consequences. Germans who didn't support Hitler weren't spared the consequences of war.

Dare I say it? George Bush was right the first time when he said "if you're not with us then you're against us". He should have stuck to his guns and he should have required anyone who claimed to be "with us" to back it up with actions.
Either you support Islamic-style terrorism or you don't. There's no middle ground, no gray area, no "but".

Posted by: PMK at February 3, 2008 2:25 PM

P.S.: The Sun Tzu logic is thus: If you don't know yourself, then you don't know the precise object (i.e., your Self) that an enemy would target.

The more accurate predicament, however, that the West is in today I don't think even Sun Tzu in his wisdom could anticipate, for such a degree of colossal and suicidal stupidity probably never occurred to him:

What if you hate yourself and don't know your enemy?

This, alas, has a logical answer: you aid and abet, either consciously or unconsciously, the enemy who hates you.

Posted by: cantor at February 3, 2008 2:27 PM

Fawaz Gerges may say something that appears to make sense at times; then keep listening for a few more sentences and realize you are listening to a seasoned propagandist for the Islamic agenda. When I see a network credulously put him forward as an authority for Americans to learn from and base policy on I can draw no other conclusion than that we have a very dumb bunch of reporters in the mass media. And Sarah Lawrence? The average person has more common sense than what you find at our universities right now.

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at February 3, 2008 2:36 PM

As I responded to justask's http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018353.php"> statement a few months ago:
"We are trying what worked in WWII. Depose and rebuild. What worked against Nazis might not work with Islam but I think its the best of the politically tenable options at the moment."

But it's a half hearted attempt. In WWII we made an intense, all or nothing effort to kick hell out of our enemy's military, morale, industry, economy, and ultimately the population who provided the support for the aforementioned. Once we prevailed, we disassembled and specified the new structure of their societies, including the structure of the government, schools, and economy. Any armed insurrection in the conquered countries was dealt with promptly and harshly, and "Mein Kampf" was not allowed to form the basis for the new government. We held a tight reign on those countries until the changes took root.

The current effort is a vague shadow of the WWII effort. We are depending on rationality in an area of the world where precious little of it exists… and we continue to dream that moderation can defeat extremism. It seems self-evident that this technique is a pipe dream, if for no other reason than the definitions of "moderate" and "extreme". Moderates are, after all, moderate.

In this conflict we have killed only the enemy's machines, not his will. Precision weapons applied only to leaders will not do this, allowing Koranic and Sharia references in constitutions will not do this.

The time when difficult, unpleasant choices will have to be made is approaching fast, and we must consider them soberly. We need to grow up, and insist that our leaders do likewise.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 3, 2007 6:21 PM

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 3, 2008 3:00 PM

May I suggest you put that quote up in the banner of this website. I mean, it kind of sums up the whole purpose of Jihadwatch.org.

Posted by: Monte Gardner at February 3, 2008 3:00 PM

Here's how I learned it:
"If you know yourself, and you know your enemies, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles".

We've heard the republican candidates discuss somewhat the nature of the enemy that confronts us. The democrats have been mostly silent, issuing vague statements about being 'tough on terror'.

I would like to see, in the big presidential, televised debates a question in which the moderator gives that quote by Sun Tzu, then asks each candidate "Who are we, and who is our enemy". Given the critical nature of this war, I would be willing to discard every other issue and base my vote solely on the answer given to that question.

Posted by: Monte Gardner at February 3, 2008 3:04 PM

Ralph asked (somewhat rhetorically),

"What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?"

Serious answer:

Riyadh.

The apostate Saudi state would vanish in an instant. Fallout would blow in the direction of the corrupt UAE, not Mecca.

Posted by: skevin at February 3, 2008 3:24 PM

President Bush knows the "others" (the enemy). It's the Jew. George W. Bush knows his enemy.

Why else United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, handing the America's and Israel's enemy a victory? Isn't the Jew a far more pernicious enemy?

Why else a Palestinian terrorist state in the Holy Land? Bush knows the enemy well. So does close family friend James Baker.

Posted by: monk at February 3, 2008 3:49 PM

"President Bush knows the "others" (the enemy). It's the Jew."

You'd surely think so from our current foreign policy.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 3, 2008 3:53 PM

I would like to see, in the big presidential, televised debates a question in which the moderator gives that quote by Sun Tzu, then asks each candidate "Who are we, and who is our enemy".

I already know the answer ALL of them will give, Democrats and Republicans (with only slight variations in flavor):

"The enemy we face is a deadly foe -- they are fanatical extremists who are trying to hijack the good religion of Islam, and they are just as much a threat to us as they are to the vast majority of Muslims in the world who are good, decent people."

That's why I'm not voting this time -- first time I've ever not voted for President.

Posted by: cantor at February 3, 2008 4:02 PM

Forget Churchill! Sun Tzu, Patton, Sherman, Napoleon, Caesar, Ghengis Khan, etc etc..are rolling in their graves.

We keep acting like we have re-invented warfare in Iraq. We invaded, removed the hostile government, then replaced it with hostile people who hold the same views (perhaps worse) as the ones we replaced. Then we anoint them as allies. Wow! This proves that our collective understanding of warfare (and what it means) has gone DOWN in the last 50-100 years. Today, we think war is some kind of reconsruction plan, where billions of dollars are given to the very people we are fighting, so we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves "liberators".

Why not look for the weak points in Islamic civilization and exploit them to our benefit? Hugh Fitzgerald has pointed this out over and over again (However, we are not allowed to "exploit" anymore are we?). That is why I don't get mad at the Russians. They are just taking advantage of our stupidity. Yes, they are stupid for helping the Iranians, but we are even dumber for we are trying to rebuild Babylon! We might as well dump the cash into the middle of the Atlantic ocean. In fact...it would be improvement on the current strategy!

Hardheaded....

"They always go for the thickest place in the fence" Vice-Admiral John de Robeck, Gallipoli, 1915 (A Short History of World War I By James L. Stokesbury, page 123)

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at February 3, 2008 4:11 PM

The feckless political leaders and the hostile intellectuals of the West have somehow accepted the preposterous and doomed role of being the protestants of Islam - reformers of Islam from without. These people are the peddlers of the insane notion that our attitudes towards Islam and Muslims will magically, in some as yet undescribed and unexamined and unexplained way, be the vehicle of the Reformation of Islam. It is perhaps the most insane notion, the most arrogant notion, the most foolish and dangerous notion that has ever gripped a society. Their idiotic decision to fashion themselves and the West as the Reformers of Islam is evidence of a complete lack of understanding, not only of Islam itself, but of their role in the world, and their obligations to protect and defend the legacies bequeathed to all of us by our ancestors.

The Muslims show no sign or hunger for a Reformation that in any way should be found comforting. The tendencies among Muslims to reform their squalid religion almost always takes the sinister form of more Islam and stricter Islam and Islam Uber Alles. Islam and Muslims show no signs of moderation. Even in the West, where the moderating influences of our society should presumably have the greatest impact, Muslims show themselves to be more, not less inclined towards trenchancy.

Those unicorns among them desperate to see Islam reformed in ways the West would find satisfactory number only in the tiniest minority of Muslims, nearly as rare as genuine unicorns. The rest of Islam either tacitly or explicitly accepts the trajectory of Jihad across the planet. Most Muslims also seem to accept and believe in the Ii>Islam Uber Alles aspects of their vile creed - Islamic supremacism is an axiom of Islam.

Perhaps the first thing which should have happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have been the prompt firing of virtually every "expert" on Islam who failed to predict the dire implications to the West of Islamic theology. Only now is it clear that the thinnest margin of thinkers and intellectuals understood or foresaw, even sometimes in only vague outlines, the consequence of Jihad in our newly globalized era. It is extremely ominous for our side and our fight that even today, nearly 7 years after that 9/11 atrocity, that the full coterie of liars, dupes, idiots, sellouts, pimps, and outright traitors which constitute this field of "expertise" about Islam are still fully peddling their filth, and are fully employed and fully deployed across the spectrum of government and academia. They are, to a man and woman, still spewing those exact same tedious arguments of insidious intent which placed us in our current predicament . Meanwhile, the West stumbles along in the dark like a patient etherized.

Posted by: jsla at February 3, 2008 4:27 PM

I think the Religion of Peace website says it best.

Quote:

"It's all about Iraq, isn't it?

Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal
and the Maldives and...

...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29"

/Quote

That's the nutshell. When they form armed groups you fight and kill them. This is not a newly-discovered or theoretical concept in need of reconsideration.

Posted by: Beagle at February 3, 2008 4:32 PM

"But what of those other people who are waging jihad? Even if we put al-Qaeda as an organization out of business tomorrow, we would not have dealt with the ideology that would encourage new groups to appear in its place."

Absolutely correct! We can no more end Islamic terrorism by eliminating Al Qaeda than be can eliminate Christianity by targeting the Pope or Billy Graham with cruise missiles.
The life-blood of Islamic terrorism is Islamic theology. So how do we address that?

Posted by: rational at February 3, 2008 6:39 PM

"So many Muslims all over the world are now convinced, and this feeling is so entrenched, that the war in Iraq is not against Al-Qaeda, but against Islam."

This talk about ideology is indeed at the root of it. As I have said many times on the blog. This war is spiritual and theological in nature. It is their god 'allah' against WHAT??? In the west we have abandoned our spiritual and moral underpinnings. Those in power deny all of the God talk. It makes them feel uncomfortable. We don't have a counter answer to their moral claims against us. Our PC'ness is but a guise to put down what made this county great.

As far as I can tell they have the high ground morally (even including the lies) compared to use. We revel in our debauchery and call it open mindedness. They do not put up with it. As perverse as allah and all that Islam is they have a God, we in the west have no God. I and most here agree that Islam is base and totally misrepresented of what is good and true. However in the average (ignorant and blinded) Muslims eyes Islam is better than the fast and loose west. In the average (ignorant and blind) westerner Islam has been hijacked and a few radicals are the problem.

This country was founded on some basic principles, the core of all of them is that they were 'God given', we as a nation and people have deliberately rejected that God. The most effective counter to the ideology of Islam is the Judea-Christian ideology.

I have many ideas on how to run the war to win but I would not explain those until the west is ready to get behind the ideology issue first. Otherwise we are wasting our time and money.

Rev 2:16
Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.
Luke 22:36,38
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." . . They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

مراجعة 2:16
ثم تابوا ؛ او آخر ، وأنا قادمة اليكم بسرعة ، وسابدي الحرب ضدها مع السيف من فمي.
لوقا 22:36،38
وقال لهم ، "ولكن الآن ، من لديه المال هو حزام اعتبر طول ، وبالمثل ايضا حقيبة ، وليس له من السيف لبيع وشراء معطف واحد." . . قالوا : "الرب ، نظره ، وهنا هما السيوف". وقال لهم "كفى".

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 3, 2008 6:45 PM

How is it that too many of our leaders still think this is a "criminal" problem, with those who would commit mayhem charged as individuals and put through the criminal justice system?

It was questionable when Bill Clinton did it in 1993, after the first WTC bombing. How is it that so many people still think it's the way to go? It doesn't do anything to prevent future acts of barbarism. It doesn't discourage people whose aim is to die along with their victims. Why would they fear the criminal justice system? It clearly doesn't discourage the larger community that cheers it on and praises the dead and makes heroes of their family members.

Osama bin Laden should be a pariah in the Muslim world. Instead he's a hero. Case closed.

Posted by: PMK at February 3, 2008 10:04 PM

All these schlubs ("analysts") need do is:

go through the recorded files of Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch since their inception for ALL of the major clues needed to counter the subversive ideology of the Jihad (based in the violent Koran and totalitarian Hadiths).

And to understand that Islam, itself, is anti-Constitutional, anti-secular, and anti-The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And that only AFTER Islam's peaceful Reformation (maybe in 50 or 100 years, at the earliest) should Muslims be re-allowed to enter the West.

Meanwhile, their numbers need to be kept at a minimum, and only permitted to send-in small groups of closely-watched diplomats and constantly-monitored consular attaches, etc.

No "students", "guest workers", "tourists", "teachers", or any other member of such a de facto Fifth Column should be allowed to move into the West.

To permit them to emigrate from Muslim lands (Dar al-Islam/Land of Submissives) into the Infidel Zone (Dar al-Harb/Land of War) is to condone a slow motion invasion, an implicit colonization and the tacit undermining of the West.

As their own explicit dogmas declare.

The ideology of Mohammad is: "Destroy all who resist".

That's you, boneheads ("analysts")!

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 4, 2008 1:23 AM

"So many Muslims all over the world are now convinced, and this feeling is so entrenched, that the war in Iraq is not against Al-Qaeda, but against Islam."

Although somewhat correct, this flawed statement has the enemy knowing the focus , the what we are really fighting, the faith of islam itself. Now, to get the U.S., it's "leaders", and people to say just that would be a start.

Islam is the enemy. Reform it when your sward is at it's neck, not the other way around.

The Nazi ideals were dead before Germany was reborn, the same with Japan and it's "Shinto".

It will be required again before this enemy is gone, the enemy of islam itself. Only then can the Middle East be reborn.

Free of islam, free at last.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 4, 2008 3:54 AM

The firing of Mr. Coughlin by the Pentagon tells us all we really needed to know about the Bush Administration's prospects of winning the 'war against terrorism' given its present mindset and uderstanding of Islamic doctrine--they're practically nil.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 4, 2008 12:57 PM

Instead of calling it 'counter-terror' someone, sooner or later, some brave journalist, has GOT to translate it into 'counter-jihad'.

Only Sri Lanka (and India, perhaps, at times) has to worry about the Tamil Tigers.

Only Spain and perhaps France has to worry about Basque rebels.

Only Nepal has to worry about the China-sponsored Maoist 'insurgents'.

Only Peru had to worry about the 'Shining Path'.

But the WHOLE WORLD has to worry about the Jihad and the jihadis, the preachers, plotters, paymasters and practitioners.

The calculating clerics who dream of a planet-wide Muslim despotism glutting itself upon - and, in the process, destroying forever - all the accumulated intellectual and economic capital (read, 'loot') of the entire Infidel world, and destroying the human soul with sharia unlaw, do not have just New York or London, Paris or Tel Aviv in their sights, but Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, Moscow, St Petersburg, .

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 4, 2008 2:59 PM

I went from Francis W. Porretto's Eternity Road blog to the Power LIne website, and then to the weekly Standard's Speaking of Islam Liberty and Grievance in Canada post by Lee Harris.

Ok, now that everyone has said their peace, and we all acknowledge and basically agree that the Beast must now somehow be "neutalized," or "put to sleep," does anyone have a plan on how to actually get close enough to then perforate one of the Beast's vital organs?

No? Then perhaps we start conversations to do so. We should really try to kill it. Render "it" like the Mayan, Incan religion is: dead. How do we inject "entities" into the heads of all the Islamic people, and drain the thoughts driving the passion for committing ones mind to this (for lack of a better word) ideological-religious Beast?

What a pleasant thought to think the Beast will be killed within our lifetime, and privileged we will be to have witnessed it. Or to have actually taken an active roll causing the Beast's demise.

Posted by: k24anson at February 4, 2008 9:31 PM

k24anson-

Debunking the Koran is the sword to the heart of the Mohammedan monster.

The pre-official-Koran "Koran" fragments found in a Yemeni mosque will provide that sword, which is now being forged by scholars in Europe.

Kill the "perfection" of the Koran, and Islam falls to pieces as based upon a colossal pseudo-intellectual fraud.

And recognized as the worst act of deception in human history.

Islam: plagiarism apotheosized.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 4, 2008 10:51 PM

The war of the body count is the wrong way to go per say, on the war on terror, however one can make the argument that if you kill all those who oppose you, have you one the war? , it would appear so. The war on terror needs to be a clandestine operation. One that is not reported in the news, one in which body counts are not reported everyday. Rather an Ql Qaeda leader just simply disapears of the face of the earth. As far as Muslims seeing this as a war on Islam it is! Whether we want to face it or not in the West, this is a war of ideologies.

This is a religoius holy war, Islam must dominate, for if it does not then the Qu'ran is wrong, and yet the Qu'ran can not be wrong can it. Becuase if the Qu'ran is wrong then the very basis of the religion is wrong. Which means Muhammid was wrong, there is no Mahdi comming back, the Ayatolloh's are wrong therefore this religion collapses upon itself.

Posted by: buzliteyear at February 5, 2008 12:21 AM

With the " dicovery" of oil in Chad, I fully expect large oil fields containing vast amounts of oil to be discovered somewhere in Israel. When this happens I fully expect also, that all the Arab nations shall complain that this is Arab land and therefore they are intitled to this oil or at the very least , procedes from these fields. When the Arabs do not get their way, I would then expect another wave of suicide bombers to attack Israel and other countries. In addition I could see the Russians arguing on behalf of the Arabs and thus begining another arms race as they seek to exploit this and provide " up to date " munitions for the Arab countries. the U.S and it's military having been bled white from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan I believe will offer nothing more then token military aid to the Israeli's. I hope that this does not happen but I would not be suprised , based upon the lack of leadership both in Congress and by the future President, as well as from the American people.

Posted by: buzliteyear at February 5, 2008 12:32 AM