Open Letter To Rick Santorum

Open Letter To Rick Santorum Dear Mr. Santorum,

Your answer to a question about national security issues involving Afghanistan  exposes a vital element of truth on the surface, while an unpleasant stream of hypocrisy flows beneath the surface.  

    Thanks and a tip of the hat to Paul Hoffman, whose Facebook post brought to my attention Robert Spencer's post, where I found this video clip. 

How long do you want to wait?  Until the security of our country is ensured, that's what the job of the commander of chief is and you make that decision, not the generals--you make that decision based on an analysis of how virulent the threat of radical Islam is and you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly, not just militarily, you confront it first by being honest with the American public about what this threat is. 

    This President has sanitized every defense document, everything, the word radical Islam does not appear anywhere , why? because we are fighting political correct -- we are trying to fight this politically correct war and not being honest with the American public as to who the enemy is, how virulently they are and why they hate us and what we must do to stop...

 

how long ?

    The question of the duration of our occupation of Afghanistan can not be answered with a clock, calendar or time table. 

strategic objectives

national security

    If the strategic objective is to permanently end  Afghanistan's membership in the set of state sponsors of terrorism and prevent Afghanistan from being used as a training ground and staging area for terrorists, then the eradication of Islam from Afghanistan is the criteria for ending the occupation. We bring the troops home when the population of Afghanistan and their government are totally free from the influence of the damnable doctrines of Islam which inculcate hatred and enjoin genocidal conquest which is won by casting terror. 

    In that case, you remove our troops from Afghanistan when its population is either apostatized or converted and its government is able and willing to secure its borders against infiltration from neighboring countries infested with Muslims. 

free, democratic & secure

    If the strategic objective is, as Shrub stated, a free, democratic, secure & prosperous Afghanistan with a stable government which respects human equality, dignity & rights,  then cleansing Afghanistan from the infestation of Islam  is insufficient.  In this case, Afghanistan must be cleansed from its long tradition of tribalism and its honor/shame culture as well.  Good luck with that; measure the occupation in millenia, not centuries. 

how virulent

how infectious

    Islam spread from Mecca & Medina to infect all of Arabia, North Africa, the Levant, nearly half of Asia and South East Europe in a few centuries. Infected persons now infest Western Europe and America and are spreading the infection through our prisons and inner cities. 

how malignant

    It is impossible to count with accuracy, the many innocent victims of Islam, but the best estimate runs to 270 million. 

radical Islam

radical Englishmen

    Were the founders fighting 'radical' Englishmen in the Revolution against King George or were they fighting his army?

radical Nazis

    Was the greatest generation in combat against 'radical' Nazis ?  Were those 'radicals' a tiny minority of Nazis? Was there a peaceful majority of Nazis who did not want to participate in world conquest?

radical Communism

    Did millions die of starvation at the hands of Stalin, Mao & Pot because of an extraordinary, 'radical' variant of International Communism?  Was the Cold War fought against 'radcal' Communism or the real thing? 

radical Muslims

    Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it. I quote from Wikipedia's entry on the First Barbary War:  "On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.^[2] " ...  "Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later.^[5]"

    Where the Barbary Pirates 'radicals', 'perverting', 'distorting' and 'twisting' normative Islamic doctrine into a perverted form, or were they acting in obedience to Allah; emulating their Prophet?  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams put the question to Tripoli's Ambassador in 1785. His reply is a clue for you.

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ^[12]

Koran

    Is that true? Is it really written in their Koran that they have a right and duty to plunder and enslave? 

right & duty

2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.   

   
    Ordained means it is Allah's law. "fight ... until" makes the statements imperative.  The Koran commands Muslims to wage perpetual war against disbelievers. 

plunder

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad ) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if you are believers.

8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.

    Isn't that special: the Koran has rules for distribution of spoils, in anticipation of offensive warfare.  Moe got the top 205, first pick of the spoils.  And as a Prophet, Moe was not allowed to ransom prisoners until he had made great slaughter. We learned that Moe's motivation was mercenary and Allah's is blood lust.

    Moe besieged a local Jewish settlement, overcame them with terrorism and seized their property, enslaving their widows & orphans.  Allah promised the Muslims "abundant spoils".

Paradise

9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.

48:17. No blame or sin is there upon the blind, nor is there blame or sin upon the lame, nor is there blame or sin upon the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whosoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), He will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow (Paradise); and whosoever turns back, He will punish him with a painful torment.

61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.

61:11.  That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!

61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.  

    If Muslims do  not join the jihad, they will go to Hell; if the fight, they will go to  There is a long and esoteric hadith about Umar's sending the army to fight the great nations, in which a Muslim General is quoted as explaining things to a Persian General in similar terms.   Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

.

"Its Islam, stupid!"

    What Allah commanded and Moe exemplified is  Islam, the real thing, not a distortion, twisting or perversion of Islam. There is no such thing as radical Islam.  Islam is what Moe preached & practiced, not the anodyne, passive & benevolent religion you wish it would be. 

not just militarily

    Islam can not be defeated militarily short of wholesale extermination.  If you are unable or unwilling to kill every Muslim on the face of the earth, then you must break their faith, you must induce mass apostasy. 

expose Allah

    Effectively combating Islam requires inducing mass apostasy by introducing the Ummah to the reality of Allah and his Messenger, their true character and works.  You must effectively discredit Moe, and thereby descredit Allah. You must expose the fallacy of Allah's promises. 

war of ideas

    If you would win this war, list the ideas of Islam and the ideas of Western Civilization and prove our ideas to be superior to theirs, in intrinsic merit as well as empirical results.

honest about the threat

    When you add adjectives or modifiers to the name of the enemy, you are not being honest.  The enemy is Islam, not 'radical Islam'. In the long run, the threat is existential; Islam is Hellbent on global conquest.  In the short run, the threat is continued and escalating attacks, large and small, against civilian targets.  Once Iran obtains a nuke and couples it with a delivery system, our cities will be in grave danger. 

politically correct

    President Bush called Islam a "great religion of peace" because he knew that, if the public knew the truth, there would be a massive popular demand for the eradication of the enemy.   President Obama repeats the same lie and declares that we are not at war against Islam because he is a traitor, one of them, not one of us.

sanitized

    President Obama has removed all reference to the false meme which has been substituted for the name of the enemy because he is politically correct, not factually correct. 

    In order to win, we need to identify and truthfully describe the enemy, its intentions and capacity. The traitor in the White House has no desire to defeat the enemy because he is one of them, at the head of the enemy's fifth column.    Removing all acknowledgment of the nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism is in compliance with the demands of Islam and the United Nations.

the enemy

    Islam, as revealed & exemplified by Moe.

virulence

    Islam demands that only Allah be worshiped, "alltogether and everywhere". Allah demands "great slaughter". The gates of Paradise will not swing open to Muslims until they exterminate the Jews. 

why they hate us

    Because we are not Muslims. Disbelief is a status offense, called Kufr: rebellion against Allah, the punishment for which is described in 5:33 and the definition of which is found in Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

what we must do

    Either cause Muslims to quit believing in Allah, his threat & promise, breaking his yoke of slavery or cause them to quit living.  That should be an easy choice.

I want you to:

    Take your own advice, be honest about the identity of the enemy, its character, ability & intentions and what we must do to win this war and restore peace 7 security. First and foremost: quit adding adjectives to the name of the enemy.

Obamination: Wasting More Blood and Treasure in Afghanistan

In remarks at West Point, President Barack Hussein Obama laid out his plan for the surge in Afghanistan. As is my usual practice, I will present excerpts in block quote format interspersed with my comments.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

In this paragraph, President Obama begins to set up his pretext, one shared by his predecessor. Any sentient American more than 17 years old must be very sheltered to be unaware of the fact that the abomination was planned by Muslims in Afghanistan. Sure, we needed to retaliate. But the next paragraph contains egregious deceptions which must be refuted in detail.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Al-Qaeda means "the base", it is equivalent to Ummah al Islamiyya: the set whose members are Muslims. Taliban means "students of the Qur'an". Those are Muslims. There is nothing special about them except the fact that they are believers who obey Allah and emulate Moe. They are normal, not exceptional. They have not "distorted and defiled Islam". Islam remains what it was when Moe died in 632, a damnable war cult, not a religion of peace. There is nothing great about Islam. It conquered half the known world. Is that greatness? In the process, it murdered 270*10⁶, what is great about that? Great slaughter, is desired by Allah, Islam's demon, who established it as a prerequisite for releasing hostages for ransom. That is genocide; if genocide defines greatness, then morality has been inverted.

Islam does not recognize "innocents" outside Ummah al;-Islamiyya. Only Muslims can be innocent, all others are rebels against Allah, who must be defeated and gathered together into Hell. Jihad against disbelievers is not an optional extra added by extremists; it is not bida, it is standard Islamic doctrine laid down in Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah. 8:39 contains Allah's command to fight pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. 9:29 contains Allah's command to fight Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the command to Jihad, which continues until the last day. Islamic law requires a minimum of one military expedition against kufar in every year, failing only when there is insufficient strength. Doubters & dissenters should open Reliance of the Traveller to O9.0 and continue reading through O9.9. O9.1 is explicit about the communal obligation to attack disbelievers in their own countries in every year. O9.8 & 9.9 reveal what the caliph does as a regular practice, aggressively, not defensively: he makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslims or pay extortion, he fights all other people until they become Muslim or dead. How is it possible that a religion has such a law in its canon?

America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

The terrorist network is Islam. It consists of every Mosque, Madrassa & Muslim wheresoever dispersed over the face of the earth. Destroying al-Qaeda is not possible without destroying Islam! No effort is being made to accomplish that necessary objective. Both President G.W. Bush and President Obama deny the fact that Islam is at war against us. Our elected leaders will not acknowledge the fact that Islam is intrinsically inimical to life, liberty & representative government.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

You can not scatter what is dispersed globally: Islam. President Bush lacked the courage to attack Tora Bora with sufficient force to eliminate bin Laden. Even eliminating him would not end the Jihad.

Neither were Taliban driven from power. Taliban are only Muslims who study the Qur'an. Afghanistan's new constitution makes the Qur'an the source of its law. Umdat as-Salik O9.8, which requires warfare against us, is part of Afghanistan's law. This nation and the world are being misled by morons and traitors. It is not possible to bring peace to a nation whose culture is war. The only peace Afghanistan can have is the peace of the grave, when the graveyard is full and the surface is empty.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.

There is no responsible end to the war in Iraq while it remains populated by Muslims, our sworn enemies. When our troops leave, Iraq will revert to war between Shiia & Sunni, when that warfare ends, it will resume status quo ante as a sponsor of terrorism. No other outcome is possible while its population remains Islamic. The pull out on a set timetable is a testimony to the stupidity and treachery of our elected leaders.

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

No legitimate government can be composed of Muslims! Islam requires theocracy, one man rule by the Qur'an, not man made legislation. While Afghanistan remains Islamic and tribal, it will be corrupt and violent, neither well governed, peaceful nor stable. The problems listed by President Obama are not members of the set of soluble problems. Even if they could be solved, Afghanistan would revert to status quo ante: a state sponsor of terrorism.

I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

The "extremist allies" are every Muslim on the face of the earth. Will you kill them all? Will you convert them to a peaceful religion? No, you will do neither, and the terrorism will continue because you are a cowardly fool.

And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.

"Afghan security forces" is an oxymoron. Those forces are composed of Muslims. Muslims are warriors, not security forces. To Muslims, peace is the condition of the world after they have completed their conquest of it. No matter how much you train them, they will shoot you in the back when given the opportunity, and they will betray your plans to the mujihideen.

I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Any strategy that leaves live Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq is a total waste of blood and treasure, a fool's errand of the worst sort. No good outcome is possible.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

When will our forces leave Bosnia? When will our forces leave Germany? When will our forces leave Japan? You have presented our enemy with a time line telling them how long they must wait before they can seize power and restore the status quo ante. I call it treason.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

How do you win a war with restraint? How do you win a war without identifying and killing the enemy? What are the long term consequences of allowing Islam to continue to exist on the face of the earth, accruing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which it will not long hesitate to use? What were the consequences of ignoring Hitler's military buildup, substituting appeasement for preemption?

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.

You are asking them to die for a lie. You are sending them to defeat, wasting their blood and the taxpayer's treasure.

If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

Our security is at stake wherever Islam exists; wherever Zakat is collected and sent to Hamas, Hizbollah & al-Qaeda; wherever Muslim satrapies are stockpiling missiles and rushing to construct nuclear warheads.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Strike al-Qaeda, insert Islam. The danger will grow no matter what, unless you eliminate Islam from the region. Then, the danger will come from another region where Allah's writ runs and his slaves reside.

No Muslim is our partner! Muslims who claim to be our partners are practicing al-taqeyya and kitman; they are deceiving you. Allah explicitly forbids Muslims to be friends or partners of kuffar. Muslims must be in a dominant, not equal or subordinate relationship with kuffar.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

Islam has bases in Iran, Syria & Lebanon. There are Islamic bases and training camps right here in America. What will you do about them? You say "al-Qaeda" when the correct word is Islam. Why can't you name the enemy? How do you hope to defeat an enemy you can not identify? Weak or strong, Afghanistan's government, like that of Pakistan, is in the hands of Muslims, our enemies. In the end, they will attack us and our allies. There is no benefit in strengthening them.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

To win, you must seize and hold territory 24/7/365. You must kill enemy combatants. No more catch and release. You must deny sanctuary, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. You must deny human shields. Your rules of engagement are costing our soldiers their lives. The word is treason. Like Lindon Johnson, you are murdering our service members for political gain. More troops is not a strategy, it is feeding the meat grinder, filling coffins.

They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Afghans are the enemy, idiot. They are not our allies nor partners, they are Muslims. You are training them to fight against us, just like Arafat's "security forces".

We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.

.Stupid statements like that make my blood boil! Muslims do not abandon violence without abandoning Islam! Muslims do not respect human rights! They never did and never will!! Allah does not, Moe did not and they will not. Being a Muslim, President Obama knows that. There is only one possibility: treason.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

Strike cancer, insert Islam. Otherwise the statement must remain false. No strategy can work unless it causes Islam to be eliminated from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any outcome that leaves them Islamic is a defeat.

And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

Islam is the enemy of all mankind. Pakistan is our enemy. Is Obama too stupid to comprehend objective factual reality or a traitor. I don't believe its stupidity.

Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.

Imbecility, maundery & treachery; what a combination! We have no mutual interest with Muslims. They do not respect us. We can not trust them. They support those groups, they do not combat them. Pakistan was, is now and will continue to be a safe haven for terrorists. Muslim and terrorist are synonymous terms.

To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

A single drop of truth in a river of lies. It stands out like a carp swimming upstream in a sewer.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

The same is true of Obama's strategy.

Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

Shrub failed the test. Obamination is failing the test. We need leaders who can measure up, men like Churchill, McArthur & Truman.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

Nukes are in the world. There is no possibility of ensuring that our enemies have eliminated their inventories and won't make more. The dream of a nuke free world is impossible. Continuing to harbor it is evidence of insanity, or is it treason?

Like Shrub, Obamination refuses to identify and accurately describe the enemy. He falsely ascribes to the enemy objectives that it does not have. He falsely characterizes our relationship with certain enemy powers as an alliance or partnership. He postulates a non-existent dichotomy between the enemy, which he calls a partner, and a subset of the enemy, which he mislabels as the enemy. Obamination's strategy is a house of cards founded on a lie. It can not stand in the storm of reality.

Uncommon Sense Applied to Islamic Insurgency

I was reminded of this excellent article by the current issue of the Gathering Storm newsletter. The link in the newsletter led me to Right Side News. Below you will find several excerpts from that article.[My comments are between the quotes.] You will also find links to more of the author's works.

How to Defeat Shari'a-driven Islam's Army for Jihad

By Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)

Aug 15, 2007

Today a debate rages. Part of the debate - certainly the most immediate component of the debate - is what to do with Iraq. To cut-and-run seems unthinkable when one considers the consequences. To stay and pursue existing strategies seems almost as unthinkable given the corrosive effects domestically and the lack of American will for another long drawn out war with no real end in sight.

How can anyone disagree with that analysis? A pullout will be followed by an internecine blood bath. No matter who comes out on top, it will be one of our enemies. In any case, Iraq will revert to status quo ante: a state sponsor of terrorism. Terrorists the world over will be empowered and emboldened to launch new attacks against us and our allies.

I have demonstrated, as have many other war analysts, that there is no such thing as a war against terror. The Global War on Terror does not exist. "Terror" is a tactic (see, e.g., What are the military options in Iraq? and Iraq and the War: A Military Reader's Digest). The war we are fighting is against men, cells, networks, regimes and peoples who embrace a hegemonic political ideology driven by traditional and authoritative Islamic law, or what is termed Shari'a. In our war against the Sharia-faithful, the strategic level encompasses all theaters of conflict and the interactions between them - Middle East, Africa, Europe, Pacific, Homeland, etc. Within the Middle East Theater, Iraq and Afghanistan constitute operational levels of war, while Baghdad, Fallujah, Kabul, and Kandahar are examples of areas of operation (AO) at the tactical level.

Why not come right out and write the truth: the enemy making war against us is Islam? To learn what Shari'a rules about Jihad, read Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.

It almost goes without saying that, if a belligerent is on the strategic defensive not attacking his enemy's center of gravity to end the war, but is nevertheless on the operational/tactical offensive actively seeking combat within a limited AO, a high number of friendly casualties are going to result. But friendly casualties in a drawn out limited war environment brings us back to the fundamental formula of war and the MOTIVATION factor. If a belligerent's domestic support base, especially in representative polities, will not tolerate significant, continuing casualties inherent in strategic defensive limited war, that belligerent cannot afford to undertake a drawn out limited war. Vietnam, and now Iraq, leaves no doubt about the veracity of that statement.

Got a clue yet? They are bleeding us to death, at least in our own perception and that of our media and politicians. Withdrawing from active defensive action, allowing Islam to inflict more casualties at home, without effective resistance is not the answer.

In Vietnam, the enemy's center of gravity was North Vietnam, and in Iraq it is in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. counterinsurgent operations in Vietnam were no more effective in their day than the surge will prove to be in Iraq. The lesson of Vietnam, and now Iraq, is that the strategic defensive or limited war, even when waged on the operational and tactical offensive, will only end if and when the enemy's motivation is impaired because its strategic CAPABILITY is unimpaired.

Trimming around the trees won't produce satisfaction, we must mow the lawn. Cut off their supply lines and interdict their reinforcements. No sanctuaries!!!

After 9/11, the U.S. went to war in the same wrongheaded way we have gone to war in every instance since World War II. In spite of the president's ringing rhetoric about permitting our enemy no sanctuary, even to the point of engaging the enemy preemptively, the U.S. again donned the national security straitjacket of strategic defensive limited war (Limited War Doctrine: A Fatal Flaw). The operative assumption underlying limited war postulates that even the most ardent ideological fanatics will accept stalemate or defeat before employing every means of warfare available to them and will not continue the war notwithstanding the continued capability to wage war. History has not borne out this sanguine assumption.

The idea that the U.S. wouldn't employ its ultimate means (i.e., nuclear weapons) has come to also limit the U.S. ends sought in the conflict. In other words, our refusal to use the ultimate weapon must mean we are not committed to ultimate victory in the form of the decisive defeat of our enemy. Instead, we seek "regime change" and "democracy-building" rather than unconditional surrender of all combatants. Indeed, counterinsurgency is the effort to maintain and build a civil society in and around limited kinetic battles with an enemy we don't seek to destroy. Rather than setting our strategic goal as the destruction of the enemy's CAPABILITY to wage war, we seek to contain, co-opt, integrate, re-integrate, and engage politically all in an effort to reduce the enemy's MOTIVATION to continue the war.

All of the parties in the Iraq conflict know that the CAPABILITY of both stateless Jihadi groups and state-sponsored Jihadi groups is sustained by the logistical centers of gravity located in surrounding states. But the U.S. strategic end of fighting a limited, defensive war confines operations within the border of Iraq. (See, e.g., This is No Way to Win a War!)

We must jettison our Cold War national security thinking featuring limited war and instead realistically reassume our World War II strategic offensive posture.

We should have nuked Tora Bora while Usama was still holed up there.

Insurgencies can be fought indefinitely if the re-supply lines remain open. This means that Coalition forces and their airborne assets are better utilized to prevent cross-border re-supply by striking depots in Iran than engaging in urban warfare at close quarters.

This implies cutting off communication between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq so that the men, material and money can no longer cross the border at will and unimpeded. This implies an aerial campaign against the training camps and supply staging areas in Iran & Syria.

The U.S. must ruthlessly use our technologically superior ground firepower and airpower to fight an asymmetrical war that plays to our strength -- technology, rather than being lured into close urban combat which capitalizes on the suicide commitment of the Shari'a-driven Jihadists.

Whether in conjunction with the current combat in Iraq or at some later date, the Jihadi-sponsoring states of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Pakistan will have to be confronted militarily and the Jihadi centers of gravity destroyed.

U.S. gun camera film showing Jihadists being vaporized by Western weapons and emphasizing Islamic impotence should flood the Internet and the TV airwaves.

Rigid control of our borders and immigration policy is a must to stave off the inevitable attempts to attack us from within.

Click this link to read the entire article.
Other Articles by Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF Ret.)...
How to Defeat Shari'a-driven Islam's Army for Jihad Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Strategy, Tactics and Winning Wars (Part Two of Two) Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Strategy, Tactics, and Winning Wars (Part One of Two) Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Is there a viable military strategy for disarming Iran? Part Two - What is 'Air Control?' Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Is There a Viable Military Strategy for Disarming Iran? Conclusion of Part 1
Is There A Viable Military Strategy For Disarming Iran? Part One (of Two)
This Is No Way to Win a War! Part One (of Two)

Colonel Snodgrass published his article at Family Security Matters. That organization publishes many excellent articles, visit their site and sign up to receive their newsletter.