Long, but worthwhile Executive Summary from a much longer and even more depressing paper at the link. At least the Brits can't say they didn't realize what was happening, just like losing the Common Law. The next question is when the special relationship in intelligence sharing should end. It really sickens me to think that the Brits may bind fast to the France-Germany-China axis.
One of the most significant â yet largely unreported â political developments of recent years is the move being made by the United Kingdom to integrate its armed forces with those of the European Union.
The nature of this new military relationship with our EU partners will make it increasingly hard for the UK either to fight independently or to co-operate militarily with the US. The âspecial relationshipâ which has been the cornerstone of British defence policy from the time of the Second World War will be at an end.
What is even more alarming is the extent to which the British Government has been at pains to conceal and even to deny its true military and political agenda in this respect, by insisting that its new relationship with its EU partners does not prejudice its continued participation in Nato.
However, the key to appreciating how rapidly the UK and the US are moving apart lies in the pattern of the procurement policy now being followed by the UKâs Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The political cue for this parting of the ways was Tony Blairâs agreement at St Malo in 1998 that Britainâs armed forces should be integrated with those of the EU as part of an autonomous EU defence effort, capable of operating outside Nato. This led the following year to the EUâs decision to establish a multi-national âEuropean Rapid Reaction Forceâ (ERRF) as the centrepiece of its new military ambitions.
The repercussions of this decision are made infinitely greater by the fact that both the US and the EU stand today on the edge of a technical revolution in warfare, centred on satellites, electronics and a new generation of vehicles, unmanned aircraft and weapons systems (ânet-centric warfareâ). So closely co-ordinated will the forces of the future need to be through their technology that it will be virtually impossible for forces working under different systems to work alongside one another.
Until recently the UK and the US were still working in close partnership in developing the technology required to achieve this revolution in the nature of warfare. Most notably they were equal partners in what was known as the Future Scout and Cavalry System project (FSCS), until Britain withdrew, leaving the US to carry on to develop its more advanced Future Combat System (FCS).
In the past year or two, the MoDâs procurement policy has shown a similar shift away from co-operation with the US towards closer dependence on Britainâs EU partners. Almost across the board, the MoD is now turning its back on joint defence projects with the US, even where these involve British firms. Instead the MoD is purchasing equipment supplied or developed by firms in France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The pattern of this dependence implies a state of technical and doctrinal integration with the EUâs defence effort so complete that collaboration with the US will eventually not be feasible.
The key to co-ordinating future warfare will lie in satellite systems, such as the US GPS/Navstar system on which Nato currently depends. The cornerstone of the EUâs autonomous defence effort lies in its plans to establish three, largely French-built systems, led by Galileo, set up as a direct rival to the GPS system and due to be in place by 2008, and directed from the EUâs satellite control centre in Spain.
From there, almost every aspect of Britainâs future defence planning would rely on equipment supplied or being developed by her EU partners. British troops will no longer be transported by US-built C-130 and C-17 aircraft, but by the A400M âEurolifterâ. The UKâs successor to FSCS will rely on armoured fighting vehicles supplied by Sweden, with French guns and ammunition.
Joint US-British bids to supply £1.1 billion-worth of sophisticated trucks were in 2004 rejected in favour of trucks built by the German firm MAN Nutzfahrzeuge, adding the name of a former British firm, ERF, to imply some British contribution. US and other non-EU reconnaissance vehicles were rejected in favour of an obsolescent and much more expensive version made by the Italian firm Iveco, although their origin is again to be disguised behind the name of the British firm BAE Land Systems.
A joint project with the US to develop a 155mm howitzer has been abandoned in favour of a French gun firing German-designed shells. Battlefield radar systems are being built in Germany and Sweden. Development of unmanned aircraft is being led by France, while the RAFâs main strike aircraft will be the Eurofighter, firing French-made missiles.
Three aircraft carriers are to be shared between the Royal Navy and France, with the French firm Thales playing a central part in their design and construction. The UK has even abandoned its capacity to manufacture small arms, so that the British armyâs future rifles are likely to be supplied by Belgium.
The one consistent pattern in recent MoD procurement policy has been that, wherever possible, US firms are now being excluded, even where this means excluding British firms associated with them.
As a result, the MoD is often buying inferior or more costly equipment than that which Anglo-US contractors could supply. The potential cost is estimated at £14 billion.
The nature of the equipment now being bought for the UKâs armed forces, and the âEuropeanâ or ânon-Natoâ standards now being laid down by the new European Defence Agency in Brussels, imply not just a growing technical divergence between the ERRF and Nato but also a doctrinal conflict with established US and Nato practice. This will make it increasingly difficult for forces on each side of this divide to work together, or even to share the same battlezones.
Almost the most startling feature of this immense political and military transformation is the extent to which it is moving ahead behind the scenes without being publicly explained or acknowledged, not least by the British Government. Nor has it yet been effectively challenged by the Opposition.
The situation is compounded by the EUâs formal co-operation with China, a strategic rival of the US. This includes the Galileo satellite global positioning system, in which the UK is an equal partner. Because of potential technology leakage from the EU to China, the US is increasingly reluctant to share its technology with Britain. The problems of UK-US cooperation are therefore being exacerbated further.
It will shortly be too late to reverse this trend. The Commission is now also proposing to control intra-EU movements of military products, thereby making the actions of the British Army dependent on her EU partnersâ consent. The UK would no longer be able to operate alongside the US as a military ally. It would be irreversibly committed to operating within a framework defined by European Union interests. The âspecial relationshipâ would be over.
#1
"The one consistent pattern in recent MoD procurement policy has been that, wherever possible, US firms are now being excluded, even where this means excluding British firms associated with them.
As a result, the MoD is often buying inferior or more costly equipment than that which Anglo-US contractors could supply. The potential cost is estimated at £14 billion."
Worthy. Sigh. We'll miss you gents.
This is along piece, indeed. And depressing? Very.
And I thought it was going to be about the Saudis...
#2
Europe appears to be in a death spiral. Sad that the Brits are being pulled into it. Wonder if the EUnuchs will collapse before our own tranzis weaken us too far?
#3
If one looks at this, Iraq and the Internet issue, it is fairly clear that Europe is isolating the U. S., whether it consciously intends to or not. (How interesting it would be if they are funding Pat Buchannan.) To them it is just some kind of game for ego satisfaction.
This is a fairly irrational thing for them to do given that the last 50 years have been the most peaceful in Europe's history. The one exception, of course, demonstrated that the Europeans were willing to sit on their hands while civil war erupted when one country (Germany) formented the dissolution of another (Yugoslavia.
Europe has, since the fall of the monarchies and empires, bounced form one stupid idea and cause to another. Now they are facing an invasion from the Middle East and they are spitting in the face of the only ally who will help them. Fools. They deserve what they are about to receive and we should waste nothing to stop it.
#4
As a british soldier I can this is the worst thing that can happen to us the EU armed forces are shakey at their best, the french and danes run away the germans always try to be too diplomatic this means going to war with these fools means that everything will be down to us with no US to back us up if it gets out of hand plus we lose the excellant US logistics. A Very Sad Day
Posted by: Alex ||
10/14/2005 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If one looks at this, Iraq and the Internet issue, it is fairly clear that Europe is isolating the U. S., whether it consciously intends to or not
#6
Now they are facing an invasion from the Middle East and they are spitting in the face of the only ally who will help them
You miss the point. The ones making the policies expect to be dead, after enjoying their social benefits and perhaps even a special dhimmi privilege, before any really 'bad' things happen to Europe.
And they will have had the satisfaction of sticking it to the US, which has been an obsession of theirs for years.
#7
Anyone who has ever had the pleasure to participate in an MoD procurement knows that source selection for big ticket items is not decided within the MoD, but rather by the "political masters." This trend has been building for a long time concomitant to the increasing percentage of UK defense firms sold to europeans. I think the Brits are betting on a dead horse in aligning themselves with the EU but then most Brits won't realize what is happening until it is much too late to do anything about it.
#8
Let me re-define what is taking place. The US is leaving Europe, no longer being needed there, and is no longer willing to subsidize European defense. From that point of view, Britain really has no choice but to integrate with the continent. Despite close ties with the US, the continentals are their neighbors, thus tying them together like the boys of South Park, solely because they share a bus stop.
Practically speaking, England cannot afford, or just isn't willing, to support their own significant standing army beyond infantry. That is, a technologically-based army. France is willing to do so, and unless Poland or some of the Norse countries show a willingness to build up their own armies, France will militarily dominate Europe in the future.
Ironically, the EU may have dreams of a unified command, but practically speaking, by being in the cat bird's seat, only the military objectives of France will matter. Yet another movement towards the EU becoming like the HRE before it.
Where does this lead? Eventually, France will have some military objective beyond its resources, and after tapping the meagre ante in the EU pot, it will demand troop and monetary committments from the other EU nations. Call it a "man tax" to further France's ambitions. Englishmen under French command for whatever cannon-fodder purpose.
And, since few would be willing to volunteer, a draft would be needed. Of course, under the auspices of the de jure EU military command, but for all intents and purposes, because France demands it.
#9
Sigh. Paying more than twice as much or less capable systems. I guess if the Brits ever run short, they can always borrow from the Belgians. Wait, let me rephrase that.
Any Brits on this board know if the gov. is going to deactivate the Trident subs as was discussed? Will Paris risk getting Paris nuked in order to protect London?
Posted by: ed ||
10/14/2005 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I haven't read the article but the post has little to do with the title. The special relationship is not a military one but a cultural one. If britian joins the EU and then decides to withdraw they could easily link up with NAFTA and recover, it wouldn't take much to get the US to come back in and defend them. The same cannot be said for the rest of Europe.
Economists have been predicting the Pacific century for a decade or so now. If Europe is isolating the US, they are also isolating themselves.
#12
You might want to read the article, because it is very clear that this reflects an implicit cultural decision to reduce ties with the US and become fully engaged as a European state. So does the gradual abandonment of the Common Law.
If britian joins the EU and then decides to withdraw they could easily link up with NAFTA and recover, it wouldn't take much to get the US to come back in and defend them. The same cannot be said for the rest of Europe.
The point of the article is that Britain is becoming sotightly tied to the EU that it is near or past a point of no return. The UK is far more integrated economically with the EU than the US. The circumstances under which the UK would decide to leave the EU for NAFTA would have to be fairly frightening at this point. But the point at which British forces cannot fight independently of the EU will soon be here. The paper reveals that in Gulf War II the Brits had problems because the Belgians would not sell them artillery shells. And they are loosing all ability to survive on the battlefield with American forces.
We and they need to face the fact that the UK has chosen to be European, not Atlantic. It's time to consider what all the implications are, as in why should they be treated and differently than the French, Germans, Italians or Spanish, because that is who is going to be pulling their strings.
#13
When the Muzzies are over-running Europe and the remaining non-Muzzies in the U.K. are looking to be saved, they needn't expect the sacrifice of my children to liberate them. Two world wars have gained Europe nothing but arrogant French rulers who had better start studying Arabic soon if they want any status as collaborators.
#14
Anonymoose: "... thus tying them together like the boys of South Park, ..."
Here's a fun game: associate a character with a country. France is obviously Cartman: crass, scheming, bloated, overbearing, mercenary, delusions of grandeur, ...
#18
"But the point at which British forces cannot fight independently of the EU will soon be here."
Do they have the current ability to project force as of today? How much airlift and sealift do they have right now? Could the UK carry out an operation like the Falklands War today? How about the entire EU, if they should band together and agree (unlikely)? What would be their force projection capabilities? Near zero, i'd guess..... I think that European militaries are largely emasculated right now, at least in terms of projecting force to troubled areas.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
10/14/2005 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#19
According to the article, the Brits have 51 C-130's and an undisclosed number of C-17's. That's a fair amount of lift, probably third largest in the world. But they're being replaced by 25 Airbus A400M's, amde in France.
#20
Missed that Churchillian opportunity for a Union of English Speaking People. Too bad. The Anglosphere would have served the Brits far better in the end. At least their offspring will prosper. Good luck.
Meanwhile as the US becomes awashing in hispanamericanos, our focus will go south. Adios amigos.
#21
Europe is a far more civil place to live than the US with its poverty gap, health credit card care, guns, murder rates, deep racism, greed, the list goes on...
Oh, and please don't go quoting anything on Esatern Europe - that's another world.
#22
Europe is a far more civil place to live than the US with its poverty gap, health credit card care, guns, murder rates, deep racism, greed, the list goes on...
Hardly, oh trollish one. Our poor are almost as wealthy as your lower middle class; the quality and availability of our health services is sky high; while we don't have a single gun policy, we are comfortable with situational availability; oh, and please, like Europe isn't racist? Haha.
Greed is good. But you knew that already. Greedy people also give huge amounts to charity, far more than your non-greedy Europeans do. Greedy billionaires create thousands of greedy millionaires, who in turn create vast numbers of people with staggering amounts of disposable income. And all of these greedy people give away so much of their extra wealth that it's not even funny.
Instead of putting all our immigrants in ghettos like Europe, we put them to work, and surprise, after a generation or two, they are fully employed, middle class and integrated Americans.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/14/2005 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
#25
...US with its poverty gap...
The Specter of Poverty in America
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
By Robert Rector
Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.
It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.
Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.
Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers â to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
â Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
â Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
â Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
â The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
â Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
â Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
â Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
â Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.
To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.
Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
#27
Its still comes down to the Generals, Admirals, and Pols reacting fast enough to any threat, locally or internationally, with decisive-overwhelming force, besides having enough reserves and economies to back up their combined effort. Other than that, can anyone say WW1, 1939-40, and espec DUNKIRK!? Better tell the Generals of the Brit Commandos + SAS, the French Foreign Legion, and Deutsche RR, etal. they and their fellow Euro-Elites just got prioritized.
#3
winter soldier. summer soldier. soldier. not a soldier. did u actually read the thing? he says he aint in iraq and aint in the army. regardless, it's damned good writing. reminds me hunter thompson stuff. wish some of you characters would lighten up once and a while. good link, at any rate.
#5
He's a John Kerry wannabe who seen too many bad (Stone) Vietnam movies.... the horror... the horror...
Every other word is 'F-ck', he claims he was drafted. Obscessed with sex. Probably a pimple-faced teenager who wants to pretend he's staring in one of those Stone movies.....
#6
It appears to be what sounds to my ignorant ear as normal soldierly bitching and moaning with no actual content. He names it "therapy" and the bit I read was certainly no more than that.
#7
Private Quagmire with gun and ibook in hand. Definitely Oliver Stone. At least when Norman Mailer wrote "The Naked and the Dead," it was them or the enemy. 9/11 not clear enough? Let the real guns keep the real ones safe.
In a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed entitled âAmerican Debacleâ Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national-security adviser to President Carter, begins with:
Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental âStudy of History,â that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was âsuicidal statecraft.â Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and â much more important â ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.
Brzezinski soon adds, âIn a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle.â
What are we to make of all this, when a former national-security adviser writes that the war that began when Middle Eastern terrorists struck at the heart of the continental United States in New York and Washington â something that neither the Nazis, Japanese militarists, nor Soviets ever accomplished â was merely a âchallenge largely of regional originâ?
Some âregionâ â downtown Manhattan and the nerve center of the American military.
Aside from the unintended irony that the classical historian Arnold Toynbee himself was not always âadroit,â but wrong in most of his determinist conclusions, and that such criticism comes from a high official of an administration that witnessed on its watch the Iranian-hostage debacle, the disastrous rescue mission, the tragicomic odyssey of the terminally ill shah, the first and last Western Olympic boycott, oil hikes even higher in real dollars than the present spikes, Communist infiltration into Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cambodian holocaust, a gloomy acceptance that perpetual parity with the Soviet Union was the hope of the day, the realism that cemented our ties with corrupt autocracies in the Middle East (Orwellian sales of F-15 warplanes to the Saudis minus their extras), and the hard-to-achieve simultaneous high unemployment, high inflation, and high interest rates, Mr. Brzezinski is at least a valuable barometer of the current pessimism over events such as September 11. Ouch!
Such gloom seems to be the fashion of the day. . . . Go read it all, for it is VDH, and VDH is always good.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/14/2005 12:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Consider complaints to be background noise!
They are voting on a constitution tomorrow...
What were the Vietnam votes on their constitution?
#3
I'd pay attention to Zbiggy. If anybody should know about "suicidal statecraft" it'd be him and the incompetent imbecile he worked for, seeing how they practiced it for four years back in the late seventies.
Fuck you, Zbiggy.
Non-idiotarian Op-ed from a thai paper.
As controversial as the Iraq war has become around the world, it is easy to lose sight of the extraordinarily good news that has emerged from that country and battleground. The first was the downfall of one of the world's most heinous dictatorships. Saddam Hussein killed his people, bullied his small neighbours and threatened his large ones. The other is the widespread and enthusiastic way in which Iraqis have grasped democratic choice. This weekend, they will once again go to the polls to make the decisions that will decide their country's fate. When Iraqis vote _ or abstain _ tomorrow on a constitution hammered out in a remarkably short time, they will be doing something none of their Arab neighbours do. Several major Sunni organisations still were debating this week whether to vote or boycott. By contrast, about 5,000 members of major Islamist student groups in Egypt held protests to demand a free vote, on anything. The arguments and debates over the proposed Iraq constitution during the past several weeks have been passionate, opinionated and peaceful.
By contrast, an increasingly desperate alliance of Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists have attempted to stop or discredit the referendum on the constitution. An apparently authentic letter from the No.2 leader of world terrorism, al-Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, has defined the stakes for the Arab extremists in Iraq. It is remarkably close to the view of the Iraqi government and US President George W Bush. Al-Qaeda seeks a Middle East political base from which to expand into other neighbouring countries, expel all western influences and eventually to establish a new Muslim caliphate.
Between al-Qaeda and this goal stand the voters of Iraq. The voters' decision to accept or reject the constitution draft is important to the country. But turnout at the polls tomorrow is likely to be crucial. If, as now seems likely, there is a large representation in Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni communities, it will be a major setback for the violent gangs intent on overthrowing the Iraqi government elected last January. Many Sunnis opposed early drafts of the constitution, but talks among the major groups never have stopped. Just this week, a new clause on amendments was stuck into the draft with everyone's agreement, and a major Sunni group called on its members to go to the polls and go to the inkwell _ coat their fingers with the purple indelible ink that is proof of having voted.
What Iraq puts in its constitution is largely up to the Iraqis. There are basic clauses on human rights, particularly for women. Prisoners awaiting trial will be eligible to vote, even suspected terrorists, and word has it that even Saddam Hussein might be asked if he wishes to vote. There are great fears of Iraq civil war, but then those fears have been loudly forecast since the 2003 invasion.
Here, however, is the good part: If Iraq of the future devolves into civil conflict, tomorrow's election makes it more likely that the battles will be on the political stumps, and not in the streets. In any case, the citizens of every country have the right to set the course of their nation, vote for their leaders and demand daily accountability from the representatives elected. A vote for the new constitution, a vote against it or a reasoned, thinking decision not to vote _ all of these move forward both democracy and freedom in Iraq.It is remarkable that a country so violently torn by daily bombs and battles can debate, write and then vote on a national constitution. Last May, a nationwide poll in Iraq determined that 59% of Iraqis believed the country was better off than before the US invasion, and 76% said they and their families were personally better off. There had been predictions that the US invasion would galvanise Muslims against the rest of the world, but the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported last July that Muslim public opinion was increasingly against the Islamists. Security will be tight in Iraq, and presumably violence will continue, as it did during the parliamentary elections last January. Everyone should wish the Iraqis well in their decision to take another brave step towards democracy.
My Islamic land will have big centres of learning where besides Islamic sciences latest technology will be taught leaving out the current western teachings. It will do away with that mad pursuit of technology that plays havoc with the moral and cultural upbringing of our children. Here I may point out Qurâan must have central focus in Islamic Sciences besides Prophetâs (SAW) sunnah which were mainly responsible before to help my people to be at the top of the world.
My nationâs economy will be interest free economy so that no rich could exploit our poor. The money will keep circulating and will not remain stationed with the rich people only. Zakat system will be a corner stone of our national economic edifice. Paying of Zakat will be strictly taken care of. It will be ensured that the Zakat collected will be distributed to the deserving people so that a time will come no one in our world will remain poor and we will have no people who will receive Zakat. Due care will be taken that every family will have sufficient for livelihood. My government will take care of every home and family so that none of our womenfolk will feel need to earn due to poverty.
I dream that our lands will be better utilized by our people. Only those people will be allowed to keep big farms who will be able to cultivate it and not to misuse it for their luxuries. Our Agriculture scientists will go to our farmers to their lands to teach them about the newer techniques, better seeds and ways of farming so that our yields will be such that we would require nothing from the rest of world not a single grain so that they could not exploit us. As my ideal nation is big and comprises almost half the world, we could get items from one province to other as such will not depend on any one.
My nation will have big industries (of which it is devoid except few) where mass production of the things will take place which will cater daily needs of our people besides exports. Industrial plants where our crude oil will be cleaned without anyoneâs support. Besides traditional power plants we will have nuclear power plants to render the needs of our people. We will have units where we could manufacture arms and ammunition for our forces. Plants where we could manufacture ships, aircrafts and land vehicles for the people and armed forces of our nation.
I dream my world to be so powerful that no one could dare to eye upon it. So powerful that no one could frighten us by tell us âeither with us or themâ. My nation will be an atomic super power with latest long range ballistic missiles, aerial fleets, sub marines. It will have a big brave Air force, Navy and Army guided with spirit of jehad. So potent, that no could have guts to colonize us on one pretext and other. No one would have courage to kill our youth in our own lands. Just I am pouring out my dream, my ears are hearing the gun shots coming from the vicinity, I know some of my brother will be there target of colonial forces. In my dream world these colonizers will not dare to touch our soil not to talk about killing our own people especially our youth in the heart of our cities. I dream when no one in this universe will try to throw us out of our houses. So mighty will be my nation that no one will even think of making the lives of our womenfolk miserable. Our womenfolk will be happy again as they will have full faith that their young sons, husbands and brothers are safe and will return back in evenings to them. Nothing will be there to make them weep. Their eyes beaming with joy and devoid of tears of sorrow. They will have people like Tariq bin Ziyad, Mosa bin Nasir, Muhammed bin Qasim, Auranzeb, Mehmood Gazni like people to protect and defend from enemies of Islam. They will have no fear except to care for their houses and children and live a happy Islamic life. I dream of a nation where no one will point finger on my beard. No one will question my sisterâs Purdah. No one will have fear of wearing khan dress.
The dream which I visualize is not only my dream but of millions of my people on this earth. My dream is the result of an inspiration which I get from my great beloved Prophet (SAW). The dream about which Allama Iqbal (RA) has said âChino Arab hamara hindustan hamara - muslim hain hum watan hai sara jahan hamaraâ. Let no one feel that this dream is impossible to realise. Believe me we have been dreaming it the last 1300 years and particularly from the start of twentieth century when my nation was set apart.
--Concluded
(The author can be mailed at haamidi2003@yahoo.co.in)
Posted by: john ||
10/14/2005 17:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Welcome to my nightmare.
Posted by: john ||
10/14/2005 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, wanting all that but insisting that all the Western parts of science and technology be left out is ....
#3
I dream that using nano-tech technology stolen from a Terminator II bot we turn the ME into a lame version of the Borg then reprogram it into a nice happy place with butterfly flitting about in the nice lush redwood forsest that replaced those yuchy desert.
The stream flow with tasty Reisling and the coconuts have kalua already inside. Mecca and Mediana become Universal Studios Entertainment parks and their solar arrays shade the camel free land. Nano tech makes it all work tied in with swarm technology and the reprogramming of all living there (including sand flys)...
#4
Yea all those bad western ideas like Newton's Third Law and the conservation of energy. Most major "religions" incorperate these in their dogma someplace in as many words. Islam fails to. It's why Islamic countries are the shit holes they are. Keep dreaming fool.
#5
I wonder what happened to the part about: "in my dream, all the Jews in Israel march down to the sea, swim out as far as they can, and then drown themeselves - after, of course, they give the keys to their homes, their cars, and their banks accounts to the local Palestinians".
Hey Abdul - when the oil runs out, you and your lazy fellow ragheads will once again become nomadic peasants. I wish you and yours all the joys of 12th century life - nasty, brutish and short as it may have been.
#6
HAMID NILNAGI: I don't believe he could park a bicycle
Posted by: Red Dog ||
10/14/2005 21:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This is part one of his dream
I too have a dream - Part I
By HAMID NILNAGI
Last month a brother of ours had expressed his dream through Greater Kashmir. His dream of being an Indian and Kashmiri Muslim at once prompted me to pour out my heart too. Every one has a right to dream. People imagine good or bad, as everyone has a right to visualize whatever he or she likes because it does not cost and does not harm anyone so far they are within the confines of ones mind. But whenever dreams take any form whether words or actions they begin to show reaction. Newtonâs law finds its application here âTo every action there is an equal and opposite reactionâ.
My fellow countrymen I too have a dream that one day my nation will succeed, it will overcome, and we will win. Here is a question that what I mean by my nation. It will mean different for different people. For some it is Kashmir only while for some it is Pakistan and for few others like my dreaming brother India. However my nation is something different from these visualizations. My nation encompasses the whole Islamic world from Africa to Europe, South East Asia to Arabia and Asia to Central Asia. My land âKashmirâ forms a special part of it. I visualize my land as a part of a bigger Islamic land or world. The nation constituted of Africa. Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, Arab peninsula upto Palestine (including Jerusalem) Pakistan, Tajkistan etc. as one world of mine. The todayâs sovereign Muslim states (though not sovereign in real sense but slave states) as its provinces. It must be such that if I start sojourn from Srinagar no one will stop me to travel to any place in my ideal Islamic world. I need no travel documents and no police will check me to traverse any part of it whether be it Grozny or West Bank or Srinagar or Christina. I dream of a single government to rule the whole world headed by one Caliph who will have no palace to sleep except an ordinary and modest place under the sky. A great man like Hazrat Umar who will be accessible to all without any guards or darbans in between. Accessible more to farmers, laborers and poor people than to riches. There will be rule of law, no one will have right to harm or kill anyone. Everyoneâs life will be protected as ordained in the book of Allah.
My nation will have a national capital situated in our beloved land of Hijaz where our Caliph and his associates will guide and serve the whole ummah. Besides it will have three sub-capitals one each at Jerusalem, Kaulalampur and Islamabad where we will have headquarters of our Aerial, Naval and Armed forces respectively. In addition there will be provincial capitals where provincial Amirs will run day to day affairs of our people. The Caliph and these Amirs will serve the Ummah as per the spirit of Qurâan and will be appointed only by the national/provincial shura which will consist of Ulema (highly god fearing learned men in both fields of Islam and technology with a practical background).
My land will have a national language, the language of Qurâan - Arabic, in which we will be taught all sciences whether Islamic or technological sciences. Besides, Arabic as a national language, people of my Islamic world will have their native language as additional language. I dream when Maulana Romi and Shiekh Saadi will replace Shakespere and John Milton. I dream when Baghdad, Bukhara, Samarkand, Ankara, Tehran, Kosovo, Islamabad, Dubia, Mecca, Medina, Tashkent, Groznyy, Kaulalampur, Jakarta, Khartoum, Jerusalem, Damascus, Qahira, Srinagar etc will have Universities of international standard and no student from any corner of my dream Islamic world will have any difficulty in getting admissions and studying his/her stream of like at any of these institutions at minimum cost with specially concession to economically downtrodden. I wait when these centres will replace London, Newyork, Berlin etc. I dream when our lands will again give birth to the people like Imam Bukhari, Razi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Khaldoon, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Nafis, Allama Iqbal from whose works the rest of world will again learn. I dream that when mothers like Hazrat Fatima RA, Hazrat Aisha RA, Hazrat Khadija RA, Hazrat Umm Salma RA and Rabia Basri will be there. Above all I believe and hope that once again Hussain RA, Hassan RA, Khalid RA, Zubair RA and make people show that Islam neither stands for head counted democracy nor Shiekhdom of Arabia.
My Islamic land will have big centres of learning where besides Islamic sciences latest technology will be taught leaving out the current western teachings. It will do away with that mad pursuit of technology that plays havoc with the moral and cultural upbringing of our children. Here I may point out Qurâan must have central focus in Islamic Sciences besides Prophetâs (SAW) sunnah which were mainly responsible before to help my people to be at the top of the world.
--To be concluded
(The author can be mailed at haamidi2003@yahoo.co.in)
Posted by: john ||
10/14/2005 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Nobody questions my sister's Purdah? Riiiiight. Because the Afghani women showed how much women like the gift of purdah when it was given them by the Taliban.
I found this accidentally. It's on the Air War College website and was written for the Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities. No date of publication and no copyright. I searched Rantburg for it, and it doesn't seem to have been posted here before. If you don't read anything else, read Ralph Peter's recommendations, starting on page 30. I think that it comes awfully close to capturing the consensus here at Rantburg. I like recommendation number one: Be feared.
#1
Looking through the tags of the PDF, it looks like it was written (or at least last modified) on Sept 10, 2002. The author also has several terrorism related books on amazon. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0811700240/103-6853483-6557410?v=glance
24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished
symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the Westâs. Ultimately, no
potential target can be regarded as off limits when the United States is threatened with
mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about
protecting Americans.
Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more dead Americans for the wisdom of this paper to be generally accepted.
#3
Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more dead Americans for the wisdom of this paper to be generally accepted.
This is likely to happen when professional warriors aren't allowed to make war professionally. It's always the civilian leadership that ends up sacrificing American lives (whether inadvertently or otherwise) by imposing political constraints on the military as a result of fretting over things like "cultural sensitivities".
#4
I'd advise you to read the whole paper a little more clearly...
It's psychology of Terrorism is interesting (and is probably a cut-n-paste job), but then it seems to go a bit bullshitty in the middle (the bit I reckon the author wrote). Definetly fancies himself (I'm guessing a bloke wrote it) as an o-so-aloof art-poseur, maybe a Arts degree? I get the feeling from his examples that he doesn't like the U.K. so perhaps ex-UK based US Airman?
You know in some bits I'd almost bet money that the guy who writes the Belmont Club wrote this.
#6
I've gone through the first few pages, and it looks good. Highly recommended.
A proviso is in order: one can believe in a coming Apocalypse without being an apocalyptic Terrorist. Think of it like Murphy's law: a man can sincerely believe that shit's gonna happen, but there's a big difference between the man that prepares himself against that shit, tries to warn others about that shit, and tries to prevent that shit from happening, and the man who CAUSES that shit to happen.
#7
BP, the author is Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer with strong ties to the Army Staff, which he frequently uses for background for his opinion pieces in the NY Post. He has written two very influential strategy pieces in the official journal of the Army War College. The first deals with the characteristics of failed states. The second urges the destabilization of the Middle East, as opposed to the post Cold War policy of stabilizing it. Both articles were written pre 9/11, IIRC, with the second having some degree of influence over the current administration's policy.
You are correct that it is a bit showy. Peters writes fiction in addition to his opinion and strategy pieces. I would agree that his style sometimes detracts from his more serious pieces. I don't know if anyone has accused him of cutting and pasting.
#8
I like the part about consistently killing any and all terrorists that can be identified and located. Until we go completely hell-for-breakfast on terrorists and terror supporters, not much is going to change. Kill them wherever they are and whenever we find them.
An Honest Missive Zawahiri boasts strategy for "victory of Islam."
by Bruce Thornton - Private Papers
The website of the Director of National Intelligence just published a letter from Al Qaedaâs number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head-terrorist in Iraq. This document repays careful reading, for it explodes much of the received wisdom many people rely on in making sense of jihadist terror.
According to this standard interpretation, Islamic terror is the handiwork of a fanatic minority that has âhighjackedâ and distorted Islamic doctrine. These medieval throwbacks gain traction from the political autocracy and oppression that dominate the Muslim governments in the Middle East, regimes that cannot provide the freedom and prosperity that would eliminate the frustration and despair breeding terrorist violence. The leftist variation of this analysis lays the blame on Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, and Western, particularly American, imperialist and colonialist misdeeds in the region. Either way, the underlying assumption is that jihadist terror is a sort of cultural neurosis arising in reaction to political or material circumstances. Thus the cure for the terrorist âdiseaseâ must be found in improving those circumstances: installing democratic governments or compelling Israel to surrender Judea and Samaria (aka the âoccupied West Bankâ) so that a Palestinian state can be created.
Zawahiriâs letter, however, offers little that squares with this received wisdom. Its shrewd analysis and careful argument are the signs not of a wild-eyed religious fanatic but of a thinker shaped by his religionâs history and spiritual imperatives. Indeed, Zawahiri is very clear about the traditional jihadist motivation, one that is not a mere reaction to Western misdeeds or a distortion of Islam, but rather squarely in its history and traditional values: the eventual triumph of the true faith over âatheismâ and âpolytheism,â the latter term code for Christianity. Thus the struggle in Iraq is the site of âthe greatest battle of Islam in this era,â another in a long series of âepic battles between Islam and atheism.â However, in Zawahiriâs analysis, âthe victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world.â For only then can the caliphate ultimately be reestablished: âThe goal in this age,â Zawahiri writes, âis the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet.â The terror of the insurgents in Iraq is a âlarge step directly towards that goal.â
Rather than a localized response to American-Zionist imperial adventurism, then, the insurgency in Iraq according to Zawahiri is merely the means to achieving the first of several âincremental goalsâ aimed at the eventual establishment of the caliphate throughout the âheart of the Islamic world,â that is the whole Middle East. The first âgoalâ is to âexpel the Americans from Iraqâ as a necessary precondition to creating âan Islamic authority or amirate [province],â one that will have no truck with infidel Western notions of secular democracy or human rights. Note well: the insurgents are murdering and maiming not in reaction to Abu Graib, not to forestall Western control over oil reserves, not out of frustration with Israelâs defensive wall, not for any of the reasons we in the West cook up out of our own materialist prejudices, but for a spiritual goal: the fulfillment of Allahâs will that the traditional lands once conquered by his armies and subjected to Islam be restored to rule by adherents of the true faith.
After this goal is achieved, the âthird stageâ will involve expanding âthe jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.â And then will come the final stage: âthe clash with Israel.â Zawahiriâs references to Israel are significant, and make clear that despite years of propaganda in which Palestinian frustrated ânationalist aspirationsâ are trotted out as excuses for murder, it is Israelâs very existence, no matter what it does, that makes its elimination necessary. As Zawahiri puts it, Palestine is the âheartâ of a âbirdâ whose wings are Syria and Egypt. The Western powers understood the strategic importance of this location for destroying the unity of the Muslim-Arab world; hence, âthey did not establish Israel in this triangle surrounded by Egypt and Syria and overlooking the Hijaz [western Saudi Arabia containing Mecca and Medina] except for their own interests.â
In other words, Israel is simply a weapon in the war of the infidel against Islam, an outpost of the West as much as were the medieval Crusader kingdoms, a state âestablished only to challenge any new Islamic entity.â That is why Israel must go, not because it has prevented the Palestinians from creating a state. Indeed, Zawahiri implicitly rejects the ânationalistâ interpretation of the struggle against Israel: âIt is strange that the Arab nationalists also have, despite their avoidance of Islamic practice, come to comprehend the great importance of this province [Palestine] . . . They have come to comprehend the goal of planting Israel in this region, and they are not misled in this, rather they have admitted their ignorance of the religious nature of this conflict.â
Nor is this interpretation the idiosyncratic obsession of a crank, as the existence of numerous Palestinian jihadist terror organizations attests. The Westâs failure to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an episode in the centuries-long spiritual struggle between Islam and the âinfidelsâ continues to this day, as we see with the vast hopes pinned on Mahmoud Abbas and democratic elections, all the while organizations like Hamas, committed like Zawahiri to the destruction of Israel, continue to enjoy significant support among Palestinian Arabs and to function as an autonomous state-within-a-state. The creation of a Palestinian state, then, is merely a stage towards that eventual âclash with Israelâ Zawahiri speaks of. Until we recognize this spiritual motivation and compel the presumed âmoderatesâ who sincerely reject it to act on their beliefs ââ more bluntly, to destroy the armed terroristsââ there will be no solution to that crisis that does not leave Israel vulnerable.
Zawahiri understands that the pursuit of this traditional Islamic goal must take place in a modern world in which the infidels have an overwhelming military superiority. This means that the struggle must be carried on at the psychological and perceptual level as well. He understands that âhalf of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the mediaâ in a ârace for the hearts and minds of our Umma [the whole Muslim community].â Suicide attacks on Shiites in Iraq, then, are condemned not on moral or religious grounds, but as tactical errors in the battle for âhearts and minds.â Why a gory beheading when âwe can kill the captives by a bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts.â As we have seen repeatedly in Israel, terrorist murder is condemned on tactical, not moral, grounds. Always the larger goal, the restoration of Islamic dominance, is the only standard by which to judge any action.
Finally, Zawahiri makes it clear that the at the âAmericans will exit soon,â as he puts it, and so planning should commence for the political order that will arise upon their departure, is confirmed for him historically by Vietnam: âThe aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam ââ and how they ran and left their agents ââ is noteworthy.â Indeed it is, but not for the false âquagmireâ analogy trotted out periodically by those opposed to the war in Iraq. Rather, the significance of Vietnam lies in how the United States, as a South Vietnamese defense minister put it, âsnatched defeat from the jaws of victory.â
In other words, military power may have succeeded in turning back the North Vietnamese, but political and moral weakness undid all the gains earned by the sacrifice of 60,000 American lives and millions of Vietnamese. As Zawahiri indicates, the lesson was learned by our enemies: make enough Americans uncomfortable, disturb their leisure and sensibilities with enough grisly images helpfully broadcast by their own media, and eventually they will cut and run. And indeed, if we were to abandon Iraq after suffering there about the same number of deaths as we did in two months in Vietnam, such abandonment would confirm for the jihadists their estimation of our spiritual corruption.
Over and over the jihadist enemy tells us why he wants to kill us, and over and over we dismiss his words or reduce them to our own categories. Paralyzed by our fear of being âinsensitiveâ to cultural differences, and deluded by our materialist preconceptions that reduce religion to an expression of some more ârealâ cause, we refuse to name clearly the enemy: an Islamic faith that for centuries has killed, enslaved, plundered, ravaged, and conquered in the service of its arrogant assurance of its spiritual superiority. Wow. What he said.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
