We all know where this is heading. We're in a world-wide, full-blown clash of civilizations that is about to go decidedly nuclear at a time when the West is not only suffering from a lack of confidence, but has a significant portion of its population who believe in their bones that it deserves to lose.
There can only be one outcome in such a state of affairs: eventually, those of us who wish not only for survival but to prevail and to preserve what is ours and has been gifted to us by countless generations will have to decide to do whatever it takes to ensure that survival. And I'm not entirely unconvinced that such a struggle will not have a domestic component.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have an answer to our predictament or even a suggested course of action.
But, in my heart of hearts, I know that somewhere out there, walking around even as I type this, is a war leader, this generation's Patton. I don't know who he is or even if he is a he. But s/he is there.
#3
No we have a bunch of pussies leading our government who are too concerned about offending someone, or too concerned about getting re-elected and lose their cushy job in Congress.
#4
anymouse - Probably won't be a Pol, though you've got to figure out an amendment to your post to allow for the existence of people like Tancredo, doncha think?
I believe that the Deuce-Four commander, LTC Erik Kurilla would be a prime example of exactly the sort that could (should) rise to the top. I'd do everything in my power to support such a leader. Everything.
#5
Military dictatorship, .com. Just "temporarily"???
I'm not as pessimistic as you about the American people, although I sometimes despair. Many are slow to wake up. Most don't follow what's happening around the world in enough detail to connect the dots.
But they are going to, I think. And when they do, we won't need to abrogate our way of life and our Constitution because when the will of the people is strong, we can do what we need to do to protect this country and our way of life.
We'll see how the elections turn out. A lot hinges on that.
#6
Many Pattons, as there would be many battlefields, discrete in time.
But there is the thing... you've heard the term "assymetrical war". That seems to be the case on the surface, as this war is multidimensional, a 3-D chess of sorts. We just need to find "Pattons" that would be able to understand all the components of the war and resolve these aspects that do not seem to have a military dimension, as well.
#12
Oh damn, forgot the /sarc tags. I guess I shouldn't rely too much on the smiley thingies, eh?
Actually, Bush has been far better, done more, taken more chances, stood more firm in the storm of BDS, and shown more spine than the US voting public deserved. Backbone is so rare these days. We got lucky, IMHO. Pure dumb luck. I am grateful for what he has done, rather than pissy about what I think he should have done, but has yet to do.
#13
.com, You're right about Bush. The Bush-Lincoln comparisons are going to be pretty think three years after he's gone. We don't really know the half of what has gone on duriing the last 5 years.
For Clinton, history will not be kind and for Bush it will. It sort of has to work out that way. Clinton had nowhere to go but down and Bush, up.
Bush also has also, keep your fingers crossed, completely beaten the year ending in zero hex on presidents that Reagan partially broke by not succumbing to the assassin, that went back to 1840.
Our grandchildren and gg-children will look back and wonder at how undeserving the American people were of a leader who saw so clearly what was going down and tried to save the country from what came later because of their failure to support him. After that has happened, the leader this article is describing will rise to the occasion.
#15
.com, right, he's done more than anyone imagined and kudos.
But, possibly, he could have done more. It is hard to judge, we may not have all the pertinent information that the administration has. But by the same token, some (that is--people that study all the aspect of the conflict) may have had information that was conveyed, but not acted upon or incorporated into long term planning, yet.
#16
Sure, 2x4, I'll even accept "probably". But we don't know what he knows - either the intel or the resources or the actions that are taken that we never will hear about - or only much later after the dust has settled - and we blithely expect things, nay - demand things, sitting here in the bitchosphere, where all things are possible, lol, which aren't possible back there in the political reality he has to live within.
Indeed, his position is tough. And he has every type imaginable to deal with, from the leakers to the politicians to the liars to the good guys. The job must suck like an F-5.
#17
NW - I agree - and posted the story about Great Presidents because I believe Bush will be seen by historians in that light someday, when the universities are restored to sanity.
#18
I voted for Bush twice, but, I am a right winger, and as such, I have a list of Bush weaknesses.
I can start with his first choices for Secretaries of Interior and Transportation.
Then, with both houses of Congress, he has not seen fit to reduce the Federal Government by one single department. The borders. Expansion of Medicare. Rebuilding of a city below sea level.
Allowing traitors and leakers in his midst without a serious attempt to skin one of them to prove a point. And many other points where Bush is soft.
#19
Well okaaaaay then, he's shit! Fuckin' slacker biatch!
Of course, I could probably produce a list of gripes against just about anybody. Certainly myself. And, amazingly enough, even you, wxj. Go figure, huh?
#20
.com: Absolutley. Tancredo and a handful of others. However, it just makes me sick to think of whores like Randy Cunningham, Bob Ney, and other Republicans that have sacrificed this country, and the conservative movement. Grrrr. (sorry for my earlier sweeping generalization).
As a senior Reserve officer I do know a few warriors. However, the system is still there....just in a different form....to keep guys like Kurilla out of the Flag rank.
The skills required to lead men (and women) are not those required to successfully navigate the staff positions at the major command HQ's. And, unless you are a senior officer it's hard to explain how diversity and other issues have reshaped the warrior ethos. It is even more difficult for the true warrior to exist let alone move up in today's military.
#21
So true, anymouse. Just like Lyndie England (sp?) and the others at AG prison, Cunningham and Foley and others who lack sense, scruples, and any personal discipline have so undermined our efforts that my honest reaction is screw prison, shoot the assholes.
I have no doubt what you say about the system is true. I'm Vietnam Era and saw the good ones get stymied somewhere around Major, maybe Light Col. If they had birds, then it was game over - the pull to get that star seemed to suck the honor and honesty right out of them. Sure, I'll admit there must've been exceptions, but I never knew any.
I did encounter something funny, though, long after my service I was acquainted via work with 3 retired Generals - and one of them had returned to his roots as a solid guy, a straight shooter, someone worthy of sharing a beer - he'd have his beer and I'd swill coffee, lol - I don't drink. A Two-Star, I was happy to have been on good working terms with him. Though many here would find it improbable, lol, he seemed to like my company and, as a big-wig in the Co, regularly invited me to things (meetings, conferences, etc) I would not normally have been part of. I was an odd-ball there, having over 20 yrs experience as a solo contractor before joining this company, and that may have been why we connected - he liked the smartassed lone wolf who gave him shit - no one else did, lol. I guess not only having made it, but being retired, had flushed the blind ambition drive I presume he must've had and allowed him to be himself. A good guy, I thought. The other two were imperious asshole ring-knockers. Lol.
Kurilla, known through Yon's posts, is clearly the kind of person we'd probably all like to see enter politics after his service. I doubt Yon is the kind of guy who'd be fooled for that long and at that close proximity - so I wager Kurilla's the Real Deal. That Kurilla doesn't have much of a chance without a lot of luck or someone deciding to adopt him as a protégé is sad. No doubt he's viewed as a threat by the Pentagon types. I only hope it's not as bad today, as it was.
#22
.com...I know I sound bleak. There are warriors in the Flag ranks as well as the O-6 level. It's just that the system tends to neuter, or filter the warrior ethos. The traits that are required to succesfully navigate the O-Ring are not what is required in a good warrior. The pain of modern staff work (contractors, BS, Congress, etc.) generally drive the warrior out and leave those who relish that sort of thing.
#2
Didn't read the whole thing, but the beginning was interesting.
One question...did he ask the boys what they thought of the girls?
According to my sons (youngest 20) the females are looking for complete control and freedom from responsibility. They want the boys to be gentlemen but they are affronted if they are told to act like ladies. Double standard and lack of personal accountibility seem to be their watch word. (Obvious generalizations and there are exceptions galore)
#3
I've met both the wimps and the barbarians. It was all I could do not to put them over my knee and spank them, as my father would have done to me if I had done what they did. Remember, we're counting on this upcoming generation to fight a long war for our civilization. If we don't prepare them to be men, how do we expect them to fight like men?
Posted by: Jonathan ||
10/24/2006 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Heavy metal softens nothing. It is the music of pure rage. I wonder what he'd think of Iron Maidens Alexander the Great or The Rythm of the Ancient Mariner. Yeah history and litirature lessons are not the milk and honey of heavy metal but Iron Maiden is one of the bigs.
H/t to Silent Running, via the InstaguyA poll (link in Spanish) published by the news paper El Universal shows that 50% of interviewed Mexicans are in favor of redoubling the police security in the border with 51% of the Mexicans wanting immigration with Central American citizens to the country to diminish, according to a survey published Monday by the newspaper El Universal. In the USA, 39% think the same in regards to total immigration.
The survey, made between the 8th and the 13th of September, before the malaise in Mexico increased by the decision of the Congress of the United States to approve the construction of an border wall, showed that only 5% of the Mexican population were in favor of a greater flow of immigrants of the countries of Central America. (in USA 17% were in favor of a greater immigration, this poll didnt specify the country of origin of immigrants). In addition, 50% of the interviewed Mexicans were in favor of an increase in the police force that patrol the South border of the country, with Guatemala, where every year a good number of undocumented emigrants enter Mexico.
heh heh...¿come se dice "hypocrisy" en espanol?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/24/2006 09:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The international press cried foul on October 19 after the U.S. denied a visa to a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader. Newsweek, Reuters, ABC News, The National Interest and other media complained that the moderate Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) founder Kamal Helbawy was barred from appearing at New York Universitys Center for Law and Security. The U.S. also barred entry to Egyptian doctor and MB guidance counsel Abd El Monem Abo El Fotouh, who was scheduled to speak in the same discussion on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Helbawy claims to be moderate. The U.S. should not prevent moderates from talking and discussing, Helbawy stated after being pulled off his flight. El Fotouh is purportedly also temperate.
At the end of the day, [Islam and the West] have a set of common humanist values: justice, freedom, human rights and democracy,
he told The Economist in September 2003. Arabists consider El Fotouh one of the brightest stars of the MBs so-called middle generation.
The Department of Homeland Security didnt explain their actions. One can only surmiseand applaud. Consider:
In 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced suicide bombings everywhere-even in Israel. Well he is wrong, Helbawy replied. He is not a Mufti, he told the Jamestown Foundation. In the same interview, Helbawy blamed [T]he events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine as a factor behind the July 7, 2005 London bombings-along with U.K. participation in Iraq and its policy toward the issue of Palestine.
[T]he United States invaded Iraq to divide Muslims, El Fotouh told the New York Times on August 3, 2006. It was better to support a Hezbollah-Iranian agenda than an American-Zionist one, he added.
Islams war against Israel is not a conflict of borders and land only. It is not even a conflict over human ideology and not over peace, Helbawy told a December 1992 Muslim Arab Youth Association gathering, taped by terror expert Steve Emerson. [I]t is an absolute clash of civilizations, between truth and falsehood. Between two conducts-one satanic, headed by Jews and their co-conspirators-and the other is religious, carried by Hamas, and the Islamic movement in particular and the Islamic people . Muslims should never befriend Jews and Christians, who are only allies to each other, he warned.
Islamic scholars had performed their basic religious duty in calling on Muslims to join jihad against the U.S., El Fotouh stated in March 2003. Al Azhar had rightly urged them to defend themselves and their faith against an enemy stepping on Muslims landwhich the scholars called a new Crusader battle targeting our land, honour, faith and nation. Al Azhars decree, El Fotouh stated, was no more than an attempt on the part of its scholars to fulfill their duty before God. The U.S. had plans to enslave the Arab nation, he also claimed.
The New York Post, Counterterrorismblog.org and New York Sun likewise saw through the MB facade.
Although the Muslim Brotherhood describes itself as a political and social revolutionary organization, the group is widely (and correctly) recognized as the parent of most Islamic terror groups. Indeed, U.S. authorities most worry about the MB defense of the use of violence against civilians, said security and terrorism adviser Juan Zarate recently.
Founded in March 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the MB rejected the West and sought return to the original Islam. Its philosophical and ideological ideas should cause even academics serious concern. The recently exposed 1982 Muslim Brotherhood Project orders members worldwide
To channel thought, education and action in order to establish an Islamic power [government] on the earth.
Today, the MB still calls for Building the Muslim state Building the Khilafa Mastering the world with Islam.
MB spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, an Egyptian member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, likewise calls for an Islamic conquest of Europe (starting with Rome and Italy). [T]he patch of the Muslim state will expand to cover the whole earth...., he writes. Qaradawi also praises suicide bombing, readily accepts wife beating and calls upon Muslim women to detonate themselves in order to kill Jews.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, on Oct. 19, the Open Forum on The Muslim Brotherhood nevertheless praised Helbawy and El Fotouh as peaceful moderates, and their organization as a peaceful, just, and moderating influence on Middle East and global politics. Their absence was yet another strike against the Bush administration, executive director Karen Greenberg stated. This center tries to educate one another, policy makers and the public, she addeda job Greenberg apparently considers more important than public security.
Former Sunday Times senior reporter Nick Fielding then took the floor. He denied the risks the MB poses to the West. Helbawy is a wonderful human being, he stated, adding that the 2005 election of 22 Muslim Brothers to Egypts parliament-and the Hamas victory in the January 2006 Palestinian Authority votewere cause for celebration. Fielding objected only to the reward Muslims received for their free elections-the silence of the U.S. State Department in the face of Egyptian government abuse, and the U.S. and international boycott of the Hamas-controlled PA.
The MB is reformist, according to Fielding. It provides the best possibility in the Middle East of leaders who can make deals and stick to them, he stated, noting their solid political backing in Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria Kuwait and Yemen. The MB, he insisted, has for the past 30 years [consistently] followed a non violent path. The brotherhoods only problem, Fielding claimed, is its ostracization by such analysts as The Counterterrorism blog, whose data he derided.
True democracy would never take root in the Middle East, Fielding predicted. Its about as likely as Sharia being adopted in Washington D.C., he joked.
Despite Islams inherently political natureMuslims want Islam to be a central part of life, Fielding stated-he dismissed concerns over calls for a global Islamic caliphate. We shouldnt terrify ourselves with this rather silly point, he said. Refusing to recognize state Sharia law in Islamic [nations] is what has caused intensifying radicalism. Countering the spread of jihadist organizations requires that the West address the grievancesmany of them legitimate-of the jihadist movement, Fielding concluded.
Sharing Fieldings view is Nixon Center Senior Fellow and ABC news consultant Alexis Debata former adviser to the French transatlantic defense minister. Lets stop hyperventilating about the Muslim Brotherhood, he said. I hear the same things in a church as I hear in a mosque. Debat concluded, Islam is a source of enlightenment.
Debat also recognized Islams centralityas both the Middle Easts primary source of political action and universalthat is, encompassing every aspect of life. We dont know where it starts and where it ends, he observed. Strangely, however, Debat denied that the Muslim Brotherhood is religious. Its chiefly a political movement, not a party,a liberation movement. He admired the groups highly pragmatic approach to becoming the leader in Egypt.
Islamist cleric Yusuf Qaradawi, Debat allowed, is the single most influential Islamic thinker today. He did not condemn Qaradawis views. Almost without missing a beat, Debat maintained that the Muslim Brotherhood is a progressive movement, whose ultimate goal is a better, more just society. He added, Social justice is the cornerstone of Islam.
Regarding the MB vision of a global Islamic caliphate, Debat insisted this is completely absent from Muslim Brotherhood rhetoric, even that of Qaradawi.
I guarantee you that no serious official of the Egyptian ikhwan today would even mention the Caliphate as a program,
he reiterated in a follow-up email, neglecting the worldwide Brotherhood, which claims membership in more than 70 countries.
Despite his assurances, Debat opened with a troubling disclaimer: He admitted failing to understand the Middle East. His five-year journey to understand the Muslim Brotherhood will be lifelong, Debat stated. And theres a limit to what we [Westerners] can understand about the Middle East, he said.
Thank goodness Homeland Security does not take advice from those who admit their failure to understand the Middle East, believe Westerners incapable of comprehending itand with such an obvious disregard for established facts.
Alyssa A. Lappen is a poet, Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy, and an occasional contributor to American Thinker.
#1
IMHO, the only enlightenment the Muzzies have generated lately is when they are burning some representative of their hatred or affront to their delicate sensitivities. I was stationed among these pukes in the 70's and found them to be not as quaint as the left would like to believe.
#2
US visas should be granted when the interest of the US is advanced, not otherwise. Kamal Helbawy could have made his presentation at NYU by a videoconference from anywhere in the world and saved the earth from all that extra CO2 he would have generated by flying here.
#1
Epidemiology and political agendas don't make good bedfellows. Epidemiologists have tried to paint autos and firearms as instruments of epidemics. Often their methodology is used to support an agenda.
Now ask yourself who the hell could vote Democrat at ALL looking at that for the house leaderhip - even if its just to "teach the Repubs/ReligiousRight a lesson"
and those deliberately voting against thier interests are idiots. What happened to them, did they collectively lose thier minds thinking giving power to Pelosi and company would punish REPUBLICANS? NO!
It punishes AMERICANS!
The damage effects will be felt for years. Ask SE Asia and what happened when we bailed on them, ask about Pol Pot, etc.
Are they so stupid as to not learn from history?
The Liberals have made a bet - they are betting that people are stupid enough to vote in anger without thinking about the consequences of giving things over to the Democrats.
Looks like with Loy and Quick and other "Idiotarians", the liberals are getting exactly the kind of useful idiot help they need.
Let me be the rist to thank you idiots for the tax raises, cut-n-run allowing terror to blossom, and open borders through wich illegals and terrorists will pour.
With "friends" like you, who need enemies?
Rest assured, *I* will not forget you - and I will rub it in every time your libertarian ideals are smashed without even a chance to speak by the Left.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
#1
Thanks for posting this, Oldspook. I've been getting heartburn and BP spikes all day after reading those posts. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face," as I've read from some pundits doesn't seem quite an apt expression in this case, but I can't think of a better one right now.
#2
That's when one discovers that some people make a lot of noise that may sound right but is merely posturing.
Real men show integrity and stand straight even when storms are gathering.
I'm concerned by Republican fickleness in the last 2-3 years -- and by us not having crushed Islamofascist states beyond the Taliban and Baathist regimes. However no sane person would believe that putting Democrats in power would make things one iota better. On the contrary it's a recipe for short-term defeat and long-term hundreds of millions of WMD death. Maybe even ending Western civilization.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/24/2006 22:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It is a worthwhile topic to worry about - what would happen if the dems win control of Congress? You have to worry about a political party that is afraid of telling folks what they really are for and against as a party. They are like a stealth party. Other than cut and run, what is their policy about iraq and the larger war on terror? Do they think folks really believe they will hunt down Osama like Pancho Villa? Do they come out and tell you that they hold religious Americans in contempt, thereby thumbing their collectivist noses at our history, the history of Western Civilization? Do they come out and tell you that they would sell out our freedoms to global interests - that they agree with our enemy's hate America assessment that we are responsible for injustice in the Middle East, South America, in the world?
You are a fool if you think it is a great idea to get the Republicans attention by not voting to teach them a lesson.
In this space a few weeks ago I stuck out my wattled neck and declared, with the kind of confidence only political columnists can summon, that the Democratic party is busy developing policy ideas about how to run the government - - assuming, of course, its members win control of Congress next month.
And ever since, I've been looking for further evidence that my confidence was well-placed.
I've come up empty. Hoping to find a new version of the GOP's winning "Contract with America" in 1994, I've found instead that this year's Democratic campaigns for Congress are essentially negative -- against the war in Iraq above all.
"I'm not a Republican" seems to be a sufficient argument to wow voters at the moment, and who can blame them?
A substance-free strategy in this season of discontent may be smart politically. And it's tactically efficient. But it also helps explain a curious anomaly in many polls: As approval ratings for congressional Republicans fall, congressional Democrats haven't enjoyed a corresponding rise the way Republicans did against their Democratic counterparts before the 1994 election.
It's hard, in other words, to build positive ratings without a positive message. Next year and beyond, Democrats may come to regret they didn't have one.
War of Ideas
An excellent clue to why they didn't is found in a well- wrought piece of investigative reporting making the rounds among Democrats this month.
Ari Berman, a writer for the Nation magazine, has one answer: Democrats -- and liberals generally -- don't know how to spend money, at least when it comes to what activists like to call the "war of ideas."
Democrats themselves had begun to suspect as much. Last year, in a widely noticed article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (not the easiest place to get widely noticed, by the way), City College Professor Andrew Rich demonstrated that "liberal foundations" outspent "conservative foundations" by as much as 10 to 1 in developing public policy ideas, but to little effect.
"Conservatives have found ways to package their ideas in more compelling ways, and their money is providing more bang for the buck," Rich wrote.
Textbook Case
Berman used his Nation article to examine a textbook case of the phenomenon: the Democracy Alliance, a loose association of 100 very wealthy liberal donors who hoped to pool resources to provide a durable source of long-term funding for like-minded (and chronically penurious) scholars, researchers, writers, magazines and activists.
The Alliance rose from the ashes of 2004, when vast and ultimately unsuccessful expenditures were made by well-funded liberal groups like the inaptly named America Coming Together, which quickly fell apart.
By contrast, the Alliance's original goal, as Berman explains it, was "movement building" -- to think beyond the politics of the current election cycle and develop an enduring network for the dissemination of liberal ideas, much as wealthy conservatives did from the 1960s on through movement organs such as the National Review magazine and the Heritage Foundation.
"It's too soon to draw any conclusions about the Alliance," Berman says. But he makes clear that preliminary signs aren't promising.
Dissension Already
At the Alliance's first formal meeting -- held, you'll never guess, at a winery-resort -- a relatively paltry sum ($29 million) was promised to a relatively small (nine) number of groups.
Any veteran of progressive confabs -- such as the memorable 1970 meeting of Students for a Democratic Society that spent 18 hours debating whether to have a beach party -- won't be shocked to hear that dissension soon erupted. Factions formed and asserted themselves.
The first round of grants struck many participants and observers as unadventurous, weighted toward groups closely allied to the Democratic Party establishment. And movement bean-counters noticed to their horror that "16 of 17 presenters were white males."
At the next Alliance meeting, surprise guest Bill Clinton offered a heated defense of his wife's vote for the Iraq war. His outburst was described by one rich donor as "an extraordinary display of anger and imperiousness." Even though short-term political campaigns are precisely what the Alliance hoped to steer away from, some progressives worried that it would become "a front group for Hillary '08."
Off Limits
The fear of further factionalism has led the Alliance to shun certain "off-limits" subjects that are dear to the liberal heart: cutting the military budget, the influence of corporate money in the two political parties and U.S.-Israeli relations.
Meanwhile -- and perhaps as a result of its ideological timidity -- "the Alliance hasn't been deeply involved in idea creation in the same way conservatives have been," Berman writes. Promises to fund low-circulation, high-impact intellectual magazines, for example, have so far gone unfulfilled.
So where does that leave the Alliance almost two years into its existence? Oddly enough, given the fabulous wealth of its members, it's running low on funds.
"After two grant cycles," Berman writes, "the Alliance is overextended."
Yet even that isn't its most serious problem. As the Democrats may soon learn, there are some things that money can't buy. The most telling fact in Berman's brave and stinging piece is this: "In its early stages, the Alliance, following the lead of (the Heritage Foundation), attempted to hammer out a mission statement for the organization. A year later, the document is still a work in progress." Throw more money at it. Lots more. Dip deep into the DNC and 527 funds. That'll do the trick.
#2
"I'm not a Republican" seems to be a sufficient argument to wow voters at the moment...'
"No matter what slogans are used to describe it, the President's Iraq policy has been a dismal failure. It is long past time for a new direction in Iraq."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi - Oct. 24, 2006
It is necessary once in a while to clear the decks on a given issue, to discard the accumulated rhetoric and concepts and start afresh. As we enter the sixth year of the War on Terror, such a fresh start is desperately needed.
Todays statesmen and commentators left, right, and centerhave so far demonstrated themselves incapable of bringing clarity to the world situation. To them, the world today appears hopelessly complicated: wars in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia; Iran in pursuit of atomic weapons; unrest in the streets of Europe; terrorism worldwide. The problem is that the modern political view of the world is now being confronted with something that does not fit into its theoretical framework, something that is fundamentally not modern: the return of Islam to the world stage.
The most conspicuous symptom of the global Islamic resurgence, Muslim violence, is reflexively dismissed as extreme or radical by Western analysts because they cannot make sense of people willing to kill and die in the name of their god. They treat terrorism as an insular problem that lacks any authentic rational basis. In fact, terrorism is merely one manifestation of the elemental hostility Islam harbors toward the rest of the world. The terrorists are merely carrying to a logical conclusion the principles, teachings, and precedents enshrined in Islams holy books and the example of its Prophet.
When Western leaders and opinion-makers pontificate on Islam, they invariably engage in a futile effort to force Islam into their own conceptual categories. But Islam is neither a nation, nor a party, nor a religion in the conventional sense. Islam is rather a tribe whose members share spiritual, social and political ties that transcend conventional political boundaries. But the tribal system of political organization simply does not mesh with modern Western ideas. Western analysts and policymakers will continue to misunderstand Islam as long as they remain tethered to a modern view of the world that fails to recognize the reality of deep-seated religious motivations.
While Western statesmen of all stripes continue to spout forth the bromide that Islam is a religion of peace, they belie with equal consistency their utter ignorance of Islam itself. One wonders: How many of them have actually read the Koran? How many know how to read the Koran? How many are familiar with the other canonical Islamic texts, the hadiths and the Sira? How many have any idea what the Prophet Muhammad really did or what he instructed his followers to do?
The fact is that the armies of pundits, academics and politicians who dominate Western policy and opinion today simply do not know what they are talking about. They do not know because they are unwilling to know: They are unwilling to admit that our great universities, government agencies and media institutions have totally failed to prepare us for the present struggle.
We are at war with an alien power with no regard for Western principles; an enemy that seeks nothing less than our submission or destruction. More than larger defense budgets or better intelligence, we must recover a public insistence on rigorous thought. Diplomatic wrangling and debating the minutiae of policy must give way to a candid reassessment of what Islam is, what it has done, and what it stands to do. It is these questions that we must take up if we are to have any serious hope of saving a West currently unaware of the full magnitude of what is as stake.
What do you call it when the ombudsman of the New York Times admits he made a mistake?
A good start.
New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame has initiated what we can only hope will be a trend in Americas holier-than-thou media -- that overwhelming and influential part of our nations news business that feigns objectivity, fairness and interest in our national well-being while relentlessly pursuing partisan and destructively anti-American agendas.
Calame, in the throws of some inexplicable crisis of conscience, has admitted his newspaper was wrong to reveal a secret U.S. government program to monitor bank transactions of terrorists, and that he was not only wrong but hypocritical to defend it. He did not mention hopelessly lacking in perspective, but Ill get to that.
Calame has acknowledged that the United States governments Swift program to monitor overseas banking transactions in order to zero in on suspected terrorists was legal, under appropriate oversight, and posed no threat to law-abiding Americans. He acknowledged that, but for his prejudices, he could have arrived at this conclusion upon reading the original article. He acknowledged that it was a bad idea for the New York Times to reveal this program to our enemies, over the objections of our government, four months ago.
Calames mea culpa has a bit of the dog-ate-my-homework about it. As blogger Don Surber noted, Calame blamed his opinion in part for his sympathy with the "underdog" -- the New York Times -- under the onslaught of vociferous reaction from the Bush administration to its reporting. On what planet the New York Times is underdog, I dont know. And perhaps it was nagging embarrassment at his own excess enthusiasm for unwarranted victimhood that prompted Calames about-face. But thats beside the point.
There has been at least one outraged and well-principled call for Calames resignation, at the prominent conservative blog www.patterico.com. But not so fast, Byron.Your work is not done. You may yet redeem yourself.
Prior to exiting, Byron, you may consider launching a soul-searching campaign at the New York Times.Id encourage a look at the decision to report on the National Security Agencys warrantless electronic monitoring of emails and phone calls between the United States and suspect individual overseas.The outrage your paper and others stirred up over a program that falls well within the law and harms no law-abiding American citizen, and the notice you served to terrorists and their supporters of its existence, constitute aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.
But dont stop there.You have been greatly privileged -- beyond your merit -- to hold a lofty and influential position overseeing the morality and ethics of our newsgathering profession.
The American media is morally and ethically adrift, and in need of guidance.You could be the one, based on this revelation, to provide some. Faced with a spreading threat to our fundamental values and freedoms by Islamic fascists, the media in the United States is predominantly of the view, and encourages the belief, that the United States government in its execution of conventional and unconventional war against clearly demonstrated threats poses the greater threat to our way of life.
Our media has repeatedly propagated falsehoods about what the administration and the president have said, about what was known and about what in some cases has been borne out about the threats we have faced from al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and others. This has been done to such an extent that reasonable people cannot be blamed for believing their president lied to them before committing troops to battle. To the extent that some seemingly responsible people now question whether we face any threat at all. The history leading up to the conflicts and crises we face has been repeatedly misrepresented, in a manner that undercuts the authority of a wartime president and threatens the credibility of our nation in the world -- the single most important nation in maintaining stability in the world.
The American media and the American left are now convinced Iraq is a lost cause and are doing everything they can to convince the American people of that. It is a prelude to what could become a shameless betrayal of the Iraqi people and a disparagement of the American and Iraqi blood that has been spilled. Regardless of whether it is for political gain or from deeply held if misguided beliefs, they are eager to take actions that, for short-term gratification, would prompt massive bloodshed far beyond what we are seeing now and plant the seeds of future wars.
The left offered no viable plan for how they would have handled a Saddam Hussein bent on re-arming had this war not been initiated, nor have they yet offered a viable plan for ending or exiting this war.Unless one considers a Vietnam-like abandonment of Iraq viable, and even a cursory glance backward tells us it isnt. Walking away is never a solution. Without overly belaboring the point, the fall of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia tell us it isnt. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Lebanon barracks bombing, Mogadishu, the East African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and Sept. 11 -- all conducted with the well-founded belief that we would run or do nothing -- tells us it isnt.
But with Byron Calames remarkable admission, we see what could be the beginnings of an awakening. Im not holding my breath.But Im an optimist.And I think I just saw a hairline crack in the arrogance of one of Americas most powerful media institutions.
Posted by: DanNY ||
10/24/2006 07:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Too little, too late, NY Times.
We'll all feel better after you've bled to death.
I didn't see this yesterday, but here is the Memorial website, with the names of those killed there.
Here is the french website dedicaced to the 58 french paratroopers killed 20 seconds after that first blast. 23 years later, french paras are protecting the killers, thanks to the Arab Policy.
#1
RIP to the Marines and others slaughered that night.
Man, I wish the Reagan admin had ignored the people trying to make Beirut "Reagan's Vietnam" and responded to that bombing in Lebanon instead of in Grenada. One of an awful lot of opportunities missed over the last 30 years to turn the tide against the Islamists.
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.
