My fourth year of elementary school began in the fall of 1969 and ended in the summer of 1970. I loved sports. It was truly the year of the underdog. The Mets won the World Series behind the pitching of Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, and Tug McGraw. In January, Joe Willie Namath led the AFL Jets over the NFL Colts in Super Bowl III. The Knickerbockers defeated the Lakers for the NBA championship despite the ailing knees of their center, Willis Reed. Sometime between these events a bulldog named Joe Frazier won an epic battle over the famous Muhammed Ali. I spent much of the school day daydreaming about events such as these. As the hands on the clock approached 2:00, I knew that afternoon recess would provide a break from the monotony of long division, nouns, verbs, and the like. For thirty minutes every afternoon, our class would go outdoors in the Texas heat and play the games and activities we so relished. Afterward, we returned to the air conditioned portable building and lined up at the water fountain before returning to the classroom for the last hour of instruction.

There were, however, exceptions to the routine. On at least one occasion, my teacher felt like the class misbehaved and the entire class was not permitted to go to recess. The majority of the class worked hard and followed rules, but there had been three or four unidentified clowns that acted unruly. As a result, the teacher said the whole class would miss recess. We were handed worksheets – probably long division – and sat miserably in our chairs until the bell rang hours later. I was angry at the teacher and angry at the stupid clowns that had ruined the day for the rest of us. The next day, the environment was back to normal and recess was back on. I don’t recall if the fools learned the lesson or if some of the class pointed out to them the error of their ways. In any event, the class was orderly, the teacher taught, and we enjoyed recess.

It wasn’t fair to punish the entire class for the actions of some. You couldn’t convince the 9 or 10 year old kid in that classroom of that and you can’t convince me today that this was fair. I don’t know that anyone questioned my teacher about the unfairness of punishing innocent people. If someone did, no answer was given. But I am convinced that the teacher’s action was the correct one. By punishing the entire group, order was re-established, the curriculum objectives were met, the guilty were punished, and the innocent lived to see another day, albeit with some unjust suffering.

The teacher did not know who was culpable and didn’t expend a lot of energy investigating the crime. Basically, the message was “if anybody makes my life rough, everyone will pay the price.” Suppose my teacher had decided it was “unfair” to punish the entire class. In today’s classroom the scenario would likely be played out much differently:

Class, your behavior today was not acceptable. I’m not sure who the responsible parties are, but it’s unfair to punish the group for the misbehavior of a few. I would hope you’d think about your actions because it will eventually catch up with you. Now go play.

I guarantee if my 4^th grade teacher had responded this way, not only would the misbehavior have continued the next day, I and others would have no doubt contributed to the misconduct. Eventually, the classroom would have degenerated into chaos. As long as you don’t get caught, there is no penalty. Eventually, the teacher would stop teaching and be forced to do nothing but monitor behavior all day long. The class would not learn, but everyone would go to recess and no student would be treated unfairly.

I played football for a few years in middle school and high school. My coaches thought the same way as my 4^th grade teacher. During practice, if the right guard moved before the snap count, the entire offense did pushups. When the halfback fumbled the exchange from the quarterback, all eleven of us lined up to do wind sprints. It wasn’t fair. We ran anyway. The next day the execution of plays tended to be better.

My how things have changed since 1970. It’s been 37 years since that time. My leaders in school days of old held simple education degrees; certainly they didn’t have the qualifications to run the country or head the Department of State. Those responsibilities fall to the most educated in our society; the most qualified individuals. Leaders of the nation attend prestigious institutes of learning such as Stanford and Yale. At these esteemed universities, they obtain advanced degrees. Our Secretary of State and the President of the United States are but two of many well-educated government officials presiding over our land.

A few years back, George Bush and Ms. Rice spearheaded a drive to give democracy to the Palestinian people. Now keep in mind that the majority of the Palestinian advocate the destruction of Israel. As Muslims, most believe that sharia should govern the land, and that all religions should be subordinate to Islam. Hamas openly states these policies. Even so, it is the policy of Bush and Rice that all people should have the right of self-determination, and that given that right, would choose to become partners in a global community. To hell with partnership in a global community. The Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for Hamas.

Ever true to core beliefs, Hamas violently took control of Gaza, seized weapons and materials, and began strictly enforcing extremist sharia as practiced by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and sanctioned by the Koran. As a result, the hopes of a peaceful, co-existent, two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians (a pipe dream if there ever was one) were dashed. Iran provides material support for Hamas in the form of weapons. Al Qaeda also influences Hamas, and the population has been educated in hatred for years. It is apparent that Hamas must be defeated and not allowed to gain strength which would allow them to escalate suicide bombing and rocket attacks against Israel.

Israel and the West have the capability to severely punish Hamas. Electricity and other essential services to Gaza are made possible through Israel. The United States and Europe provide economic aid to the Palestinians which allow them to eat (and procure weapons). Simply turning off the spigot would cause great suffering and strife. Yes, there are innocent civilians among the Palestinians, but unlike my 4^th grade class, the innocents are not the majority. My fourth grade teacher would simply have cut off the aid. Damn fairness. Practicality, order, and compliance must come first. If the people all suffer, eventually there is a chance for a change of heart and compliance. At that point, aid is a possibility, but only at that point. But the elementary teacher is not sufficiently educated to make such decisions. The great educational institutions of our land have produced more nuanced approaches. After all, fairness to the individual is more important than practicality, order, and compliance. It would be inhumane to allow the suffering of some, simply because they are led by corrupt individuals and heinous killers. Perhaps if we show them we care, their hearts and minds will eventually be won over.

I keep thinking back to my 4^th grade teacher. What if her name had been Ms. Rice and the Principal had been Mr. Bush? I wouldn’t have felt angry that day I missed recess. I would have been treated fairly. But how long would it have taken to learn long division?

We've heard it publicly stated for years now: "If we don't defeat the terrorists over there, they will follow us here." We've heard it, but what does it mean, and is it true?

In general, the terrorists we are fighting are followers of Wahabbi Islam. Wahabbism is the strict version of Islam which is practiced inside Saudi Arabia and rapidly expanding worldwide. If you track terror attacks worldwide, through sites such as The Religion of Peace or Jihad Watch, you'll note the savagery now extends far behind the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thailand, India, Pakistan, Algeria, Somalia, and the Sudan are conflict zones subject to daily acts of bombings and beheadings. Gaza and Syria provide a fertile environment of Islamic fundamentalism which nourishes a culture of jihad before exporting its products to hot zones within and beyond the Middle East. 

Muslim peoples are steadily migrating into Southeast Asia, Europe, as well as the Americas. Mosques, funded by Saudi Arabia, are able to reach more and more Muslims. The result is that many Muslims, particularly young men, learn traditional Islamic teachings. As they become familiar with Wahabbist teaching, many of these young men commit themselves to Jihad, and become radicalized. Others, perhaps not committed to the same degree, remain "moderate," yet their allegiance is to Islam and as such, understand and agree with the goals of the terrorists, if not the method.

In Saudi Arabia, much of the country is restricted to Muslims only. Non-Muslims are in essence "unclean" and prohibited from certain areas. Multiculturalism is not practiced inside Saudi Arabia (or in Shia Iran to a lesser extent, for that matter). Outside of Saudi Arabia, clerics warn Muslims to abstain from Western influences as they lead to corruption. Saudis are encouraged to go to Western countries, but not to become Westernized. This year 10,000 visas will be issued to Saudis to attend college in the United States.

In the West, unlike Saudi Arabia, multiculturalism and diversity is encouraged. This has not always been the case. The United States has traditionally been a country based on European culture and law. Blacks were forcibly brought to America but, until the 1960's, were segregated and largely left out of mainstream society. Hispanics, at one time, comprised a relatively small percentage of the country's population. Muslims were virtually unnoticed.

For better or worse, traditional America is fading away. The United States, and the West in general, now encourage immigration and diversity of culture; not assimilation of culture, but diversity of cultures, within a common, though increasingly blurred, border. The trend is to equate and validate all cultures and opinions. Inevitably tensions arise. Often, the indigenous culture is expected to defer to the encroaching culture in the name of tolerance.  

So back to the premise, "If we don't defeat the terrorists over there, they will follow us here."

Our enemy does not possess a defined military. Al Qaeda and its Wahabbist subbranches have no air force, navy, or conventional army. They do have insurgents located inside many countries, and they have the equivalence of special forces units. The insurgents are made up of dedicated, but unprofessionally trained, Muslims all over the world who travel to countries such as Iraq or Somalia to fight against non-Muslims or against Muslims that do not practice their brand of Islam. The special forces units may be thought of as planners of terrorism who conduct surveillance exercises, design strategies of terror, and patiently await orders for execution of the plan.

If the United States were to pull back from the engagement in Iraq, or even Afghanistan, what would happen? Well, there are several scenarios. It's quite probable that the Middle East would become even more unstable and radicalized. Given the recent growth of extremism from Indonesia to the Balkans to North Africa, one can imagine a Caliphate of sorts emerging in the Middle East. The Shiite faction would be an impediment to Al Qaeda as Hezbollah and Iran would vie for control of the same region. No matter the outcome of the internal Islamic wars, how are "they" going to follow us here?

Since the war is fought with insurgents and terrorists, it's evident that they would have to cross our borders either by stealth or by mutual agreement. Unfortunately, the enemy is currently able to take advantage of both possibilities. Our government has not and will not protect our borders. Aside from the millions of low skilled Hispanics, Islamic terrorists have been slipping through our borders undetected. But, because of the new Western ideology of multiculturalism, tens of thousands of potential terrorists legally step onto our borders year after year. They are given the freedom to practice their religious/political ideology within our borders with our blessing; the same religious/political ideology than condemns Western civilization in Saudi Arabia. If they condemn our culture and society at home, why would they accept us here? And as they become more numerous, rooted, and able to establish connections within the United States, inevitably, the threat to our nation increases; yet we continue our present border and immigration policies without any dissenting dialog.

We consider most Muslims moderate, yet even moderates tend to be partisan to the same sharia based standards championed by extremists. Islam itself, not moderate or extreme Islam, at best is an incubational facility for activists wishing to spread sharia. At worse, it is the mechanism which makes terrorism possible. Whether or not we fight terrorism in Iraq, Islam will survive. As long as Islam survives, has funding, and the blessing of American government to continue expanding within our borders, the enemy will have the means to attack us here. Fighting "over there" with the purpose of spreading democracy in order to protect us here is an illusion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant to protecting our borders from terrorism. We may, and probably should attack Iranian nuclear sites and be prepared to intervene inside Pakistan in order to keep nuclear materials away from extremists. But anything else is an exercise in futility as far as safeguarding American citizens.

Ostensibly, the objective was to oust Saddam Hussein in order to prevent the distribution of powerful weapons to terrorists. No problem. Roughly three weeks later, mission accomplished. Saddam was a fugitive and the Iraqi government was no more. But then we learned that the problem wasn't solved. Not yet. Not really. You see, free democratic nations tend not to start wars, but instead participate in harmony as part of the global community. Ergo, Iraq must become a democracy.

A short time after the overthrow of Saddam, it became apparent that the people did have a voice. Not a choice, but a voice. They wanted freedom. Freedom from each other. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis compose three distinct Islamic sects in Iraq, none of which acknowledge legitimacy of the others. What should the United States have done about this situation? Should the United States have withdrawn? Perhaps the United States should have  helped to negotiate a partition? We did none of the above. The choices did not fit the template of diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism. The United States decided that Iraq would be a unified country, where diverse sects came together. After all, isn't that what Western civilization is all about? The Iraqi people would learn to work together while celebrating their differences - or something like that.

In one sense, the United States has taken on the role of imperialist. No, we haven't confiscated the oil inside Iraq. We haven't plundered the country and conquered it's people. Maybe what we have done is far worse. We have attempted to impose our Western values on Iraq. It's not so much the idea of free markets or the Bill of Rights, but rather the new Western values of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Our armed forces are fighting a politically correct war in order to promote political correctness. The rules of engagement are in line with the new Western ideologies. We make no value judgements. All cultures are equal, hence we cannot disparage the religion or customs of the Iraqi people even if those values and customs conflict and contradict our own. All people must integrate with and accept each other. It doesn't matter that the sects within Iraq encourage segregation. They denounce all things non-Muslim and hold in contempt Muslims who do not practice the correct brand of Islam. These things are unacceptable. Although a Sunni may reject the Shia version of Islam, Americans cannot reject Shiism because that would be intolerant and tolerance is much of what we are fighting for in Iraq.

The President and his many supporters who are, ironically on the right, say that we must win in Iraq. It is very difficult to define what winning means. Our policy would suggest that winning means converting Muslims (in Iraq and elsewhere), to think in terms of multiculturalism, tolerance, and political correctness. The target is of course "moderate" Muslims.

What's wrong with this strategy? Well for starters, Islam, even among "moderates" is not susceptible to political correctness, multiculturalism, or tolerance. While "moderates" may not actively search for methods of destroying Western civilization, they certainly have more in common with the belief system found in the Koran and practiced by extremists than they have with the Western ideology of multiculturalism.

So the war wages on. Americans continue to spend billions of dollars in an effort to unite a people that do not believe in multiculturalism. We strive to advance the notion that we must win the hearts and minds of diverse peoples who despise competing Islamic cultures. And we hope for them to accept the new Western culture and its values. And what are the new Western values?  If you are a faculty member in the Seattle Public Schools (readers please visit link), community tax dollars pay for extensive training via various workshops to teach new Western values. Perhaps we should send the Seattle public school teachers to Iraq to win the hearts and minds. Is this the war of ideas that our military is fighting?

To "win" we must follow a prescribed recipe of liberalism. We require that the people of Iraq  become non-judgemental toward other belief systems, yet ask them to reject the values of their own Islamic sects. At the same time, America and the US military are required to accept the values of the various Iraqi sects. That makes sense doesn't it? I'm afraid Bush was right. This war will last a long time and winning will not come easily.

In a nutshell, President Bush and his administration believe that allowing a country’s citizens to choose their own government is the answer to defeating global terrorism. Democracy trumps all. Unfortunately, this is far from true. On the contrary, democracy in the Middle East is transforming the landscape in this region into an Islamic fascist stronghold. The United States has become the major catalyst.

Let’s begin with Turkey. Approximately 85 years ago, in what was once the Ottoman empire, a secular government was forcefully put in place by the general Kemal Attuturk, founding the Republic of Turkey, following the allies defeat of the Ottomans. The Republic of Turkey was established with the intention of creating a modern, democratic and secular state based on Western principles of governance shaped by Kemalist ideology. Over the last several years, however, fundamentalist Muslims have gained a majority within the government resulting in Islamic reform and increasing dissolution of rights outside the Muslim community. The army has threatened to intervene against the Islamists, however the Bush administration, in lock step with the European Union, has responded by advising the military to stay out of the dispute. If “the people” are allowed to get what they vote for, inevitably non-Muslim minorities will pay the price, as will the West in general.

Moving over to Israel, let’s see how democracy is working out for the Palestinians and what impact it’s having on the US backed peace process. Recently, the Bush administration managed to transfer $59 million to help train the security forces of President Mahmoud Abbas. And just what kind of representative government have the Palestinian people selected? Here’s an excerpt taken from a recent sermon delivered by Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters," said Bahr, according to a transcript by the Middle East Media Research Institute. "Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them all, down to the very last one . . . Defeat the Jews and the Americans."

Indeed, he added, Americans "are cowards who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia and everywhere."

Yet Condoleeza Rice and the State Department Rice press ahead.

How about some optimistic news? Isn’t the surge in Iraq starting to show signs of securing stability for the new Iraqi government? That’s a good thing, right?

Well, perhaps not. An Egyptian investigative journalist recently uncovered documents linking Iraq Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki to Muqtada Al-Sadr and to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It appears the government we are expending so many lives and billions of dollars to support, is in actuality, plotting with the Shiite Islamic leadership within Iran. Hey, if the majority of the people voted for this, it must be O.K. I mean, we all saw the purple thumbs didn’t we?

But finally, the Bush administration has toned down the rhetoric immediately following 9-11. I’m sure you recall the language; something about you are either for us or against us, and warnings to nations that sponsor or provide safe harbor to terrorists. Bush now approaches those same entities as partners. In fact, we are now open to meetings and potential negotiations with the likes of Syria and Iran. Taking the lead from statesmen such as John “pariah” Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, Bush has dispatched Condoleeza Rice to Egypt to engage in talks. Isn’t it nice to see how the President has grown during his time in office.  Diana West and Caroline Glick go into much greater detail.

The Bush administration and the West in general, see terrorism as a struggle within the Islam religion. They view moderate Islam as a good force, compatible with Western Civilization, democratic rule, and tolerance. Extreme Islam is considered to be an evil force bent on destroying Western Civilization. While it’s true that a great number of Muslims want to live in a free, western society, the fact remains that the Koran is considered the infallible word of Allah to all Muslims. It is also true that a consensus of Islamic scholars interpret the Koran to reflect a fundamentalist view. That is, Sharia Law is the will of God, and every knee is to submit to Islam. The West recognized that communism was an enemy and a threat to our freedoms. Islam is every bit as much of a threat as was communism, however Western leaders do not recognize the threat.

Bush has established policies designed to weaken extremists by strengthening moderates. The tragic flaw is that the moderates are aligned with extremists rather than with the West. Both extremists and moderates have the same ultimate goal of sharia. The moderates tend to be more patient, working through the freedoms provided under democratic rule and political correctness. Extremists work to implement violent change. Ironically, by throwing in our lot with alleged moderates, much of the support gets funneled to extremists. Sadly, the peace process in Gaza, the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the diplomatic overtures to Syria and Iran are all mistakes. Someone in leadership must define the enemy and formulate a plan to defend properly against it. In the 1950’s, the United States government would not have allowed vowed communists to immigrate to the country, become citizens, and spread communism. It just wouldn’t have made sense. Yet today, Islamic refugees pour into American cities and universities, spreading their ideology. Our response is to applaud and congratulate ourselves on our tolerance and diversity. To respond otherwise would be…un-American.

 Explore the following linked topics if you dare.

Gates Says U.S. Will Sell Advanced Bombs To Saudi Arabia

Here's an excerpt of our rationalization for selling JDAM's to Saudi Arabia:

Quote:

---

In remarks carried by The Jerusalem Post, Gates said Israel should see the deal in terms of the "overall strategic environment," supporting earlier reports that the JDAM sale to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states is meant to bolster regional opponents of Iran's growing influence.

At any rate, said Gates, the Arab states will simply buy similar weapons from Europe or Russia if the U.S. were to refuse sale of the JDAMs.

---

Whatever


Outside of Iraq, Pakistan is the largest recipient of US aid. Given that a significant percentage of the ISI is sympathetic to the Taliban, which is rapidly gaining influence within the country as it openly challenges Musharaf, one can only wonder how much of this aid will ultimately find it's way into the hands of Islamists who advocate our destruction.

Exclusive: Pakistan: An Ally In Crisis - Part Three of Three

And moving on to Gaza:

Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council Sheik Ahmad Bahr from Hamas, Declared during a Friday Sermon at a Sudan Mosque that America and Israel Will Be Annihilated and Called upon Allah to Kill the Jews and the Americans "to the Very Last One"

And don't forget Egypt. Some elements of our government have been reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef's Weekly Sermon Calls For Attacks in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan: Direct Energy Of Resistance At Real Enemy "Concealed In Jerusalem"

And the tiny number of extremists are making a push in N.Africa as well:
Al-Qaeda seeks to expand its operations

Most of the above (Pakistan, Egypt, the Palestinians), at least to some degree, now hold elections giving the people a greater voice in government. The result? An increasingly popular demand for sharia and expanding extremism. Our policy? We continue to give aid and encourage freedom.

Last week, there was a large protest in Pakistan against the radicals threatening to impose strict sharia law. That is positive, but how long will these moderates be able to stand up to the intimidation of the Taliban and similar Islamists who wish to take over that nation? The government is afraid to oppose them. The young demographic is increasingly educated by extremists. And we pour money into this country. And we pour money into Egypt. And we continue to push for a Palestinian state. And we sell JDAM's to Saudia Arabia - the very country who is the source of the worldwide proliferation of traditional Islam as practiced by Mohammad. We fight terrorists, yet we fund the advocates of jihad. Go figure.

I thought the idea was to fight the terrorists over there and keep the jihadists from coming here. Well, quite the opposite is happening. The Bush administration has apparently amended that to mean something altogether different. As a byproduct of fighting terrorists over there, we'll demonstrate goodwill by bringing homeless jihadists to live here.

A few months ago, the Bush administration made the decision that  7000 Iraqi refugees would be admitted into the United States this year. The assumption was that this group would be composed of persecuted Christians or Iraqis that fought along with the United States military. But wait - here's how the real story unfolds. The 7000 lottery winners are Palestinian Sunnis fleeing the Shias who have given them the boot. It's not a stretch that a number of these Palestinians likely have experience in terror training via camps in Syria, Lebanon, or even within Iraq. This is insanity to the nth degree.

There is a precedent for what we are doing. In the aftermath of Israel's war with Hezbollah last summer, the United States admitted thousands of Hezbollah sympathizers, most of whom now reside in the Dearborn, Michigan locality. For every terrorist that was killed in Lebanon, who knows how many potential jihadists now reside in the good old USA. These people did not come here because of the love of freedom. For the most part, they do not see themselves as Americans. Many will find there life's mission however. That mission will be to participate in jihad for Allah and work to make sharia a reality within their lifetime.

The United States policy is based on the premise that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant, religion that has been hijacked by a few extremists. If that premise is correct, then Bush's policy of spreading democracy and partnering with Muslims to fight extremism is the right policy. If however, that premise is faulty, then the strategy of enlisting Muslims to partner with the West to combat terrorism is 100% disastrous. Many Islamic scholars have pointed to overwhelming evidence which shows the latter to be the truth. One of the most thorough analysis of global jihad, it's components, and ideology can be read here. This should be required reading for every patriotic citizen. If the arguments make sense, you'll realize this nation is in a heap of trouble. A foreign policy versus global Islam cannot be effective without first addressing the issues discussed therein.

 It’s now the season for unofficial diplomacy. Last Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer traveled to Cairo where he met with Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentary block. Earlier in the week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi defied the administration’s wishes when she journeyed to Syria to have meetings with Bashar Assad. Pelosi’s entourage included the nations first elected Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison. Earlier this year, it was former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry who made the trek. As you recall, the Senator’s meeting was characterized by his assessment of the United States government as an international pariah.

Not to be outdone by senior US Congressmen and women, the British Royal Navy managed to grab the headlines. A British naval vessel surrendered to an Iranian Naval ship in international waters without a fight. After apologizing to the Iranians, the sailors were released and sent on their way. Each sailor was given a care package courtesy of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Rather than rebuke, threaten, or retaliate against the aggressive act, Tony Blair released a statement that Britain would promise never to violate Iranian waters and hoped that the two countries would be able to open up dialog to help relations. Only 6% of the British public believed Blair should have responded more harshly and just 30% think Britain should even consider taking punitive measures of any kind against Iran.

There is definitely a connection between US Congressional diplomacy and the British handling of the naval detainees. Democrats have criticized the Bush administration for alienating our allies and refusing to hold dialog with our enemies. It is quite possible that the Democrats will win the White House in the 2008 elections. The actions of Kerry, Pelosi, and Hoyer send a clear signal that US policy will conform to European policy after Democrats regain control of the Executive branch. The United States will no longer be the lone warrior fighting against terrorism. Instead, our government will enjoin Europe in a mutual path toward defeat at the hands of the global jihad.

This is indeed a tragedy, because if President Bush had framed the global conflict in the proper context of jihad, rather than devising a politically correct and erroneous strategy of combating terrorism, the current situation would be quite different. As the President sees it, Islam is a great, peaceful religion that has been hijacked by extremists. President Bush’s “War on Terror” strategy results from a misdiagnosis of the entity confronting the non-Muslim world.

It is incumbent on Muslims to participate in jihad. While jihad has several definitions, the Koran emphasizes that Islam is the only true religion, that all other religions must submit to Islam, and that sharia should be the ruling entity of humanity. Jihad can be thought of as a battle waged on non-Muslims in order to subjugate non-Muslims and their government to sharia. Some Muslims advocate terror and violence as the means to obtain this end. Other Muslims emphasize peaceful tactics to obtain their goal. The freedoms of Western democracies enable Muslims to use the courts, legislatures, and education systems to work toward this end. One might think of these strategies as fast jihad and slow jihad. Both strategies work toward the same goal.

Fast jihad is exemplified by the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the ongoing military conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, and Chad, the Talibanization of Afghanistan following the Russian occupation, and of course the terrorist attacks against US embassies, the Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, 9-11, the Spain subway bombings, and the planned bombing of multiple airliners which were discovered last summer. Osama bin Laden is an architect of fast jihad as or numerous clerics and imams throughout the world. Slow jihad is evidenced by domestic actions such as the Minnesota cabbies practice of using Islamic law as a litmus test for conducting business. Clerks who refuse to swipe pork at the counter are another example of slow jihad. We see Islamic groups such as CAIR filing lawsuits, Canadian Islamic groups petitioning for exclusionary governing authority under sharia, and separate public facilities in Europe for Muslims and non-Muslims. Recently, a German judge invoked sharia as a basis for deciding a divorce case.

The fallacy in Bush’s strategy lies in the failure to recognize and address both components of jihad. Fast jihad, or terrorism, is acknowledged. Slow jihad, the systemic attack on western civilization through activism, isn’t even considered. The current policy is contradictory in the sense that while we are fighting fast jihad (terrorism), we are actually aiding and partnering with slow jihadists (fundamental Islam in general). After defeating the Taliban and then Sadaam Hussein’s Baathist regime, the United States worked to establish a democratic process in both Afghanistan and Iraq in order to let the people choose their own government. Both countries have constitutions which declare sharia as the law of the land. The fact that Islamic people have chosen to be governed under sharia, undermines the assumption that these countries will become a partner against the war on terror – especially since the fast jihadists can point to the Koran for justification in their violent ideology. The Palestinians in their most recent elections voted for Hamas. The party of Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and openly advocates Israel’s removal.

The West continues to distribute economic and military aid to Pakistan (a country rapidly become more extremist), Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinians simply because the regimes in place say they will not support terrorism. But these regimes do advocate jihad (Islamic supremacy), and much of the aid inevitably flows to organizations that work toward global jihad, both fast and slow, violent and non-violent. Also, by not restricting immigration from Islamic countries, Islam continues to expand within the borders of Western countries. By allowing the flow of immigration to continue, and by pursuing the inadequate Bush administrations policies of fighting the war, we are facillitating the spread of global jihad just as quickly as we are fighting against it.

The correct policy should have been to declare war on global jihad, and explain what it consists of. Bush should have defined jihad as the assault on western civilization based on Islamic principles founded within the Koran. That is the truth. By identifying the cause of jihad, we could have exercised intelligent debate on foreign aid, implementation of democratic governments based on sharia, and immigration/visa policy toward Muslim countries. We as a nation, would have been forced to confront political correctness with respect to Islam much sooner. By failing to analyze the situation, Bush has placed into inertia a disastrous campaign in Iraq, weakened the military's position with respect to Iran and elsewhere, and placed the Democrats in the driver’s seat going into the 2008 elections.

Thanks to Kerry, Pelosi, and Hoyer, we’ve seen what the next four years will bring under liberal rule. Not only will we continue to ignore the slow jihad, we will grant legitimacy for advocates of fast jihad. Meetings between Leftists and Islamists, like this one in Cairo, will become the norm. Leaders such as Assad, Ahmadinejad, and the jihadists that reign in Palestine will be recognized and pandered to. Instead of fighting against one component and aiding another (the Bush policy), we will likely aid both components of jihad and accelerate the demise of Western civilization.

 Diana West may have a better grasp on the global war than any other columnist. I discovered her work within the past few months. All of her work is terrific. This is no exception.

www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

Quote:

---

Defending ourselves
By Diana West
March 30, 2007


Quick -- somebody promote Lt. Cmdr. Erik Horner for good instincts. "We not only have a right to self-defense but also an obligation to self-defense," the second-in-command officer of the USS Underwood said, referring to the surrender by 15 British sailors in Iraqi waters to Iranian forces last week. "[The British] had every right to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't you guys defend yourselves?' "

Better to ask why the larger Western world didn't teach these sailors to defend themselves, both as their personal right and their societal obligation. And speaking of societal obligations, could someone please explain why the sailor-mother of a three-year-old -- now imprinted on history for performing the hostage-squirm in a Muslim headscarf -- was required on this mission in the first place? But I digress (sort of).

When a civilization no longer inculcates an overriding attachment to its own survival, well, it no longer survives as a civilization. In peacetime, the disintegration appears more theoretical. In wartime, the holes really begin to show.

Sticking with Britain as an example, when Tony Blair long ago brought forth his "Cool Britannia," multiculti, domestic agenda, the ensuing debate was a "culture war," not a real war. It might have politically divided Britain, but the country seemed to remain intact. When the government of Britain recently responded to a recognized act of war against its military personnel by threatening diplomacy, a kind of emptiness to the whole British enterprise was exposed.

Or was it? At a certain point, people probably stop realizing they're even looking at holes. This is something that comes through in another story, not about victims in uniform, but about a bona fide hero -- an American hero. This is an American hero of demonstrable bravery who was recently awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by Britain -- the first American to be so honored since World War II.

While serving as an exchange officer with an English Naval Air Squadron in Iraq, Marine Maj. William D. Chesarek Jr. was flying a British Lynx helicopter accompanying British forces on the ground. It was June 2006, just one month after another British Lynx had been shot down by an Iranian-smuggled missile, killing five on board. Maj. Chesarek realized British forces below him were under attack. The attackers, according to a report on marinecorpstimes.com, were "using large hostile crowds for cover."

The report continued: "Given the serious threat to the forces on the ground, and the inability to return fire given the crowds of protesters, Maj. Chesarek elected to fly repeated passes at very low level, under heavy small-arms fire and at least one near-miss from an RPG, in an attempt to disperse the crowds." And he flew these extremely dangerous passes for five long hours. He also evacuated a seriously wounded British soldier, undoubtedly saving the man's life.

Major Chesarek's courage is exemplary; his official recognition for bravery deserved. So, what's wrong with this picture?

There is a gaping hole in it due to the "large hostile crowds" the enemy was using for cover. As I understand the report, Maj. Chesarek didn't fire his machine gun to destroy, or even scatter the enemy for fear of hitting those same crowds. I'm guessing this "inability" to return fire was a restriction written into the rules of engagement, which have been officially hamstringing coalition soldiers since the war in Iraq began. More distressing, it was a restriction that wasn't even overridden by the "serious threat" to allies under fire.

This is incredible. This seemingly immutable restriction suggests that, according to current military and civilian thinking -- which together reflect a pretty clear consensus of elites -- the lives of allies under fire are of no greater value or significance than the lives of enemy sympathizers. And the enemy knows this, in Iraq and beyond, no doubt reveling in the safe haven of our fantastic objectivity.

Such rules and restrictions, the product of politically correct developments in Western culture, foster a non-combative theory of combat. Surrender is an expression of this culture; so are rules of engagement that risk the lives of our people. Such a culture, whether acting by the book or by consensus, hardly supports a soldier's right and obligation to self-defense, let alone unleashes the warrior in pursuit of anything resembling victory. Which isn't to say this cultural trend is irreversible. But we must learn to see the holes before we can plug them up.

---

I highlighted the concluding paragraphs because I think they are worthy of further examination. How did we arrive at the point where such PC rules of engagement govern our every critical move? Can the nation ever again ever reach a unifying consensus on any major agenda? Finally, we must ask if indeed this trend is irreversible.

Traditionally, the United States has been a melting pot. Probably, most who read this are native born Americans that had ancestors from multiple nationalities that they can't even relate to. This trend has rapidly changed over the past few decades.

The United States, as well as other Western countries from Australia to Canada, rapidly find their peoples becoming more diverse ethnically, economically, socially, and religiously. A significant number of third world immigrants opt to isolate themselves from the greater society and refuse to assimilate. Instead of a melting pot, diversity is hailed and championed. Just a few years back, a national television ad ran the message that diversity is our strength. I think not.

If you watch the national news on any given night, you will quickly note that the country is incapable of uniting to reach a consensus on any issue, great or small. There are so many competing groups, there can never be more than 60% in favor or against any policy decision. In general, primary and secondary schools gloss over traditional American history, choosing to emphasize ethnicity and equality over the ideological and physical struggles that gave identity to America. As a result, the citizens of America are merely inhabitants. That is, we see America as a place we choose to live because of the economic opportunity - not because of the principles of freedom or a patriotic sense of pride.

As immigration continues to flow, and multiculturalism and diversity trump patriotism and nationalism, the country will inevitably become increasingly splintered. Immigrants feel allegiance to the background from which they migrated. They still cling to the same customs, or even more strongly to their religion. With the passing of each year, our citizens become more and more people of the world, and less and less Americans.

Maybe one can argue that isn't all bad. After all, a free country that views itself as "people of the world" is less prone to aggressively oppose another country; less likely to become an imperialist entity as with the old days of Rome, Fascist Germany, or Imperialist Japan. Homogenous societies are more likely to unite internally, able to reach consensus more easily, but are also more likely to threaten other countries.

A heterogenous society, as Western countries have evolved into, exhibit opposite traits. The more diversity residing within the borders of a country, (this can be political, ethnic, or religious) the more numerous the squabbling and vying for power among competing groups. And because the citizens can never unify, the country is unlikely to attack other nations due to grievances. Unfortunately however, because of the polarization, the country is less able to respond to challenges from the outside when directed against the United States.

Heres the best example I can think of. The most diverse body in the world is the United Nations. Interests from every ethnic, religious, and economic people on the planet make up the UN. As a result, nothing can be accomplished.

Can we defend ourselves? How much longer? The United States has the most powerful military the world has ever known. But how long will we remain a country capable of living by the same rules, working toward common goals, and reaching critical consensus on issues vital to our survival? Will the leaders of the country ever be able to make tough decisions when the elected representatives are elected by more and more groups with diverging interests?

 The title is an excerpt taken from a column describing the radicalization of an Australian mosque. Over a two year period, approximately 150 international students from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Moracco waged a campaign to win over approximately 600 formerly moderate Muslims to their radicalized Wahabbi extremism. As members become radicalized, they tend to become more isolated and assimilate less with the surrounding culture. In America, such practices go virtually unnoticed outside of a few Islamic strongholds such as in northern Virginia, Jersey City, and Dearborn, Michigan. In much of Western Europe, including major cities in Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia, the scenario is commonplace.

One of the fallacies of Western ideology regarding immigration is the belief that exposing other cultures to Western culture results in a greater appreciation of our way of life and fosters understanding and tolerance. The evidence clearly does not support this, at least with regard to Islam. In fact, when viewing Islamic assimilation from a global perspective, the pattern of disassimilation holds true elsewhere when Islam meets other cultures. Mark Steyn's latest work, THAIS UNDONE, analyzes the largely unreported ethnic cleansing occurring in Southern Thailand. Basically, the same brutality of decapitation, destruction, and intimidation common in Iraq has become the norm in Thailand. Native Buddhists are rapidly fleeing the region as local governments helplessly and blindly ignore the growing terror.

There is a growing number of despotic regions in the world where Muslims practicing the extreme tenets of Islam have carved out spheres of influence within a state, but without yielding to the jurisdiction of the state. We see this in Lebanon, Thailand, the Sudan, and the Waziristan portion of Pakistan. One might even include the democratically elected body of Hamas which governs the Palestinian people.

In Western nations, the Muslim populations aren't numerous enough to wage a campaign of ethnic cleansing, however due to non-discriminatory policies of the host countries, radicals are able to recruit and spread  their ideology. The long term goal is for Islam to subjugate and become the dominating entity. While terror and intimidation is the most effective policy in countries with large Muslim populations, extremists utilize other means to achieve results in the West. Organizations on college campuses, and advocacy groups such as CAIR continually push the envelope through propaganda and legal challenges in order to gain concessions. Within the past year, we've seen lawsuits result from contrived stunts such as the flying imams event.

Politicians place very few limitations on immigration and visas. Students from Saudi Arabia are as numerous now as pre-911. In 2007, it is expected that the United States will allow 7,000 refugees from Iraq to come here. Will a significant percentage of these immigrants not bring their anti-western Islamic values with them?

Just a few weeks ago, a fire in a small, two story, New York City apartment ended with the death of several children. A single family of 22 people resided in the apartment. The man of the house was an Islamic polygamist from Mali with two wives living on separate floors. Is it wrong for we, as an American people, to demand immigration policies consistent with the values in which we live?

We must rethink our immigration policy. Our Constitution is not explicit in many areas, but we can look at some writings from the nation's founders written more than 200 years back which illustrate the mind set at the time the Constitution was written:

John Jay, Federalist No. 2:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.

President John Adams, October 11, 1798:

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, terrorism has expanded throughout the world to the point where it now raises serious issues for national security. Islamic entities posing serious threats to America and other western countries include the government of Iran, Hezbollah, Al Queda and its associated affiliates, and Hamas. Hezbollah and Al Queda have successfully carried out attacks against this country responsible for thousands of lives, while Hamas continues to murder Israelis,  primarily through an ongoing campaign of suicide bombings. As the campaign in Iraq drags on, and Iran develops a nuclear program while spewing bellicosity toward Israel and the West, more and more people are realizing that the friction between Islam and the West is very real and is not diminishing over time.  This is going to be a long conflict and we better implement a sound strategy to deal with it. I'll term the three strategies:

1) Political Solution Advocacy
2) Democratization and Nation Building
3) Isolationism

Political Solution Advocacy

The first strategy calls for finding political solutions to solve conflicts through dialog and diplomacy. John Kerry and the Democrat party are vocal advocates of this policy. They believe leaders should negotiate agreements which serve the best interests of each side. Advocates of this policy do not emphasize forcing western values on the Islamic world, however they tend to believe all societies are compatible. They do not judge other cultures, and, more often than not, fault America for creating friction.  Many of this persuasion are willing to compromise American policies in order to achieve peace. Open immigration to western countries is encouraged, with the belief that understanding, tolerance, and appreciation of cultural differences occur in diverse, multicultural settings.

What causes terrorism? To political solution advocates, terrorists tend to proliferate where poverty and ignorance thrive. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support this. Saudi Arabia is the single biggest financial supporter of terrorist organizations, as well as to the international spreading of Wahabbist Islam. The majority of 9-1-1 hijackers were educated and came from fairly prosperous backgrounds. Osama bin Laden was a millionaire, and Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye doctor. Investors Business Daily points out that several infamous terrorists were are well educated and affluent. The evidence shows that Islam is the cause of terrorism. Nearly all terrorists are Muslim, and all terrorist activity directed toward non-Muslims can be justified through the Koran.

One example where this policy continually fails is the quest for a "Roadmap to Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has made concession after concession since the Carter administration. As Palestinians composed a greater and greater demographic within Israel, the understanding, tolerance, and mutual appreciation of culture never materialized. For generations, Palestinians have been indoctrinated with Koranic passages commanding them to kill Jews and Christians.  Recently, with the construction of a wall, much of the carnage has slowed down. Still, the push for a peace process continues with the Olmert government, and Condaleeza Rice, pursing a political solution.

In Western Europe, the growing Islamic population is causing unrest in France, demanding new privileges in Germany, and preaching revolution in Great Britain. Governments of these countries frequently meet with representatives from Islamic groups to air out grievances and promote better dialog. Thus far, the results have yielded destabilization, a higher crime rate, increased fear of terrorism, and a growing resentfulness between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islamic demands for public schools, separate use of facilities for Muslims women and non-Muslims, and the requirement of specified menu items exemplify the expanding rift.  Will more of the same policies only exasperate the divide?

And what happens if the United States military pulls out of Iraq and Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? What if diplomacy, and possibly sanctions, fail? Will we be able to talk ourselves out of problems later from a position of weakness when we haven't achieved success the past few decades when having the military and economic advantage to negotiate from a position of strength?

In summation, there will be no lasting political solution. This policy will eventually result in near Armageddon or possibly the death of Western Civilization.

Democratization and Nation Building

The Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns are built on the premise that an Islamic land can combine Sharia with Democracy. The US military successfully ousted the Taliban from power and ejected Sadaam Hussein and the Baathist party from their reign over Iraq. We then followed up this success by allowing for free elections and giving the people a choice to vote for representatives of their choosing. Each country now has a democratically elected, Islamic government. The goal is for the government to spread the idea of freedom, monitor and eliminate terror groups within their borders, and ally with the United States to fight Islamic extremism. Moderate Muslims are the key to making this strategy work.

President Bush described Islam as one of the world's great religions - A religion of peace. Is he correct in that assessment? Will moderate Muslims root out extremists, and do they have the theocratic authority to do this? Our president stated that Islam has been hijacked by a few extremists. History itself disputes this assertion. Muhammad was a conqueror. Under the Caliphate, Jews and Christians had lower status. They were often slaves, and even when free to worship, they were forced to pay tribute. Did you know that the US Navy was established in order to protect merchants in the Mediterranean against Berber pirates (Muslims of N. Africa)? The emissary from Tripoli told Thomas Jefferson that it is the "right and duty" of Muslims "to make war upon" whichever infidels "they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners."

Given the tenets on which Islam is founded, it defies reason to believe Islam can be reformed through a Sharia based government run by moderate Muslims as the agents of reform. We do not see Muslims denouncing extremists in great numbers - even small numbers for that matter - nor have they been able to protect "moderate" leaders within their government. The more reform minded the moderates are, the greater they will be vilified within the mosques. Six years after the overthrow of the Taliban, the US military is still necessary to provide safe harbor for moderates. Iraq is much worse. Must we stay in these countries indefinitely in order for these governments to function?

Like the advocates of a political solution, the democracy advocates believe that an expansion of freedom, economic development and aid, will plant the seeds of tolerance, and phase out extremism. On the contrary, Western aid and American dollars will end up financing jihad and furthering the ideology of Islam. Those Muslims who choose to remain moderate will not fight extremists, but will rather flee to other countries.

The Bush policy has been in effect for 5 years. If we pursue this policy, at best it will be financially straining and politically divisive for America. At worst, it will be a terrible mistake that will eventually lead to a great war.

Isolationism

By Isolationism, I don't mean withdrawing from conflict in the sense that Pat Buchanan espouses. America has practiced Isolationism for years in the case of Cuba, N.Korea, and Iran. Has isolating Cuba been harmful to the national security of our country? I can't say that Cuba is a threat. On the other hand, the nuclear proliferation of N.Korea and Iran clearly constitute a danger to national security. Cuba presented a threat under the Kennedy administration, but the United States confronted that threat and did not let it stand. When N.Korea continued to establish a nuclear program, we turned a blind eye. We our using sanctions against Iran, but if sanctions fail, will we confront Iran militarily or will we acquiesce to the Islamic regime?

How would an Isolationist policy work, and just what does that term mean? First, the United States would discontinue foreign aid to Islamic countries; economic, humanitarian, and anything else. This includes the $2 billion dollars awarded annually to Egypt as well as millions of dollars that go to Palestinians. If Islamic theology is going to spread, the United States of America will not supply dollars. The result? Muslim countries would suffer. If they suffer economically enough, instead of the West continually helping to prop them up, they would eventually realize that Islamic based governments are a failure, and they would have an incentive to reform or even reject it.

Secondly, the United States would maintain a strong military presence in the Middle East. When a regime presents a threat to the United States, it would be our policy to militarily attack that country and if necessary, overthrow the regime. Unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq, we would not replace the regime with another. We would not occupy the country, we would not give humanitarian aid, we would not attempt to spread democracy. We would simply send the message, that if you are threat, you will be punished severely.

Finally, immigration from Muslim countries would be eliminated. Muslims within our country that call for jihad and sharia would be exported. Student/Cultural exchanges with Saudi Arabia would end. As a result, conflict within our borders would subside.

In Summation:

The Telegraph's Niall Ferguson wrote a column summarizing a Gallup Poll which illuminates the failed liberal assumption that poverty causes radicalization of Muslims. In the same paragraph, the survey shows why the Bush administrations policy of democratization in the Middle East is a great mistake:

...The Gallup poll (which surveyed 10,000 Muslims in 10 different countries) also revealed that the wealthier and better-educated Muslims are, the more likely they are to be politically radical. So if you ever believed that anti-Western sentiment was an expression of poverty and deprivation, think again. Even more perplexingly, Islamists are more supportive of democracy than Muslim moderates. Those who imagined that the Middle East could be stabilised with a mixture of economic and political reform could not have been more wrong. The richer these people get, the more they favour radical Islamism. And they see democracy as a way of putting the radicals into power.

Isolationism is not a fool-proof strategy. Our economy depends on trade and foreign oil. We have basically no allies around the world. The Russians and Chinese oppose us already. The UN would denounce such a policy, and Europe would be afraid to condone such a strategy. Even so, the first two policies are doomed to fail in my opinion. Isolationism is not even being debated. The West believes one of two things: Some of our leaders believe Islam and the West can co-exist. The others believe the West can transform Islam through economic development and nation building. There is no evidence supporting either position.

The 2-part article by Lawrence Auster written in January 2005 can be found here:
The Search for Moderate Islam
The Search for Moderate Islam: Part II

It's well worth the time to thoroughly read Auster's analysis. If you don't have time to read it now, at least add the page to your favorites for when you have an hour to spare. Here's my brief, though inadequate, synopsis:

There are moderate Muslims and radical Muslims. The conventional school of thought is that there must be both radical and moderate Islam. Auster effectively argues that there is in fact, one Islam, and this Islam is extremist and intolerant toward non-Muslims. Any theological debate between radical and moderate Muslims must be held in the context of the Koran and suras, but the doctrine contained therein always supports the radicals. In order for a moderate Muslim to refute an extremist, the moderate would have to denounce Islam . Hence, the moderate would no longer truly be a Muslim. Quite plainly, there  is no such thing as Moderate Islam - only Muslims who choose not to closely adhere to the tenets of Islam.

Our entire foreign policy toward Islam is predicated on the hypothesis that moderate Islam exists, but extremist Islam must first be defeated and replaced by moderate Islam in order for the West to co-exist with Islam. Specifically, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military is there to provide protection and support in order for the "moderates" to gain control and weed out the extremists. The moderates have thus far been unable to voice moderate Islam - arguably because there is no such thing. In fact, the Afghanistan government is considering granting immunity to war criminals. One leader is quoted as saying "If they bring leaders of the mujahedeen to court it will tarnish the name of jihad."

Auster points out that the moderates have no voice because they have no authoritative document as a basis for moderate Islam. Even if "moderates" were to dominate the political structure of Islam (the opposite is true), the likelihood is that reform would eventually take place and the radical Islam would eventually take root and supplant the leadership with extremists. Why? Obviously because the Koran gives them authority to do so.

The West's liberal immigration policies and liberal democracy, especially in Europe but also within the US, is allowing Islam to proliferate outside of the Middle East. If Islam is not moderate, and the evidence suggests that, the long-term prognosis calls for violence, increasing friction, and encroachment of a non-compatible Islam into Western civilization.  And then, much worse. A great war with millions of dead.

Auster proposes a different strategy. The West must accept, or at least be willing to discuss, the possibility that there is no such entity as moderate Islam. If this analysis is correct, the best solution would be to end Muslim immigration, isolate the West from the Middle East, deport those who espouse radical Islam, and close down mosques that teach Islamic extremism.  The US should militarily attack and even overthrow regimes that are hostile, but not make the mistake of trying to reform them. Weaken and isolate. This would mean thousands of deaths, but possibly not the millions which appear inevitable should we follow the policies of denial and appeasement.

President Bush himself described Islam as a religion of peace.  He said that a few extremists have hijacked one of the world's great religions. This message that Islam is a religion of peace is routinely echoed by the media and the politicians.  Our foreign policy is predicated on this premise with the goal of helping moderates recapture Islam. We must now study whether or not this is indeed a true assumption, and if not, what remedies exist to rehabilitate our failing strategy of combating extremist Islam?

Michael B Oren has written a book, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present, which investigates the relationship of America with the Middle East. Here is an excerpt taken from a critique about the book:

Oren demonstrates that suspicion and hostility toward Islam are almost as old as the nation. John Quincy Adams called it a "fanatic and fraudulent" religion, founded on "the natural hatred of Mussulmen towards the infidel."

This was partly religious prejudice, of course, but that prejudice was reinforced by unfortunate experience. In the perilous early years of the republic, the Muslim Barbary powers preyed on American shipping and captured, tortured and enslaved hundreds of innocent men and women. When John Adams and Thomas Jefferson implored the pasha of Tripoli to stop, Oren recounts, the pasha's emissary insisted that the Koran made it the "right and duty" of Muslims "to make war upon" whichever infidels "they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners." George Washington raged, "Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence." And Congress did create a navy in the 1790s primarily to crush the Barbary powers and protect American traders and missionaries. President Jefferson -- so often mislabeled as an idealist, pacifist and isolationist -- eagerly launched the war and ordered the permanent stationing of U.S. naval forces thousands of miles from the nation's shores.

Here's an excerpt from another critique:

...Oren tells us that 20 percent of America's exports were being shipped to the Mediterranean in the late 1700's. No longer protected by the British Navy, many of these ships were attacked and plundered by pirates operating along the North African coast. (Barbary pirates actually referred to Berbers.) Europeans were having the same problem and often provided bribes as an alternative to protection. America was faced with this same dilemma and debated which way to go for about ten years, but ultimately decided on military force; hence, the formation of the Marine Corps.

Interestingly enough, the debate in America then was similar to the one we hear today about Iraq: on the one hand, there were those who wanted retribution for lost cargo and the enslavement of American citizens, yet other hand, there were those who didn't think it was worth the expense or the possible loss of life. One cannot help but think that Oren had his eye on the history book market when he found this parallel.

The passages indicate that radical Islam is not a new phenomena that began with Osama bin Laden, nor was it a passing relic of the 7th century Caliphate that eroded over the following centuries. In fact, the very words of the Koran provided the authority for Muhammad's conquests, the 18th century attacks on American merchant vessels, and today's terrorist attacks throughout the globe. The very same Koranic passages are verbalized in mainstream mosques today, as evidenced by an undercover documentary filmed within some of Britain's largest mosques.  

It is the religious responsibility of every Muslim to participate in jihad at some point.  While many Muslims interpret jihad as waging the battle peacefully, the Koran provides justification to kill Jews and infidels. Nonetheless, understand Muslims who choose the peaceful route are empathetic to, and often support other Muslims who aspire to suicide attacks and the like. Westerners typically exhibit disbelief at the less than enthusiastic denunciations from moderate Muslims following an attack. Generally, when seeking condemnation from a moderate, the reply will be something to the effect of "We condemn all violence, including the unjustified persecution of Muslims by Israel and injustices placed on Muslim citizens." When you consider a moderate Muslim is simply a person who has altered the literal interpretation of the Koran in order to escape participating in the barbaric duties required therein, it shouldn't be surprising when that person will not denounce his more zealous brethren who are willing to actually practice what is preached.

Thus far, we have regarded terrorists as the enemy, and worked to make Islam a partner to combat that enemy. The historical evidence shows the folly in such a strategy. Islam systemically manufactures the inertia which creates terrorists. Every terrorist we kill is a product of Islamic teaching, and thus, is looked upon as an attack against Islam by infidels. Furthermore, whenever we fund Islamic entities, such as the $86 million US funds recently approved for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, we are not helping a partner to fight terror, but instead we are supporting the spread of Islamic ideology which only produces more terrorism.

In a recent article by Investors Business Daily, the struggle is defined this way:

 We are at war with an enemy that is driven by a religion that is far from peaceful. And the battlefront is worldwide, in what looks more and more like a clash of civilizations — the “mujahedeen” of pan-Islam vs. the “infidels” of the West. We don’t divide the war that way, but they do. And that’s the problem.
    For us, this is a technical war, one from which we hope to quickly extract ourselves so we can go about our business. For them, it’s a perpetual holy war, led by fanatics who are patient, counting on us tiring of the fight as it becomes too savage and costly.

The Investor's Business Daily article concludes:

“We are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan,” asserts former senior CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, “because the political leaders of both parties — and their politically correct acolytes in the media, the academy and the general officer corps — refuse to square with the American people about the enemy’s motivation.”
    That motivation is their 1,400-year-old faith, said Scheuer, who closely tracked Muslim terrorists like Osama bin Laden over the last decade.
    Indeed, the biggest myth going is that Islam has been “hijacked” by the terrorists. No, the only thing that’s been hijacked is the truth about fundamentalist, radical Islam, which makes holy war against infidels a sacred duty for Muslims.
    The terrorists are getting all their violent ideas — the jihad, the martyrdom for virgins, even the beheadings — right out of their holy book. To pretend otherwise, to brainwash soldiers and cops on the home front into thinking the enemy is simply a ragtag network of random thugs and not part of a larger movement — is to set them, and us all, up for failure.
The almost endless stream of terrorists we’ve seen committing almost unspeakable acts of violence all over the world aren’t the irrational fanatics they’ve been portrayed to be. Hard as it is to believe, they have a calculated worldview based on religious and historical assumptions. They don’t act willy-nilly. These aren’t common street hoods who will mug their own mother for drug money. They are disciplined soldiers in a holy war. While their bloodshed may seem random, they have a purpose, a religious purpose, sick as it may be. And they are relentless. Denying this unpleasant truth so we can feel nice and tolerant is politically correct suicide. We need an honest assessment of our enemy. Wishful thinking is not going to win this war. Jihadists have declared war on America and the West, yet we are reluctant to even identify them with the religion in whose name they kill us. It’s time to take off the gloves. We must declare war on jihad — and all its participants and supporters — before they can make even deeper inroads.

Here are some statistics I found astonishing. There have been no fewer than 655 Islamic terror attacks across the globe in just the past three months.  The evidence does not give credence to the supposition that Islam has been hijacked by a few extremists. This is now a global phenomena. It's time for the media and the political leaders to get real. Their needs to be a frank, open discussion about who the enemy is, what the long term prognosis will be, and how the momentum can be halted. Without this, America will lose in the long run.

The perspective of America's leadership with regard to Islam has devolved over two centuries. When Berber pirates carried out attacks on American merchant vessels in the 1790's, actions supported by the Koran, George Washington wished for a strong navy in order to "crush them into non-existence." Washington understood the evil ideology for what it was and knew it must be confronted and defeated.  American policy did not cause the attacks on US merchant vessels in the 1790's and they are not responsible for global extremism today.  All cultures are not equal, and the attempt to justify every culture is a fatal mistake.  Many historians view Washington as our greatest President.  Given the lineage of weak leaders recently inhabiting the White House, that assessment would be hard to deny. 

Twenty to thirty years ago, I thought of Left and Right issues in a more benign way. Someone that advocated governmental aid to the poor, less restricting dress codes, and a non-phonetic approach to learning reading was liberal. The individual who wanted lower taxes, attended church on Sundays, and held traditional values was conservative.  Both Left and Right stood for the pledge of allegiance, loved America, and was proud to call themselves an American.

Today, the bridge is much wider. What was once termed Left and Right is now called Progressive and Conservative, and the definition is broader. Progressives are steadily transforming the United States into a liberal, socialist, entity. The tools of Progressivism include multiculturism, environmental activism, and moral relativism.  In short, the passage by John Kerry, quoted farther down the page, and the context in which it was said, embodies the Progressive movement. The Conservative ideology is basically the attempt to restore and hold on to traditional values. Conservatives are now widely referred to as Right Wingers.

The Democrat party, the print and visual media, the Universities, the great majority of the Legal system, and most of the Governmental Bureacracies such as the State Department, are saturated with Progressive ideology. The Republican Party is equally split between Conservatives and Moderates. You might say that moderates are those simply not willing to align themselves permanently with either camp due to political fallout. Generally, Conservatives are found in the general society, with little political clout other than religious groups. The powerful positions have become more and more dominated by Progressive ideologues.  Here is the recent quote from John Kerry taken at a World Economic Forum panel  discussion in Davos, Switzerland.  The panel also included Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd Al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami, former Iranian president. 

"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy..."

"...So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East--in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

Kerry decided prior to attending the forum that he will not run for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.  If Kerry had decided to seek the nomination, he would have chosen not to speak his mind at this event due to the obvious political fallout.  But the fact the prominent Senator John Kerry accuses the United States of America as the primary reason for the world's ills, should send a clarion call for the citizens of this country to sober up. Americans must evaluate the direction in which we are headed.  Kerry's words were meant to further weaken the United States government and further the cause of our enemies.  Some might argue the Kerry committed treason. Keep in mind, Kerry fell just one state short of becoming the commander and chief. 

Kerry stated that the United States had become an international pariah for a number of policy reasons.  I would argue that the United States is now regarded as an international pariah, however the reason for this is not the policies of the United States, as intimated by Kerry, but rather a result of a post cold war leftist, anti-Western expansionism that has stealthily spread across Europe and the rest of the globe. Our country has not fundamentally changed in regard to international relations. But the rest of the world has changed.  Drastically so. 

The European Union has emerged as the defining multicultural, socialist, governing body on the European continent. Russia has in essence jettisoned her attempt to become a westernized democracy.  Now Russia is governed by an authoritarian President, seeking to weaken the United States and strengthen the enemies of America throughout the globe.

In Venezuela, President Chavez has taken up where Fidel Castro left off.  The major difference is that Chavez has oil, an asset far more lucrative than Cuban tobacco. Where Castro relied on Soviet assistance and failed to import Communist rockets, Chavez has a revenue producer in oil, and is successfully importing Iranian weapons if the form of Hezbollah jihadists.  Castro was unable to use the Soviet rockets against the United States, but Chavez may be able to export Islamic terrorists over our porous border for future attacks.

Since the fall of communism, leftist influence has increased in the Western world rather than decreased.  This is the great irony. More and more western nations are dependent on government, and liberal voices blame capitalism and wealth inequity for inadequate health care, education, and social security. This has transformed the way the world views the United States.

But the spread of leftist ideology isn't limited to other countries. Clearly the United States is becoming more and more a bastion for leftist leaders. As the camera panned the floor during President Bush's State of the Union Address last week, the all too familiar faces of Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Durbin, Pelosi, and Rangel, dominated the television screen. Make no mistake, the statements made by John Kerry are indicative of their thinking. In fact, the passage could pass for a mission statement for any of these politicians, though not stated for public consumption; at least until the time at which the majority of the public agree with the philosophy. Unfortunately, that time will eventually come unless the people of this country wake up and realize what is happening.

National Review is in the midst of hosting a Conservative Summit this weekend. A debate between Bill Kristol and Lawrence Korb centered on the troop surge in Iraq.  The excerpt from the exchange was summarized this way:


On the issue of Maliki, Kristol asserts that Maliki has never been in a position of strength as regards the Shia militias. He says that Maliki is now in a stronger position and that there are good reasons to believe that Maliki deserves more of a chance to succeed. The moderator asks: would handing Iraq over to the Iraqi government and leaving be equivalent to handing it over to al Qaeda? Korb rejects the assertion. He claims that if we get out, Iraq will become "al Qaeda's Vietnam"--a surprising proposition, IMHO.

Kristol, in response, says "Now I'm actually annoyed." "If we get out, there will be one of two things: one, a terrorist haven or two, genocide. . . . The honorable, and I think the intelligent thing to do, is to push through." Korb responds: "Genocide is a terrible thing... but it is not a direct threat [to us]. . . . When we send the last brigade of the 82nd over there, we have nothing left."

Many Liberals argue that Iraq is not central to the war on terror.  They are wrong.  There are many fronts, but Iraq is a flashpoint between Sunni and Shia, a territory owning one of the world's largest oil reserves, and serves as a bridge between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan.  Many conservatives agree with Mr. Kristol's view that the US should continue to work with a suspect Iraqi government, even if it means pouring more and more men and resources into the fray.  They are wrong as well.  Korb's analysis makes the most sense.

Physically pulling out of Iraq would be a poor idea, but removing US troops from the fight, and discontinuing funding for the present Iraqi government would be a strategic change more likely to work in our favor.  Events are never 100% predictable, however if the US were to implement this policy, we should anticipate the likely repercussions.  First of all, Iraq would become more unstable.  The economy would screech to a halt and the violence would escalate.  Iran would begin to pour dollars into Iraq in order to defeat the Sunni insurgents and gain the loyalty of the Shia population.  Saudi Arabia would use its vast wealth to fund the Sunnis.  Saudi Arabia would flood the world's oil market to further squeeze Iran, which of course would help the US in its endeavor to persuade Iran to cease uranium enrichment.

Al Queda sympathizers and radicals would sweep into Iraq in order to answer the call of jihad and establish a foothold.  The United States role would be to protect economic interests, specifically oil, and destroy any organized terror cells, militias that can be identified. Refugees would undoubtedly flee Iraq, and most nations will not want nor accept them.  The US should not accept refugees as well as many of these people will hold strong Islamic beliefs with the potential of radicalizing given the freedom to exercise their beliefs within our country.  By managing the war, instead of fighting a war that is not winnable, our armed forces will also have greater flexibility to influence governments in other places, such as Pakistan, Syria, and Iran.

War and genocide are terrible things, but nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest that the responsibility of the United States is to prevent strife, and protect other lands with our taxes and armies.  The opponent in this war is radical Islam, and there are two faces, Shia and Sunni. Instead of trying to unite these mutually hostile forces in Iraq, something that has not happened since the break centuries ago, we should instead utilize the fissures between Shia and Sunni. Let them battle each other to their destruction instead of the United States fighting battles for them while simultaneously funding their interests.

 I stumbled onto a 2-year old column today. For those who read this column, it's from the perspective of a white South African. I'm sure you can come up with opposing viewpoints, apartheid and the like, but that isn't relative to the questions the article evokes. The greater point is that a country reflects the people that comprise it. Once the majority of Americans cease to think of themselves as Americans, and begin to disassociate with the traditional culture, the country will change. Do our current policies suggest this will happen? Is Western Society now wussified through and through?

If, after reading the piece below, you can relate to the points articulated, does that make you a racist? Do you feel guilty for agreeing with the author? Would you publicly say that the point of the author has merit?

A Warning For America

David Ben-Ariel

January 2005

A Warning For America
From South Africa

By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.

And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.

They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.

They know what to do.

Do you?