Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Although an old article, it reflects how our "feel good" culture has corrupted the ability of the US military to engage in operations that would end effectively end the Iraq war. Wars are not won by making the populace feel good about the attacking army. They are won by beating the S**** out of the opposing army and making the populace realize that resistance is hopeless. Just like what was done in Japan and Germany. Total Jacksonian warfare.  Unfortunately, the US does not have the stomach for such warfare right now. I fear that it will take another successful attack on the Homeland for such attitudes of warfare to harden. Yet, even then, the do-gooders and touchy-feely types will still not get it.

 

The Military Doctrine of Altruism


by John Lewis (October 16, 2006)
 

The New York Times article recently described the military skills our soldiers will need to engage in the operations our politicians are asking them to perform ("Military Hones a New Strategy on Insurgency," October 5, 2006). The new doctrine renounces overwhelming force, focuses on reacting to insurgent attacks rather than winning offensive battles, and has a goal of protecting foreign civilians rather than defeating a hostile enemy.

Before the 2004 election, Vice-President Cheney lambasted John Kerry for wanting to fight a more "sensitive" war. But Cheney should rather have agreed, as that is exactly what we are doing. (I identified this before the election, in "President Bush's 'Sensitive' War," Capitalism Magazine, August 27, 2004.)

The Times article is right that the face of the military is changing: At military conferences, and in discussions with military officers and instructors, I repeatedly hear how we must change attitudes among a foreign population rather than use our force, and how it is preferable to let "bad guys" escape rather than to hurt civilians. The military is developing new tactics to achieve such ends.

In a visit to the military simulators at Fort Riley, Kansas, for instance, I saw a stunning array of technology. One enters a warehouse-style building, full of metal cubes with doors. Close the door, and you are in a tank: a mock-up of an M1 Abrams tank commander's display, with monitors and controls to replicate real-world conditions. Six tanks can be networked, and sent on a mission. Instructors can ambush them, engage them with fire, and monitor their actions. Afterwards, in a classroom, participants can see an overhead view of the entire operation, and evaluate every move from above. Such technology is space-age and potentially beneficial—but what of the goals to which it is being employed?

It was once the case—in a by-gone era—that our goal in war was to defeat an enemy, thereby securing our safety. This meant demonstrating to enemy leaders, fighters, and civilians that victory for them was impossible—by destroying their capacity to fight. With such a goal in mind, the regime in Iran, for instance, which is providing the Iraqi insurgency with a steady stream of personnel and of material and psychological support, would not be allowed to remain in power. Local Iraqi warlords would face overwhelming assault. Civilians would learn not to harbor our enemies and not to support a hopeless cause.
 

But the new doctrine has nothing to do with defeating a deadly enemy or protecting American lives. The new "wisdom" is that "the more force is used, the less effective it is." The army, it is said, must "clear, hold and build," since building things for a foreign population is more important than demanding their surrender. The enemy's safe-havens over the borders, its defiant leadership, and its sympathetic civilians, are not to be attacked. "Tactical success guarantees nothing"; the new aim is "to protect the Iraqis against intimidation." (One wonders how the police in New York could protect a grocer from the intimidation of organized gangsters without destroying the Mafia that funds them—but this, in essence, is how our military now operates.)

There is one big idea behind such thinking, one idea that establishes the political and intellectual context for the new doctrine: altruism. It is altruism ("otherism") that elevates the value of others over self. This is the core moral principle behind today's Just War Theory—which is the direct application of altruism to the question of military ethics and doctrine.

Offensive war is based on the idea that one's own citizens, and one's own cause, are more valuable than the enemy and his cause. Every soldier who shoots an enemy, and every president who issues an ultimatum to a hostile power, is presuming this principle. But this, according to altruism, is self-interested, and thereby morally tainted. The new aim of the war—taken as an unquestioned absolute—is to bring good things to the population of a hostile nation, while hoping, as a secondary goal, that it will respond by embracing democracy and thus ceasing to threaten us (as if unlimited majority rule in the Middle East were the key to our security).

It is altruism that subjects our military to the slow bleed of dead and maimed soldiers in order to avoid confronting an enemy leader or hurting a shopkeeper. It is altruism that tells our soldiers to build toilets for a hostile population rather than to defeat the deadly enemy. It is altruism that places the welfare of Iraqis over the security of Americans.

Since altruism provides no specific goals for war—it says only that, whatever our goals, they must be good for others and not self-interested—a lack of purpose is the inevitable result of the new military doctrine. The decline of civilian support in America for the Iraq war is a consequence of the inability to understand why one American should die for the Iraqis. And the contempt for America in the Middle East is the result of our unwillingness to assert ourselves or to destroy those spreading anti-American propaganda in the region. What American altruists see as virtuous deference to the needs of others, our enemies overseas take as weakness of will and submission.

Some commentators have praised this new military doctrine, while whitewashing its implications. Counter-insurgency war is not about victory or defeat, runs one argument; democracy for others is our purpose and will be the "final stage" of the war. We should fight on until the enemy establishes an electoral "Vote for Liberty!" campaign, blanking out the fact that "liberty" has a specific meaning, that people who do not understand it cannot be expected to defend it, and that any moral standard which requires us to sacrifice our liberty for theirs is a repudiation of liberty at its root.

The real problem, say others, is "leftists" who want to "cut and run"—evading the fact that the New Left political and economic agenda has been adopted lock, stock, and barrel by the New Conservatives. "Peace without Victors" was the call of liberal Woodrow Wilson in 1918 and is the call of conservatives today. Just War Theory itself is a leftist construct that has been embraced by conservative leaders, in many cases for its Christian overtones. Mr. Cheney may chide Mr. Kerry—but the Bush administration has taken the democrat's advice.

Military experts are warning that we do not have enough resources to continue "fighting" this way. Since the military's job is now to "counter" an endless "insurgency," we would need as many army squads as there are buildings and street corners in the Middle East. Proponents claim that such a war may take fifteen years for Iraq alone—without considering the support flowing in from surrounding areas or the increasing threats to America from other parts of the world. The doctrine is a prescription for a stream of American body-bags, with no end in sight because no victory is being pursued.

America's increasing technological superiority, combined with the deepening fog surrounding the moral purpose of such superiority, is a symptom of the gulf between science and the humanities that has characterized the past two hundred years. We combine soaring advancements in the capacity to control physical nature, with stagnation and regression in our understanding of man's moral nature. If we do not grasp the moral goodness of self-interested action—which in war means the pursuit of victory over our enemies—our military will continue to increase in technological efficacy only to continue sacrificing it to the bathroom needs of foreigners.

None of this will deter the advocates of this new doctrine, for they are driven by a moral ideal—altruism—that carries far more weight in their minds than the need to defend our own freedom.

Originally published at Principles in Practice. Cartoons

I am not sure how this will be received. On the forum where this was originally and later on Winds of Change, it has stirred up m;uch debate. Lots of comments are knee jerk reactions, but I ask each to try and read this from a rational and unemotional mind. It may be that mostly  people who have read much of Blackfive can understand the thinking. We shall see.  And as you read this, think Breslan.

 I post it because it shows the inherent
problemn of what we face and how to react. Reading it actually choked
me up. The comments after it are just as profound..

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/on_the_virtues_.html

On the Virtues of Killing Children
Posted By Grim

You are not going to like this.

On the demonstrable virtues of not caring if children die, on hardening your
mind for war, and other things we can no longer avoid discussing.

Beware that you are ready before you pass this seal.

Let us begin with a debate between a peaceful, gentle soul, and me.  The
topic could be Israel's war, or ours in Iraq, or -- if they have the heart
for it -- the one to come.

The gentle soul -- how I respect her!  -- will begin by pointing out how
many innocents have died in the recent wars, and especially the children,
who are the most obviously innocent.  She will point out figures for Iraq,
for Afghanistan, for Lebanon, and ask:  "How can you justify this?  These
poor children, who might have been good men, good women, lain in the cold
earth?"

We have all had the conversation that far, have we not?  We are accustomed
to reply:  "But the enemy is the one that targets children.  We try our best
to avoid hurting children.  That makes us better.  Furthermore, the enemy
hides himself among children.  As a result, in spite of our best efforts,
sometimes children die on the other side also.  But again, it is not our
fault -- it is his fault.  He endangers them."

She replies:  "But how can you justify their deaths?  Regardless of how hard
you try, will you not kill them?  Some of them?  Should we not choose peace
instead?"

Let us consider that.

What if we asked her, "Let us speculate that our enemy -- say in Iran --
seeks to kill our children.  If we attack them to stop it, we may or may not
kill any of their children -- and we will do everything in our power to
avoid it.  If we do not, they certainly will kill ours.  Should we attack
them or not?"

She will answer:  "That is a false example.  Nothing is certain, and it is
said that hard cases make bad law."

"Fair enough," we reply, "but where will you find the parent who will
sacrifice her children for the possibility of keeping another parent's child
alive?"

"It would be impossible," she will agree, but add, "However, nothing is that
certain."

"Then let us make it conditional," I continue.  "Let us say that there is
the possibility we shall kill a child -- but we shall do our best not to do
so -- and only the possibility that they will kill our child, but it is
their aim.  Now, should we try to stop them -- though risking their child?
Or should we refuse, and take the increased risk that they will succeed in
their murder, since no one dares disrupt them?"

"It is always wrong to take the risk of killing a child, whether we do it or
they do," she will say.

"Why so?" I ask.

"Because it endangers the innocent," she replies.

"If that is the reason," I answer, "then you are wrong.  It is best that we
bomb without fear."

Her eyes grow wide.  "You are mad," she says.

"Not so," I answer.  "Consider:  when the enemy seeks to kill our child to
motivate us to surrender to his will, is it not because he believes that the
danger to the children will move our hearts?"

"It is," she must agree.

"And when he hides among children," I add, "why?  Children do little to
deflect artillery.  Must it not be because he knows that we -- we
ourselves -- fear for the children, even his children?"

She nods, silently.

"Then it is proven," I say.  "It is our love of these innocents that
endangers them.  If we did not care if children died, they would be in
little danger."

"That cannot be," she replies in anger.

"But it is so," I contest.  "If we did not care if our children died, they
would not be targets.  There would be no reason to target them, because we
would not be moved by their deaths.

"If we did not care if their children died," I add, "there would be no
reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence.  If it were not
that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy's children would
be clear of all places of battle -- because they are, except for the fact
that we love them, a hindrance."

She bites her lip.

"Of course, we cannot cut out our hearts," I tell her.  "Nor should we -- as
we wish to remain men, and good men, rather than monsters.  Yet it is our
love that is the chief danger to the innocent now -- to our own innocents,
and theirs also."

"What do you suggest?" she demands of me.  "If you will not hate children,
if you assert that it is right to love them -- but you say we cannot love
them, without wrongfully endangering them -- what can we do?  Where is the
right?"

"It must be," I tell her sadly, "Here:  That we pursue war without thought
of the children.  That we do not turn aside from the death of the innocent,
but push on to the conclusion, through all fearful fire.  If we do that, the
children will lose their value as hostages, and as targets:  if we love
them, we must harden our hearts against their loss.  Ours and theirs."

"How can that be right?" she wonders.

"It cannot be," I must say.  "Love should always rise, above war and fear
and death.  Love should always be first, and not last, in our hearts.  It
should never be that love brings wrong, and disdain brings right.

"And yet," I say, "It is.  I have shown you that it is.  That means we have
moved into a time beyond human wisdom.  We can no longer know the right.  It
is beyond us.

"We can only do," I must warn her, and you.  "We can only do, and pray, that
when we are done we may be forgiven."

You got me on that. However, that was in conjunction with the Brits and France.

By themselves, Israel has only responded to threats to their nation and people, whether it be the 7 Day War, excursions into Lebanon or Gaza, etc. Of course, these are often pre-emptive attacks which some may not consider as self defense.

Rogt,

Time for me to step in for a bit. You keep asking about what the "elimination of the Zionist regime" means?

Why not look to the words that are spoken by both the leaders and followers of Hezbollah, the Iranian President, Hamas, OBL and others.  They all state that the goal is the destruction of Israel, drive the Jews into the sea.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? Why must there be hidden meanings and the so called need to read between the lines for hidden messages. If a person or group of people keep repeating the same message time and again, doesn't it seem likely that they are saying what they desire?

Then, if the words are not good enough, look to the actions that the groups take. Suicide bombings targeting civilians. Mass rocket launches targeting anyone, not just military targets.

What are Arafat? He received 87% of everything he wanted with negeotiations with Israel the first time. He turned it down. The second time, he received 97%, and he turned it down. And the PLO gave him complete support. Does this sound like a group of people will to live with and co-exist with Israel?  I don't think so.

What about the recent pullout of troops and people from Gaza? This was what Hamas and the PLO wanted. One would expect that they would have settled down and worked to create their vision for the area. Instead, they still attack Israel. Does this sound like a desire for co-existence?

Again, hear their words, watch their actions. And accept that what they say is true.

I think that Captainccs was just trying to show the faulty thinking of Cohen.

What is Balintawak?

And what do you believe in regards to Iraq and Israel with Lebanon? It will clarify things for us here.

A higher consciousness when it comes to the War on Terror means nothing to me. Unless it is the recognition that we are in the fight of our live and for our lives.

Buzwardo,

Unfortunately, cities and PD's see having a SWAT team as a status symbol. They invest heavily in them and then to justify the costs, must use them as often as possible. Whether needed or not.

The problem lies not just in the inappropriate usage of these teams, but also the lack of training, intel, poor planning and safety that their operations neglect. This results in the f*ckups that we read about.  I am not against cities having this capability fkor usage in certain situations of true danger, but not for drug busts, etc., where their is no indication of such threats. My problem with these teams is that to perform the tasks that are necessary, one must train consistently and daily. As it stands today, it is similar to having a cop train once every couple of weeks firing his pistol and is then expected to go to competitive shoots. Ain't going anywhere.

Michael Yon's latest dispatch on the WOT



Sunday, July 16th, 2006
Jihad
The lust for self-destruction and someone to blame

The cauldron of the Israeli conflict is flaring, scalding the surrounding desert. The hands stoking the fire underneath belong to militant Islam. Jihad has different meanings, but the only meaning that concerns us today is ?Holy War.?

In the words of esteemed Pakistani writer, Ahmed Rashid:

    These new Islamic fundamentalists are not interested in transforming a corrupt society into a just one, nor do they care about providing jobs, education, or social benefits to their followers or creating harmony between the various ethnic groups that inhabit many Muslim countries. The new jihadi groups have no economic manifesto, no plan for better governance and the building of political institutions, and no blue-print for creating democratic participation in the decision-making process of the future Islamic states. They depend on a single charismatic leader, an amir, rather than a more democratically constituted organization or party for governance. They believe that the character, piety, and purity of their leader rather than his political abilities, education, or experience will enable him to lead the new society. Thus has emerged the phenomenon of the cults of Mullah Muhammad Omar of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden of Al Qaeda, and Juma Namangani of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

[Ahmed Rashid in JIHAD, The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia.]

Although Israel is the center of world attention today, she is only one of many targets for militant Islam. A quick trip around the world to inventory a trail of strife and death shows that Israel is only a face in the targeted-crowd.
Nighttime on the ghats in Varanasi, India; another place where Hindus, Christians and Muslims suffer at the hands of militant Muslims.

Last week, about 200 people were killed and 700 wounded by simultaneous terrorist bombings in Mumbai. India is the most unlikely democracy in the world, with its amalgam of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs and others. During each of my long excursions there, I was amazed at how the peace holds together. But it does, mostly, and India, despite many obstacles, continues to develop its place in the global new world. Yet our Indian friends have long suffered at the hands of militant Islam, demonstrating this week again the often overlooked fact that nobody suffers worse at the hands of militant Muslims than other Muslims.

India is overwhelmingly Hindu, though about 150 million Muslims live there, which equals nearly the entire population of Pakistan. Most of these Indian Muslims are peaceful, yet clusters of militants in Pakistan, Kashmir and India keep picking, picking, picking. The subcontinent is one of the most dangerous places on Earth for festering wounds because India and Pakistan both possess nuclear weapons. We don?t have to worry about India, but only a weak thread keeps those weapons out of dangerous hands in Pakistan. One thing is certain: Jews in Israel are not to blame for the murderous rage of militant Muslims in India, and India is at this hour blaming Pakistan.
Sheep lungs and other organs hang by their tracheas on a hook in Srinagar, Kashmir; another bastion of militant Islam.

The Russians regularly bleed at the hands of Islamic militants. Terrorists invaded a school in Beslan, holding more than a thousand students, teachers and staff hostage. When the shooting and explosions ended, more than 350 were dead and more than 700 wounded; most of the victims were children. The terrorists may have been addicted to heroin or morphine; the Russians say drugs were found in their blood. That many terrorists are heavy drug users, particularly as they approach the date with their own planned death, is not widely known, but our troops in Iraq have found drug use to be part of the fact pattern of homicide bomb attacks. Whether any narcotic substance was used to grease the slope to slaughtering children, the Jews in Israel had no connection to these attacks.

Even China has a cluster of militant Muslims who have left bomb craters for footprints. The Euro-rhetoric that claims our foreign policy is to blame for the rise in terrorism cannot account for the problems in China.

Thailand, in the southern region, finds peaceful Buddhists suffering from the bombs of militant Islam.

The Jews in Israel cannot be blamed for the bombing in Bali, Indonesia that killed about 200 tourists, including my friend Beata Pawlak, in one attack.

Over in the Philippines: much trouble, more bombs, and corpses and crime scenes smeared with the bloody rhetoric of militant Islam. The Jews in Israel or our support for them did not cause any of this.

Bold leap to Canada, one of the most peaceful and tolerant nations, but hardly a second home for the world Jews; attacks were narrowly averted recently. Down to New York, which might qualify for that homeland claim, buildings collapse. Pennsylvania, people crater into the earth. Washington D.C., hijacked bodies slam into the Pentagon. Bin Laden has been on the record saying he murders because infidels occupy holy land. Al-Qaeda mentions Israel as an afterthought, when reaction to their attacks in the world seems for a brief moment almost unified and resolved. But television cameras captured the footage of militant Palestinian Muslims cheering the news of the attacks and chanting victoriously in the streets.

Across the Atlantic, our friends in Europe are frequent victims. In the south: BOOM! Madrid, another metro hit, like in India. London: BOOM! Metro and bus attacks: similar to India, similar to Israel, similar to France.

Germany and France have been hit again and again. Paris may not have been burning but most of France recently cowered in the face of the flames of militant Muslim youth.

Danish people, who pride themselves on tolerance, were burned out of embassies because a cartoonist depicted Mohammed in ways intended to be comical, if cynical. The results were bloody. American flags were burned over Danish cartoons, and many people could not help mentioning ?foreign policy? and Israel to excuse barbaric behavior, though the cause of the riots and deaths was militant reaction to a cartoon from Europe.

In peaceful Holland, a Dutch filmmaker dared raise a questioning hand, with the following result:

    On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn?t make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, ?We can still talk about it! Don?t do it! Don?t do it.? But the Moroccan didn?t stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh?s throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. ?Cut like a tire,? said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master?s great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old.

[Salon.com?The silencing of Theo van Gogh]

Unfortunately, Mr. van Gogh did not grasp the nature of this philosophy: ?We can still talk about it! Don?t do it! Don?t do it.? Only bad math would attribute US foreign policy toward Israel into van Gogh?s murder.

East, over to Iran, is an insane President who states that the Holocaust never occurred. He would like to make a Holocaust today by destroying Israel, and his scientists and engineers are working on the nuclear bombs to do it. At the current rate, this is scheduled to be the first national-suicide attack, where an entire nation straps a nuclear weapon(s) onto its body and then slams into Israel. If this day comes to pass, countries like Syria and Iran will suddenly cease to exist.

Consider now the question of Israel. Islamic terrorists often cite US support for Israel as the cause of their anger. They are lying. They don?t care about the Palestinians. The Palestinians are pawns and excuses. Saddam Hussein ?cared? about Palestinians, and he focused his charity by giving bonuses to the families of homicide bombers. His sponsorship of terrorism welled up from ancient land disputes between Arabs and Jews. But he used Palestinian pawns to attack Jews in a desperate ploy to curry favor with Hamas leaders, lest they begin to concern themselves with all their Shia brethren piled into mass graves in the Iraq desert.

Attacking Israel while crying crocodile tears for Palestinians has been an effective drill for tapping into wells of anti-Semitism, for polarizing the United Nations, NATO and the EU, which then become embroiled in impassable stalemates that render these organizations inert. This lesson was not lost on Saddam?s closest neighbor and worst enemy: Iran.

When Israel defends itself, the world denounces it and cries the same crocodile tears for the Palestinians. The phrase ?Never again? has special meaning to a people who have been repeated targets for genocide. But the fact is, like the Iraqi Kurds who have seized on their new peace and run fast with it, if people stop shooting at Israelis, they will stop shooting back. This current situation looks like an endless cycle of attack and reciprocation, but the Israelis will stop if the other sides will stop. But Hezbollah, Hamas and others will not stop. These recent attacks and kidnappings were unprovoked. By Israel, that is.

The only common thread to all the violence described in this dispatch is militant Islam. Not Islam. Militant Islam. Militant Muslims around the globe are waging war against anything different, be it the Buddhists? carvings destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Hindus burned alive on trains in India, or Sunni against Shia in Iraq. This is not about Islam; this is not rooted in even a most fundamentalist reading of the Quran.

The pattern is clear, says Dr. Wafa Sultan [video]:

    The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

[Excerpted from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006.]

Here is an interesting post from a former State Department official who was posted in the Near Abroad.  His views on the current situation.

BTW, I wonder if anyone knows the current status of US Naval forces in the Mideast and deployments. Also USAF deployments.  It seems to me that we should be moving assets back into the region.

Why?

The thing with Israel is going to escalate. Hamas and Hiz'ballah are going to get their tails whopped. Israel has sealed Hiz' in Lebanon and can go fully offensive at any time to eliminate the threat. Iran and Syria cannot allow this to happen, so it is reasonable that Iran will attempt something. Israel retaliates and the US should have the forces ready to take out Iranian nuke sites and also military command and control structures. Maybe some wacko Islamist heads of government.

We may be in the beginning stages of eliminating those states that truly sponsor terrorism.

pat
 
 
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/
Update From Israel
I had planned to write more today about what I learned last night about the current situation in Israel on various blogs, sharing comments and posts with people in Europe, Australia, the U.S., Canada and, of course, Israel itself. Then, this morning, I was pointed to an update at The New Republic's website by their Israeli correspondent Yossi Klein Halevi. Halevi is clearly the best writer on Israeli affairs writing in English today. Rather than subject you to my paragraphs, I direct you to his:

The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

The goals of the war should be the destruction of the Hamas regime and the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon. Israel cannot coexist with Iranian proxies pressing in on its borders. In particular, allowing Hamas to remain in power--and to run the Palestinian educational system--will mean the end of hopes for Arab-Israeli reconciliation not only in this generation but in the next one too.

For the Israeli right, this is the moment of "We told you so." The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza--precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn--is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn't expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn't an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn't whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression.

So it wasn't the rocket attacks that were a blow to the unilateralist camp, but rather Israel's tepid responses to those attacks. If unilateralists made a mistake, it was in believing our political leaders--including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert--when they promised a policy of zero tolerance against any attacks emanating from Gaza after Israel's withdrawal. That policy was not implemented--until two weeks ago. Now, belatedly, the Olmert government is trying to regain something of its lost credibility, and that is the real meaning of this initial phase of the war, both in Gaza and in Lebanon.

Still, many in Israel believe that, even now, the government is acting with excessive restraint. One centrist friend of mine, an Olmert voter, said to me, "If we had assassinated [Hamas leader] Haniyeh after the first kidnapping, [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah would have thought twice about ordering another kidnapping." Israel, then, isn't paying for the failure of unilateral withdrawal, but for the failure to fulfill its promise to seriously respond to provocations after withdrawal.

Absurdly, despite Israel's withdrawal to the international borders with Lebanon and Gaza, much of the international community still sees the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a legitimate act of war: Just as Israel holds Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, so Hamas and Hezbollah now hold Israeli prisoners. One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers.

Another reason is the nature of the crimes committed by the prisoners whose release is being demanded by Hezbollah and Hamas. One of them is Samir Kuntar, a PLO terrorist who in 1979 broke into an apartment in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya, took a father and child hostage, and smashed the child's head against a rock. In the Palestinian Authority, Kuntar is considered a hero, a role model for Palestinian children.

The ultimate threat, though, isn't Hezbollah or Hamas but Iran. And as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability--which the Israeli intelligence community believes could happen this year--an Israeli-Iranian showdown becomes increasingly likely. According to a very senior military source with whom I've spoken, Israel is still hoping that an international effort will stop a nuclear Iran; if that fails, then Israel is hoping for an American attack. But if the Bush administration is too weakened to take on Iran, then, as a last resort, Israel will have to act unilaterally. And, added the source, Israel has the operational capability to do so.

For Israelis, that is the worst scenario of all. Except, of course, the scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of the patron state of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Two things.

Marc continually uses the word infidel because according to the Islamic faith, those who do not believe in Islam are infidels. That too is how the Islamic fascists see things.

Myke, your point about Muslims "who support my enemy is my enemy" is most telling.

With the Islamic faith, it is wrong to kill innocents. Yet, when Muslims fascists do kill innocents, the rest of the faith, in order to be faithful, must side with the fascists or be considered the enemy as well. Isn't this a contradiction?

Where is the "morality" and "compassion" in this?  What about the logic in this?

When people of other faiths see this occurrence, how are they supposed to interpret it?  Just let it go by and ignore it?

Doesn't the silence imply agreement?

I understand the original 7th Century thinking behind this.  When Mohammed was trying to unite the clans, the tribal warfare was so extensive that he had to find a way to overcome this. So when he embarked upon conquering other nations and taking their wealth, he used this methodology to surpresss the "natural" hatred of the clans towards each other and to channel their violence towards the nations he attacked. Plus, he shared the wealth with the clans buying their loyalty.

Now, isn't it about time that modern day Muslims renounce this attitude?

Pat

Sit,

Thank you for your personal comdemnation.  

My concerns have really been about why the leadership of Muslim communities throughout the world have not condemned such actions. Some groups such as CAIR who make excuses for what happens and accepts funding from to say the very least, dubious sources.

IMHO, a massive outpouring of condemnation would go a long ways towards offsetting perceptions resulting from the images and news reports that we see daily.  The Muslim on Muslim attacks in Iraq. Homegrown conspiracies to attack targets in their own countries. Attacks on schoolchildren in Russia. Hostage taking. Beheadings. The FATWA's.

One must admit that these are powerful images that form a vivid image of Islam as something other than what it is.  One cannot just keep repeating that Islam is a "religion of peace" without taking further action to show that this is true. The offsetting images are just too dreadful and disturbing.

I hope that you can believe that I have no grudge against the true Muslim community. I believe that most people are just like me....we want a better life for ourselves and our families than what our fathers and grandfathers had. My problem is with the 10% that want to force their beliefs and practices upon everyone else.

BTW, I am not religious. I was born and raised Catholic. Studies of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, have made me question much of what was written. Especially when viewed from the cultural aspects in place at the time each was written. Plus how much was certainly taken from previous religions.

I will stand up for a person's right to believe what he wants.....as long as it does not harmfully affect others. If a person wants to believe in Wahabi and practice it for himself, fine. But when he starts to enforce his beliefs upon others, I would be the first to protest.

I.E

Currently, we have a friend of my wife's from long ago staying with us to help her out financially. She calls herself Christian. Studies the Bible continuously and accepts evey word of it as truth. I allow her to do so in my home, UNTIL she begins to preach it to me, the wife, or others in my home. At that point when she begins to interfere with our beliefs, I step down on her hard. If she continues, I offer her the door. But, as long as she keeps it to herself, she can practice it all she wants.

Yet, at the same time, if someone walks into my home and attacks her for her beliefs, I will take her side to believe as she wants. If it makes her a better person, so much the better.

Bryan,

I am not sure how much of your post was meant for me or for CD.  I will say this however.

If comments are to be based solely upon personal experience, then anyone without personal experience is being excluded from the topic and also being censored. If third party sources or media sources cannot be used, then again, censorship is being engaged.  The discussion is severely limited tok a point of being useless.

As to hearsay, I have never been bitten by a rattlesnake. Does that mean that I could not talk about how it could be deadly? Censorship once again.

Now, what word or name would you allow to be used to describe the fundamentalist Muslim who supports and engages in terrorism? Wahabi only covers a small sector of these people. Salafist in just another small group. Hamas a small group.  Is there a name that we could agree upon?

And to reinforce my thoughts about some Muslims knowing things and not doing anything.  As long as there is knowledge of Islamists plotting or advocating violence and the Muslim community ignoreing the problem, there will be no possibility of resolving the issues. Where does it end?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23027

The Complicity of Muslim Silence    
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2006

We have heard many times that the vast majority of Muslims in the West are decent, law-abiding citizens who do not engage in jihad terrorism. That is manifestly true: most Muslims in the West are not engaging in terrorist activity. Many no doubt have no intention of ever doing so. But the recent arrests in Canada have raised questions about to what extent Muslims in Canada and other Western countries who are not engaging in terrorist plotting actually disapprove of such plotting ? and how many passively allow it to continue under their noses either out of fear or because the ideological kinship between them and the plotters is closer than most Western authorities would like to believe.

In a meeting with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police just after the arrests, one Canadian Muslim leader asked Canadian officials why they hadn?t informed Muslim leaders about the plot, so that those leaders could have stopped it.  

But there is mounting evidence that many Canadian Muslims did know ? and yet did nothing to notify Canadian authorities of the plot. The Toronto Star reports that another suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, actively spread the jihad ideology at the Ar-Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education in southern Ontario. Indeed, his ?outspoken Wahhabist views? had ?alarmed? some of the directors of the Islamic center. But by the account of mosque officials, because Jamal unlocked the mosque for daily prayers and they valued his services as a caretaker, they did nothing to stop his preaching. The Washington Post reports unironically: ?He cleaned the rugs and took out the trash at the mosque. For those services, the directors tolerated his vitriolic speeches that portrayed Muslims as oppressed by the West, according to people familiar with the mosque.? No mainstream media outlet seems to have asked Ar-Rahman Islamic Center officials why they thought taking out the trash was a sufficient counterbalance to preaching hatred and violence. Sidestepping the fact that Jamal had been allowed to preach freely, Center Imam Qamrul Khanson said of those arrested: ?I will say that they were steadfast, religious people. There?s no doubt about it. But here we always preach peace and moderation.?  

Yet another imam in Toronto, Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin, noted that three of the plotters, Saad Khalid, Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad, ?would enter into the mosque to pray, and they would pray in a very aggressive manner, and they would come in military fatigues and military touques and stuff.  It looked to me that they were watching a lot of those Chechnyan jihad videos online and stuff.? Amiruddin said that they were influenced by jihadist material from Saudi Arabia, including Qur?ans with inflammatory explanatory notes: ?In the back of these Qur'ans that are being published in Saudi Arabia, you have basically essays on the need for offensive jihad and the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming stuff." According to the CBC, ?Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are really part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads in the mosques.? But while Amiruddin points out that these young men would attempt to win others over to their point of view, he says nothing about having done anything to stop them, or about resisting jihadist recruitment in general -- much less working with authorities to help them apprehend jihadists.

Also according to the Star, some of the plotters belonged to a school Muslim association in which they ?discussed at an association gathering whether suicide bombing was permissible in Islam. Their views were so violent that the other association members threatened to have them banned.? But they apparently did not actually have them banned, or alert anyone to their violent views.

Likewise another Toronto Muslim, Mohammed Robert Heft. Heft said that one of the plotters, Fahim Ahmad, ?believed the 19 people involved in the World Trade Center bombings were martyrs and he was handing out DVDs openly of wills and testimonies of those 19 people suggesting what they did was right.? According to the CBC, Heft asserted that ?a lot of young Muslims are angry and extremism is prevalent in the Toronto area.? Heft claimed that he was dedicated to combating this ?extremism?: ?For the last two years I?ve been involved in this mentality. I was dealing with it on a grassroots level. All it takes is a little education and sorting out who to take religion from.? Yet he too apparently did nothing to alert Canadian authorities to Ahmad?s views.

And after all this, Canadian Muslim leaders complain that authorities did not go to them.

Canadian authorities, and officials in all Western countries, have been supine in the face of all this kind of thing for far too long. The jihad arrests in Canada should focus scrutiny not on the alleged misbehavior of Canadian law enforcement officials, but on the Muslim communities tolerance of the jihadist evil they profess to abhor. Law enforcement authorities in the West should call Muslim communities in their countries to account on this, and quickly -- or risk the successful execution of a jihad plot planned and executed under the noses of silent and supposedly moderate Western Muslims.

Sib,

Not to seem harsh or too aggressive, but your comments tend to prove what I say.  You have taken a defensive position of "what can I do"? Assume that every Muslim takes this position and nothing will ever change.

The government, the military, other institutions, can kill as many thugs and terrorists as they can find, but it will not make any difference until the "common" Muslim steps up to the plate and takes action.

Change occurs in a society from both a top to bottom and a bottom to top perspective. A consensus must be reached that something is wrong and then the leaders and the common person, working together, must take the actions that will cut out the rot and build anew. In the case of the Islamist, the actions must be a massive comdemnation of the polices of the Islamist, a re-education and reformation of true Islam that meets today's society, and aggressive action to eliminate the problem. This has not happened yet.

As people must acknowledge, the return of the Calphiate is the goal of AQ. The methodology to retain control is the practice of 7th Century Islam.

The return of the Calphiate is nothing more than a desire for power and money among those who wish this goal. AQ and others desire that power to control the actions and practices of the Muslim communities, while trying to restore the glory of the Ottoman Empire. By the restoration of the Empire, they can then place into effect the practices of the 7th Century. But, it again is all about power and money.

(This is also true, albeit in a different way, with many of the born again Christians. They desire a certain way of life and use the Bible to justify it. These Christian fanatics would bomb abortion clinics, take away certain rights and much more, all in their desire to control.  The difference between them and Islamist fanatics is the willingness to kill to achieve their goals.)

You will of course take notice that I mentioned reformation. This is a very real issue that must be confronted.  People tend to forget what the true purpose of religion was. It was to establish a moral code that people could live by in the absence of strong authority and a lack of codification of laws. It was also to explain things that were unable to be explained in that day due to a lack of science.  

The problem is that as knowledge and culture advances and changes, religion must change as well to take in these advances and changes. Christianity has had its reformation. So have other religions. Now it is time for Islam to address the issue. Perhaps what we see today is the true beginning of that reformation.

Please forgive me if I offend. It is not my intention.

Pat

This is from an event that occurred Mar 25 in Iraq.  I am not too keen on women in combat, but the woman MP's in this did extremely well. I would have them in my foxhole anytime.  They are warriors.  From the www.blackfive.net website.

AFTER ACTION REPORT: Raven 42 action in Salman Pak  by Col Buzz Kriessel

Over the next few days you will see on the television news shows, and in the print news media the story of a Military Police Squad who are heroes. Through those outlets, I doubt that their story will get out in a truly descriptive manner. I can't express to you the pride, awe, and respect I feel for the soldiers of call sign Raven 42.

On Sunday afternoon, in a very bad section of scrub-land called Salman Pak, on the southeastern outskirts of Baghdad, 40 to 50 heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents attacked a convoy of 30 civilian tractor trailer trucks that were moving supplies for the coalition forces, along an Alternate Supply Route. These tractor trailers, driven by third country nationals (primarily Turkish), were escorted by 3 armored Hummers from the COSCOM*. When the insurgents attacked, one of the Hummers was in their kill zone and the three soldiers aboard were immediately wounded, and the platform taken under heavy machinegun and RPG** fire.

Along with them, three of the truck drivers were killed, 6 were wounded in the tractor trailer trucks. The enemy attacked from a farmer's barren field next to the road, with a tree line perpendicular to the ASR***, two dry irrigation ditches forming a rough L-shaped trenchline, and a house standing off the dirt road. After three minutes of sustained fire, a squad o f enemy moved forward toward the disabled and suppressed trucks. Each of the enemy had hand-cuffs and were looking to take hostages for ransom or worse, to take those three wounded US soldiers for more internet beheadings.

About this time, three armored Hummers that formed the MP Squad under call sign Raven 42, 617th MP Co, Kentucky National Guard, assigned to the 503rd MP Bn (Fort Bragg), 18th MP Bde, arrived on the scene like the cavalry. The squad had been shadowing the convoy from a distance behind the last vehicle, and when the convoy trucks stopped and became backed up from the initial attack, the squad sped up, paralleled the convoy up the shoulder of the road, and moved to the sound of gunfire.

They arrived on the scene just as a squad of about ten enemy had moved forward across the farmer's field and were about 20 meters from the road. The MP squad opened fire with .50 cal machineguns and Mk19 grenade launchers and drove across the front of the enemy's kill zone, between the enemy and the trucks, drawing fire off of the tractor trailers.

The MP's crossed the kill zone and then turned up an access road at a right angle to the ASR and next to the field full of enemy fighters. The three vehicles, carrying nine MPs and one medic, stopped in a line on the dirt access road and flanked the enemy positions with plunging fire from the .50 cal and the SAW machinegun (Squad Automatic Weapon). In front of them, was a line of seven sedans, with all their doors and trunk lids open, the getaway cars and the lone two story house off on their left.

Immediately the middle vehicle was hit by an RPG knocking the gunner unconscious from his turret and down into the vehicle. The Vehicle Commander (the TC*****), the squad's leader, thought the gunner was dead, but tried to treat him from inside the vehicle. Simultaneously, the rear vehicle's driver and TC, section leader two, open their doors and dismount to fight, while their gunner continued firing from his position in the gun platform on top of the Hummer. Immediately, all three fall under heavy return machinegun fire, wounded. The driver of the middle vehicle saw them fall out the rearview mirror, dismounts and sprints to get into the third vehicle and take up the SAW on top the vehicle. The Squad's medic dismounts from that third vehicle, and joined by the first vehicle's driver (CLS trained****) who sprinted back to join him, begins combat life-saving techniques to treat the three wounded MPs. The gunner on the floor of the second
vehicle is revived by his TC, the squad leader, and he climbs back into the .50 cal and opens fire. The Squad leader dismounted with his M4 carbine, and 2 hand grenades, grabbed the section leader out of the first vehicle who had rendered radio reports of their first contact. The two of them, squad leader Staff Sergeant and team leader Sergeant with her M4 and M203 grenade launcher, rush the nearest ditch about 20 meters away to start clearing the natural trenchline. The enemy has gone into the ditches and is hiding behind several small trees in the back of the lot. The .50 cal and SAW flanking fire tears apart the ten enemy in the lead trenchline.

Meanwhile, the two treating the three wounded on the ground at the rear vehicle come under sniper fire from the farmer's house. Each of them, remember one is a medic, pull out AT-4 rocket launchers from the HMMWV and nearly-simultaneously fire the rockets into the house to neutralize the shooter. The two sergeants work their way up the trenchline, throwing grenades, firing grenades from the launcher, and firing their M4s.

The sergeant runs low on ammo and runs back to a vehicle to reload. She moves to her squad leader's vehicle, and because this squad is led so well, she knows exactly where to reach her arm blindly into a different vehicle to find ammo-because each vehicle is packed exactly the same, with discipline.

As she turns to move back to the trenchline, Gunner in two sees an AIF***** jump from behind one of the cars and start firing on the Sergeant. He pulls his 9mm, because the .50 cal is pointed in the other direction, and shoots five rounds wounding him.****** The sergeant moves back to the trenchline under fire from the back of the field, with fresh mags, two more grenades, and three more M203 rounds. The Mk 19 gunner suppresses the rear of the field.

Now, rejoined with the squad leader, the two sergeants continue clearing the enemy from the trenchline, until they see no more movement. A lone man with an RPG launcher on his shoulder steps from behind a tree and prepares to fire on the three Hummers and is killed with a single aimed SAW shot thru the head by the previously knocked out gunner on platform two, who now has a SAW out to supplement the .50 cal in the mount.

The team leader sergeant--she claims four killed by aimed M4 shots.

The Squad Leader--he threw four grenades taking out at least two AIF, and attributes one other to her aimed M203 fire.

The gunner on platform two, previously knocked out from a hit by the RPG, has now swung his .50 cal around and, realizing that the line of vehicles represents a hazard and possible getaway for the bad guys, starts shooting the .50cal into the engine blocks until his field of fire is limited. He realizes that his vehicle is still running despite the RPG hit, and drops down from his weapon, into the drivers seat and moves the vehicle forward on two flat tires about 100 meters into a better firing position. Just then, the vehicle dies, oil spraying everywhere. He remounts his .50 cal and continues shooting the remaining of the seven cars lined up and ready for a get-away that wasn't to happen. The fire dies down about then, and a second squad arrives on the scene, dismounts and helps the two giving first aid to the wounded at platform three. Two minutes later three other squads from the 617th arrive, along with the CO, and the field is secured, consolidation begins.

Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rds of PK ammo.

The three wounded MPs have been evacuated to Landstuhl. One lost a kidney and will be paralyzed. The other two will most likely recover, though one will forever have a bullet lodged between second and third ribs below his heart. No word on the three COSCOM soldiers wounded in the initial volleys. Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot.

They believed even before this fight that their NCOs were the best in the Army, and that they have the best squad in the Army. The Medic who fired the AT-4, said he remembered how from the week before when his squad leader forced him to train on it, though he didn't think as a medic he would ever use one. He said he chose to use it in that moment to protect the three wounded on the ground in front of him, once they came under fire from the building. The day before this mission, they took the new RFI bandoliers that were recently issued, and experimented with mounting them in their vehicles. Once they figured out how, they pre-loaded a second basic load of ammo into magazines, put them into the bandoliers, and mounted them in their vehicles---the same exact way in every vehicle-load plans enforced and checked by leaders!

Leadership under fire-once those three leaders (NCOs) stepped out of their vehicles, the squad was committed to the fight.

Their only complaints in the AAR were: the lack of stopping power in the 9mm; the .50 cal incendiary rounds they are issued in lieu of ball ammo (shortage of ball in the inventory) didn't have the penetrating power needed to pierce the walls of the building; and that everyone in the squad was not CLS trained.

Yesterday, Monday, was spent with the chaplain and the chain of command conducting AARs. Today, every news media in theater wanted them. Good Morning America, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, Stars and Stripes, and many radio stations from Kentucky all were lined up today. The female E5 Sergeant who fought thru the trenchline will become the anti-Jessica Lynch media poster child. She and her squad leader deserve every bit of recognition they will get, and more. They all do.

I participated in their AAR as the BDE S2, and am helping in putting together an action report to justify future valor awards. Lets not talk about women in combat. Lets not talk about the new Close Combat Badge not including MPs.