Rudd's split brain is ... textbook ideologue pathology

Rudd: 'Scared as hell'

THE government is deeply pessimistic about Australia's engagement in Afghanistan and officials have described as hopeless the key task of training the Afghan national police.

Despite repeated public assurances that gains are being made in Afghanistan and that long-term success is possible, secret US embassy cables reveal that some of our top diplomats and officials hold grave concerns about the prospect of success in the nine-year war ...

... Rudd told a group of visiting US congressmen ... "the national security establishment in Australia was very pessimistic about the long-term prognosis for Afghanistan".

Mr Rudd also told US politicians that "he supported the Afghan war 'from day one' but confided that 'Afghanistan scares the hell out of me'."

Blind Freddy can see that terrorism exists in the West only because, as Christopher Caldwell puts it: "Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind". The problem is here, not over there.

Diana West, What President Bush should say to us

It ... must become a part of our national will, to ensure that Islamic law does not come to our own shores, whether by means of violent jihad terrorism ... or through peaceful patterns of migration, such as those that have already Islamized large parts of Europe ...

Rather than continuing to emphasize the democratization of the Muslim Middle East as our key tool in the war on terror, I will henceforth emphasize the prevention of sharia from reaching the West as our key tool in the war on terror ...

... unregulated immigration of peoples from "sharia states" ... If such an influx continues, Islamic law will be accommodated, adopted and even legislated, at least in some jurisdictions, according to majority will. We know this to be true because such a "sharia shift" is already transforming what sociologists call post-Christian Europe into an increasingly Islamic sphere. If we do not want to see such changes here, we must act. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from sharia states.

Lawrence Auster, Our moral dilemma in Afghanistan that we never discuss

Should we be helping sustain a society and government the fundamental laws and customs of which require the execution of people for distributing a negative opinion about Muhammad? Obviously not, since to do so is not only wrong in itself but means supporting a religious system that seeks to subdue us to the same law. What then should we do? Obviously we do not have the ability to modernize or democratize a society ruled by a religion that executes people for expressing opinions.

That's the rational/emotional part of our brains talking. But Big Kev and his transnational progressive cohorts suppress and ruthlessly beat down such prudence, even though it sneaks back in e.g. the government's own defence white paper:

... the white paper states of violent jihadism: "The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and-or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society."

This is a statement of the obvious but it is normally not allowed to be said. It begs the question: is it necessary for a liberal Western society to encourage immigration from predominantly Muslim countries with histories of significant minority support for extremism, when it is obvious such immigration will lead to big problems?

But do we then stop Muslim immigration and contain the spread of our local Muslim population? Nope, the ideological/groupthink side of the brain just keeps on trucking as if nothing is wrong. It keeps on banging its head against the same brick wall: non-discrimination and democracy, always and everywhere, must prevail.

Here's some repressed memory therapy for Big Kev and his tormented cohorts:

Step 1: you have an identity, let it out; you have a race, protect it; you have a country, love it.

Step 2: not all religions are peaceful, say it; Mohammed was a terrorist, say it; the Koran is a declaration of war, say it; stopping Muslim immigration is right, know it.

Step 3: breath, cry; know that you have discriminated and know that it is good and necessary.

Step 4: your dream of replacing 'Spanky Banky' as UN Secretary General is over, let it go.

Step 5: Watch these videos by Robert Spencer about the futility of dealing with Islam without confronting uncomfortable truths (skip to 5:30 in the first video).




Step 6: your bill for this consultation is $200

File under: Boo! Ideology is one scary ride, eh? ... It's no wonder that ideologues never sleep.

UPDATE: Auster's caveat about Spencer's inadequate take on Islam

Everything Spencer says is good. At the same time, he frustratingly leaves the discussion where he always leaves it: with the enormous obstacles in the way of Islamic reform, and--nevertheless--the lingering hope that these obstacles can somehow be overcome. He seems to feel that he must end on that hopeful note, in order to show that he is not--as his liberal critics including Dr. Peterson accuse him of being--an extremist who simply treats Islam as an enemy. He never boils down the problem to its essentials and clearly says:

In all likelihood, Islamic reform is never going to occur, and even if, against all the odds, it occurs at some point, it is not occurring now and may not occur for decades or centuries. What, then, do we, Islam's intended targets, DO about the REALITY of currently unreformed and most likely never-to-be-reformed Islam?

Just as Islam remains what it has always been, Spencer remains what he has always been: a superb explainer of the Islam threat, who declines to address seriously what should be done about this threat, and thus leaves his listeners intellectually and practically helpless before it.

Religious Language and Women’s Rights in Afghanistan -- Sightings

One of the big concerns about the future of Afghanistan, especially if the Taliban and the current government reconcile to end the conflict is the impact on women.   If the current conflict is to end it will involve reconciling all parts of Afghan society, so what will happen to women, whose status at this time is rather precarious.  Helen Zeweri writes today about the way in which religious language can be used to affirm and lift issues of gender equity in Afghan society.  That is, if women are to take control of their lives they will need to make use of Islamic religious language, institutions, and texts.  Her essay reminds me of the way in which many evangelical women (and their male supporters) looked to biblical texts, examples, and language to create a pathway to equality.  Thus, texts like Galatians 3:28 were lifted up, as were examples of Deborah and Mary Magdalene.  The same can be true in an Islamic nation (remember that women have led Islamic states such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, while the glass ceiling remains in place in the USA).  This is a most intriguing essay, which requires close attention.

********************************************** 

Sightings 10/28/2010

Religious Language and Women’s Rights in Afghanistan

- Helena Zeweri

Taliban officials have been engaging in secret talks with the Karzai government to converge towards a prospective peace deal, according to a Washington Post report. In another report in the Toronto Star, Jennifer Rowell, head of policy and advocacy for Care International in Afghanistan expressed concern over the Afghan government’s possible reconciliation with Taliban militants, including the potential sacrifices of women’s rights in negotiations. She is not alone.

Almost nine years after the initial entry of American forces into Afghanistan, the condition of Afghan women’s rights remains precarious. Some of the fears that have re-emerged in recent weeks among Afghan women’s rights proponents might stem, in part, from the possibility of intense structural violence inflicted on women in the name of religion. In recent years, however, women’s activist organizations have come to realize that religion does not have to be a tool of oppression.

Religious language could be used to articulate one’s rights as an individual and a contributing member of society. Many Afghan women-run organizations, as of late, are encouraging the use of an Islamic language rooted in women's own religious worldviews, practices, and philosophies, to achieve long-term rights (i.e. the right to be protected from emotional violence and the right to choose one’s profession, among others) along with so-called “priority rights” (i.e. the right to security, the right to freedom of movement, among others).

For example, some Afghan women NGO leaders have vocalized in public conferences that education, economic development, and social mobility are hindered by the lack of public meeting spaces for women that would be conducive for political and social organizing. This has prompted activists to discuss the creation of women's mosques that could serve as spaces in which to discuss the relationship between religious rhetoric and democratic governance and women's roles within the family and larger society.

Women have also been increasingly enrolling in Kabul University to study law, Arabic, and Islam in order to develop the discursive equipment to potentially challenge prevailing attitudes about women's familial and other social roles. Engagement with religious texts and language has been channeled towards advocacy, fundraising, and awareness raising efforts, including the formation of mosque groups that gather women together for sermons on women's rights according to Islamic texts.

Using religious language to justify certain avenues for women's social advancement should be seen by activist organizations in Afghanistan as one part of a multidimensional approach towards better enabling Afghan women to transform how they perceive and practice their agency in different settings. According to a briefing paper released in 2005 by the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU), the symbolic participation of women in public institutions is too often positioned as a measure of success--the creation of physical space for women or the numbers of women present at public forums, such as shuras (local councils) are typically used to show progress towards gender equality, even though women do not necessarily play a greater role in such institutions' decision-making processes.

The use of religious language has proven, for some, to be an effective tool for justifying their ability to make decisions within these spaces, thus contributing towards a more tangible vision of gender equity rather than gender equality only. Activists have vocalized that the actions of Muslim women like Khadija, the Prophet Muhammad's first wife and 'A'isha, a later wife, serve as prime examples of women taking control of their economic lives and marital choices, and thus legal precedents for women’s agency in these realms.

The AREU report also suggests that some Afghan women perceive themselves as unfit for making decisions within local, social institutions due to a perceived lack of knowledge of community. More opportunities to increase women’s knowledge of Islamic texts may contribute to the development of a stronger sense of self and increased ownership over articulations of what progress means for them.

The use of religious language through both formal education in Islamic jurisprudence and the organization of more informal social spaces to discuss religious texts must be accompanied by more locally nuanced approaches by NGOs and top-down approaches that establish legislation that offers actual consequences for systematic violence against women. Positioning religious language as a mechanism to claim agency can be used as a way to tackle some of the more deeply entrenched challenges women face that infrastructure development and humanitarian assistance cannot directly affect--that of negative self-perceptions and adherence to systems of subordination, gender hierarchies, and family politics that are reinforced in realms in which laws do not always have direct impact, most notably the home. The use of religious language as an alternative paradigm for articulating rights should not be viewed as promoting the language of subordination or as an apologetic stance towards oppression, but rather as a way for women to assert power in a more easily legible and decipherable way within some local contexts.

References

Karen DeYoung, Peter Finn, and Craig Whitlock, “Taliban in Talks with Karzai Government,” The Washington Post, October 6, 2010.

Olivia Ward, “Alarm bells sound for women’s rights in Afghanistan,” The Toronto Star, October 6, 2010.

Margaret Mills and Sally Kitch, “ ‘Afghan Women Leaders Speak’: An Academic Activist Conference, Mershon Center for International Security Studies, Ohio State University, November 17-19, 2005,” NWSA Journal 18, no. 3 (2006): 191-201.

Masuda Sultan, From Rhetoric to Reality: Afghan Women on the Agenda for Peace (Hunt Alternatives Fund,2005).

Shawna Wakefield with Brandy Bauer, A Place at the Table: Afghan Women, Men, and Decision-making Authority (Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, 2005).

Helena Zeweri is Director of Research for Femin Ijtihad’s New York Chapter. She received her MA in Near Eastern Studies from New York University.

----------

Correction: Monday’s Sightings incorrectly mentioned “the world’s 13 billion Muslims and 60 percent of the world’s billion Christians.” The Muslim population worldwide is about 1.57 billion and there are more than two billion Christians, according to 2009 reports by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the World Christian Database.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

An Anniversary Not To Be Celebrated?

On October 7th, just a few days back, the United States marked the ninth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan.  Just weeks after the attacks of 9-11, the US began dropping bombs in Afghanistan, and in a wink, the US and its allies, which included the Northern Alliance, had driven Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of power.  The invasion was launched as retaliation for the earlier attacks, and with the assumption that it was needed to remove the strategic foundation for Al Qaeda.  But, while the Taliban was driven from power, the country was never secured, and before long we were involved in another war in Iraq.  The latter is winding down, but the war in Afghanistan continues unabated.

Now, at the time I didn't think that this invasion was warranted, but I understood the rationale.  The invasion of Iraq made no sense, but now nine years later, where are we?  What have we accomplished?  The years of focus on Iraq has meant that the Afghanistan war is nowhere close to a conclusion.  Besides history demonstrates that no invading force has held it for long -- not Alexander, not the British, and surely not the Soviets.  What makes us think things would be different this time? 

But, ultimately my point isn't to debate the reasons for the invasion or even the current battle plans.  It is simply to remember that it has been nine years.  Back then I was pastor of the church in Santa Barbara.  I'm in my second pastorate since then.  My son, who was in elementary school then is now in college.  So, maybe the question is -- what is it we're up to?

And as I ask the question I'm reminded of the tenor of the conversation in today's bible lecture by Ron Allen -- we talked about the new age breaking in on the old one.  The old age, which is full of violence has dug in its heels, but the new age is with us anyway.  The question then that is posed to me concerns the way in which I will participate with God in bringing the new age, the new realm of God into fruition?  And, how that impacts the way I look at Afghanistan and other places of American military involvement?

Ending Combat without Bravado

 

On May 1, 2003, more than seven years ago, President George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific with much fanfare, wearing the flight suit of a Navy pilot.  With the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him, the President of the United States, in triumphalist tones declared an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq.  He commended the military and his war planners for their work in swiftly bringing down the enemy in Iraq, as well as destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

President Bush spoke of the noble cause that the Armed Forces had engaged in and commended them for their bold and swift victory (you may remember Donald Rumsfeld announcing the beginning of the war in terms of "shock and awe."

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment. Yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free. Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before. 

From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and might of the American armed forces.

The way forward might be difficult, but the people of Iraq were free from tyranny and Al Qaeda was deprived of its possible source of nuclear weapons (the President seems to have forgotten that a rather unstable Pakistan did have such weapons).  He went on to couch this in terms of the War on Terror that began on September 11th, thereby justifying the war in terms of a response to that attack.

But as we know, despite the military prowess of the US Armed Forces and their allies, the President's vision proved to be an illusion.  Saddam Husein might have been defeated and executed, and the Taliban might have been driven from power in Afghanistan, but the road to recovery still remains daunting in Iraq, which remains without a government, and as for Afghanistan, it faces a resurgent Taliban, which simply slipped across the border.

So, tonight another President, one who inherited two wars being fought in Muslim lands (even as 20% of Americans mistakenly believe he's Muslim and many more believing that he kowtows to Muslims), will announce the end of US combat operations.  50,000 troops remain in Iraq in training and support positions, much as 35,000 American troops remain in South Korea, nearly sixty years after that conflict ended with what amounts to a lengthy ceasefire.  Instead of delivering his message from the flight deck of a carrier, he will speak from the Oval Office.  There will be, I'm sure, commendations for the troops, who have been put in harms way.  He will note the sacrifices of those who have died in service to their country.  But it's unlikely that there will be the bravado that accompanied the last speech.  As the President noted earlier today, there will be no victory laps.  Of course, it's quite possible that few Americans will pay attention.  As one pundit noted earlier today on NPR, for most Americans, the Iraq War, the end to which President Obama originally based his campaign, has been forgotten by many Americans.  Afghanistan, a war zone that predates Iraq, and which got lost in the shuffle as we carelessly ventured into Iraq, remains as volatile today as it did nine years ago.  

I am glad that combat troops have returned home.  I'm just sad that we got caught up in another quagmire.  As for the Iraqi's -- they may no longer have Saddam, but they also are without electricity and security.  This isn't the vision laid out in that earlier Presidential speech, but its the reality that this current President must wrestle with.  In making these observations, I'm not placing blame on the ability of the to perform its job.  I don't want to get into a debate about the surge in 2007.  I'm lamenting our lack of vision as a nation that we have yet to realize that we cannot impose our will on the world by force.

Ideology withstands axe to skull

I just watched a moving documentary about Canadian soldier Captain Trevor Greene who had an axe sunk into his skull whilst he sat down with village elders in Afghanistan.

The Canadians took off their helmets and put down their guns as they usually do to reassure villagers that they were friendly.

A few minutes before the attack, someone moved all the children about 20 metres away – but none of the Canadian troops noticed anything unusual, Schamuhn said.

"There was no weird feelings. There was no gut feeling that something was about to go down. Everything was very calm and similar to the previous meetings."

A minute later, a man who appeared to be less than 20 walked up behind Greene and pulled a half-metre-long axe out from underneath his clothes.

"He pulled an axe out from underneath his clothing and lifted right above his head, standing right behind Trevor," said Schamuhn, who was sitting only about a metre away.

As he lifted up the axe, the man shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is great" in Arabic.

Then, said Schamuhn, "he swung the axe into Trevor's head."

The Canadian soldiers reacted instantly, the military says.

"The Canadian soldiers who were by him, his security force, killed the assailant immediately following the attack," ...

Tragic, but another surprise comes later:

The question was “Trevor do you have dreams about what happened?” Trevor answers “Yes. I’m in Afghanistan, I’m sitting in the village where I was attacked, I am talking to the boy that attacked me, and I tell him, I’m sorry, I’m sorry that my friend killed you, I was there in uniform in your home, with a weapon.”

Crikey. Someone shouts "God is great" whilst sinking an axe into your head. You'd think maybe his reaction might be: I'm sorry, I'm sorry I misunderstood your religion, I'm sorry I believed everyone who parroted that "Islam is peace". Even considering his tragic brain injury and lengthy rehab, it's still amazing that he doesn't question Islam.

Endgame in Afghanistan - Real Life Look at Troops in War

In his piece "Endgame in Afghanistan", British reporter Sean Smith provides a rare glimpse of the raw reality of the war in Afghanistan for American troops.

I initially supported the idea of a surge in troops for Afghanistan because it was sold as part of a comprehensive strategy to make sure that the U.S. would get out or reduce its presence in a reasonable amount of time. But as I have read more, and observed the situation...it is becoming clear that this is not the case. So, for me, the pendulum is swinging the other way. I actually had doubts about Afghanistan as far back as 2005, when it became clear that it was becoming a misguided quagmire. Without a comprehensive approach and not enough troops, the situation was allowed to get out of control under the Bush Administration. Without addressing the economic situation, the dire poverty of the people, education, the poppy farming (a huge problem), failing to win the support of the people, and not having enough troops to hold ground... it was bound to turn into an ugly stalemate. But I also understood from the beginning - a belief that is now reaffirmed- that trying to build a nation out of a part of the world where the ingredients for such a task simply don't exist in any practical sense. In Afghanistan there is generally no sense of nationalism, a fractious & heterogeneous population with verious different tribal and ethnic groups, life being driven at the local level, and thus no sense of collective national pride to motivate men to want to stand up an Army and fight for their own Country. In other words, the whole mission is built on a false premise.

It is clear that corruption is strangling efforts there. Furthermore, it is clear that the Afghans are not taking responsibility for their own security... at least the enthusiasm just doesn't seem to be there. So if they aren't willing to fight... we certainly shouldn't have our soldiers fighting and dying there. In order to gain control of Afghanistan, it would require at least 500,000 American/NATO troops. I (and others) have said that for years. There is no way that the U.S. or its NATO allies will ever send that many troops into this war. Hell, the U.S., with its military stretched so thin...and with its hunger to maintain some sort of empire with troops all over the world, doesn't have the troops to send. So what are we doing? Furthermore, we have to consider the fact that the nation is broke. We can't afford it. With no clear definition of what success is...what winning is.... and no clear, achievable goals... this war (with an initial attack that I believed was warranted back in 2002, although dubious) has changed over the last 9 years into something that no longer makes sense. So my view of this war has changed quite a bit, especially over the last 18 months.

But it is clear that the Obama Administration has no plans to get out of Afghanistan anytime soon. Americans were sold fools gold with the promise of a troop drawdown...as I suspected. President Obama can't leave & is planning to have our troops there for a number of years down the road (I will go into that a little more in a separate commentary). Although I think the crap about terrorists attacking us from Afghanistan...and it will be doomsday if we leave... we must stay there so they don't hit us at home...is all a bunch of BS.

We are looking at 3-5 more years of this madness (at a minimum). Hard to understand...and getting harder everyday. I will write more on that in a future post.

From The Guardian:

As the war in Afghanistan enters its final chapter, Sean Smith's brutal, uncompromising film from the Helmand frontline shows the horrific chaos of a stalemate that is taking its toll in blood. Warning: contains distressing scenes and strong language

The Wounded Platoon - New Documentary on Mental Casualties of War

PBS Documentary on the often forgotten and often hidden casualties of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.



On November 30, 2007, 24-year-old Kevin Shields went out drinking with three Army buddies from Fort Carson, Colo., a base on the outskirts of Colorado Springs. A few hours later, he was dead -- shot twice in the head at close range and left by the side of the road by his fellow soldiers. Shields' murder punctuated a string of violent attacks committed by the three, who are now serving time in prison for this and other crimes, and it contributed to a startling statistic: Since the Iraq war began, a total of 17 soldiers from Fort Carson have been charged with or convicted of murder, manslaughter or attempted murder committed at home in the United States, and 36 have committed suicide.

Read more

Real American Hero: Jared Monti

Operation Enduring Freedom began less than a month after the 9/11 attacks on America. Designed to wrestle control of Afghanistan from the Islamofascist Taliban regime and install true democratic reform, the military operation has been highly successful in it's mission to bring and maintain some sense of stability to what has historically been one of the most difficult to manage areas of the world.

It was to this effort to help stem the rising tide of Islamic terror that 30-year old U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti of Massachusetts deployed in June of 2006. A career soldier, Monti loved his country and had joined the army at age 17. His Afghanistan deployment would find him serving as a forward observer with the Army's 10th Mountain Division.

Upon his arrival, his 71st Cavalry Regiment, a recon team, was preparing for what was known as 'Operation Gowerdesh Thrust' in the Gremen Valley near the Pakistan border. This are had been used for troop movements and as a staging area by enemy combatants, and so it was deemed important to secure.

While the main squadron would move through to clear the Valley, Monti was assigned as a part of their supporting recon mission. His group of scouts and snipers would move along a ridge line above the Valley and provide real-time intelligence as to the enemy's troop and equipment movements during the operation.

After spending the night of June 20th into the 21st alternating rest with recon assignments, Jared Monti began to prepare for his role as an assistant leader of the 16-man recon patrol that would move through these rugged mountains of Nurestan province in Northern Afghanistan. What the young military veteran had no way of knowing was that it would be his final wakeup call.

It turned out that Monti's group had it's original assignment length extended by a few days, and they were already running low on water and food. A decision was made to organize a 'drop' of these critical supplies. Monti and another Staff Sergeant led a patrol to pickup the supply drop and return it to their main camp.

During their return, one of the observers for the team left back at camp had believed that he observed an enemy scout pickup Monti's patrol through binoculars, and thus believed that their position was no longer secure. As dusk began to fall on Monti's return, discussions began to ensue as to whether to move their position.

At approximately 6:45pm local time, Monti's group suddenly came under heavy fire from a wooded area to their rear. A group of 50 enemy combatants fired on them with RPG's, machine guns and small arms and began to move towards them. The ferocity of the enemy fire knocked weapons from the men's hands and one, Private Brian Bradbury, was wounded.

It was here that Monti began his date with heroic destiny. He organized a quick response and defense, and also called in for air and artillery support. These actions alone kept his small group from being completely overrun early on in the attack.

Then, disregarding his own safety, Monti moved to rescue the fallen Bradbury. On his first attempt he was driven back by heavy enemy fire. Unfazed, Monti waited it out and made another move but was again driven back by heavy enemy fire. Finally, Monti made a 3rd attempt to rush to Bradbury's aid. This time an RPG exploded nearby, mortally wounding Monti and finally ending his heroic attempts to rescue his brother soldier.

As irony would have it, thanks to Monti's calls a rescue mission did indeed arrive. But as a Medevac chopper was raising the wounded Bradbury and another injured soldier, a winch cable broke and the two men plummeted to their deaths.

Command Sgt. Major James Redmore stated it perfectly in summing up Monti's actions on the battlefield that day. "They're being overwhelmed by an enemy force. He's calmly calling in fire, which breaks up the enemy force, and he's going out to try to retrieve one of his fallen comrades. He does it once, twice, a third time. Is it extraordinary? Absolutely. Would every man have the ability to muster the courage to do that? No, I don't believe they would."

Staff Sergeant Monti was posthumously promoted to Sergeant 1st Class the next day. He was later posthumously awarded with the Medal of Honor, the highest military award given by the U.S. government. His citation begins with the statement that his honor was "For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty." The actions of brave men like Jared Monti are what gave America it's freedom to begin with, and that enable us to remain free and to help extend the opportunity for liberty and freedom throughout the world.

NOTE: this is the continuation of the regular feature "Real American Heroes", all entries of which can be viewed by clicking on that label below this article at the www.mattveasey.com website

New Documentary: Behind Taliban Lines

New documentary from PBS Frontline "Behind Taliban Lines" shows the challenges faced by the U.S. in Afghanistan. Najibullah Quraishi, an Afghan journalist, was able to infiltrate the Taliban and get a glimpse of life in Afghanistan in areas outside of the control of U.S. troops. The U.S. is losing the battle for hearts in minds in some parts of the Country, although the West has tribal support in others... but in many areas not physically held by U.S. troops & where the Taliban has found shelter, such as in Southern Afghanistan, the U.S. faces an almost impossible situation.

There is a reason why they call Karzi the Mayor of Kabul... because that is the only place where the Afghan government has effective control. The central leadership is poor due to corruption, tribalism, the lack of resources, and the ongoing insurgency. Outside of the Capital, the federal governments presence is spotty. Even in areas where the Karzi government has a presence... officials have been either compromised, corrupted or killed.

Luckily the U.S. is now on the offensive... but the hearts and minds battle is still a problem. The film raises questions about Afghanistan's future and its ability to stand on its own. It would probably require a strong NATO commitment of 5-7 more years (minimum), and billions more in American tax dollars. With all the other challenges faced by the U.S., I don't know if this kind of commitment is sustainable.

Excellent Week In Review Discussion from NPR

Hear On Point's week in review discussion from this weekend. Panel included Trudy Rubin, Clarence Page, and Jack Beatty.

They covered just about everything... including Obama's falling support, the death of Healthcare Reform, the gridlocked and completely dysfunctional Congress, and the public's misplaced anger. They didn't go far enough though...they seemed scared to say that the Country is screwed. With voters set to return Republicans to power, America's decline will continue.

Real American Hero: Michael Murphy

On October 7th, 2001 in direct response to the 9/11 attacks on America which had occurred less than a month earlier, the United States military launched 'Operation Enduring Freedom' in Afghanistan to wipe out the bases from which the terrorist al Qaeda organization was then operating.

The American military worked with a group of coalition forces, and a group of Afghani Northern Alliance forces, and was able to quickly wipe out the abusive Taliban military that were operating in the region and drive them from power. This began an effort which continues today to establish peace and stability in the historically backwards and worn-torn nation.

It was into this continuing conflict that Michael P. "Murph" Murphy from Patchogue, New York entered in early 2005. Murphy was a natural athlete who enjoyed playing football and soccer as a kid, and who became a life guard as well. He went on to attend Penn State University where he graduated in 1998 with degrees in both Psychology and Political Science.

Murph had been accepted to law school, but decided instead to serve his country by challenging himself to try to become a Navy SEAL. He entered the Navy's Officer Candidate School in fall of 2000, and over the next two years trained with various Army Airborne and Navy SEAL units. He finally realized his goal of joining the Navy SEALS on his deployment at Pearl Harbor in the summer of 2002.

The SEALs are perhaps the most integral part of the Navy's special operations force. They are experts in special recon and direct action missions. They take their names from the terrain in which they operate: the Sea, Air, and Land. Only an elite few are equipped and able to make it through the rigorous training, and Murph had joined that group.

He was first sent to the Middle East in the fall of 2002, and over the next few years served various roles and missions in Jordan, Qatar, and Djibouti before being assigned to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in early 2005. It was here as an assistant officer-in-charge of SEAL Vehicle Delivery Team One's 'Alfa' platoon that he would make the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

On June 28th, 2005, Murphy was assigned to lead a team of four SEAL's in what was known as 'Operation Red Wing', an effort to kill or capture a Taliban leader by the name of Ahmad Shah who himself commanded a group of fighters known as the 'Mountain Tigers'.

Murphy's team successfully infiltrated the area, but were stumbled upon by some passing local goat herders. The team had to decide whether to allow the locals to live and move along, or to kill them and ensure their presence remained unknown. They voted to let the herders live. A short time after the locals left, a large Taliban contingent surrounded and attacked the SEALs.

The SEALs tried to escape, but were in desperate need of backup. Murphy's communications man ran out into the open to try to get a better signal and was shot in the hand. Murphy realized the radios were not working in the mountainous area, and fought his way into the open himself to try his cellphone. This call for help was answered, but Murphy was shot in the abdomen. He returned to cover and continued to fight off the enemy despite his fatal injuries.

Murphy's call for help was answered by a helicopter with reinforcements, but the chopper was shot down by an RPG killing all 16 persons aboard. The fighting went on for two hours, resulting in 35 Taliban soldiers being killed. However, Murphy and two of his team succumbed to their wounds. In total, 8 Navy SEALS aboard the chopper added to Murphy and his two team members made for the highest number of SEALs killed in action since Vietnam.

The lone surviving member of Murphy's team, Marcus Luttrell, had been blasted over a ridge by an RPG and knocked unconscious. Some time later he regained consciousness and managed to crawl away, but was so badly injured that he could not signal to the searchers looking for him. He was ultimately found and tended to by some local villagers, who managed to keep the Taliban from taking him before finally getting him back into American hands after a few days.

On the 4th of July, 2005, Michael Murphy's body was finally discovered by a military search and rescue team and returned to his family for burial in his home state of New York. On October 7th, 2007, President George W. Bush presented the family with his Medal of Honor. His actions had allowed the location of his unit to be made known to American forces, which ultimately led to Luttrell's rescue.

As has been stated here before, the Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration that can be awarded. In his citation, it was stated that Murph had "demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger" and went on to state: "Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force."

The citation went on to conclude: "In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom." Michael Murphy thus became the first American so honored for their role in Afghanistan. His father, Daniel, later stated that Murph carried with him a patch from the NYFD's Engine 53 and Ladder 43 "as a symbol of why he was there and what he was doing."

Throughout our history, brave men and women have risen to the challenges and responsibilities of repeatedly defending the cause of freedom that is at the very core and nature of the United States of America. Before we came into existence there was never a nation such as ours, and it is only because of the heroic and selfless sacrifices of individuals such as Michael P. Murphy that we continue to exist and thrive today.

NOTE: This is the latest in a continuing series titled 'Real American Heroes', all entries of which can be viewed by clicking on the label below this article at the www.mattveasey.com website

Islamism Series: What Are We Prepared to Do?

In the 1987 film 'The Untouchables', Kevin Costner plays famed lawman Elliot Ness, who is tasked to lead a fight against the violent empire of infamous crime boss Al Capone in Chicago during the Prohibition era.

In the beginning, Ness tries some of the usual law enforcement tactics of the day, but appears to be going nowhere in his efforts to defeat Capone. Finally his right-hand man in the film, street cop 'Jim Malone' as played in an Oscar-winning performance by Sean Connery, turns to Ness and asks him a blunt question: "What are you prepared to do?"

This is always the single most important question that needs to be asked, understood, and answered before committing to fight any war at any level. Whether at the level of law enforcement fighting criminal groups to keep the public safe on the home front, or at the level of national armed forces fighting enemies from abroad with the same goal, this simple question cannot be avoided.

Decades ago a war was declared against the United States by the forces of radical Islam around the world. It was declared with public statements, and those statements were backed up with physical attacks against American troops, citizens, and interests abroad and eventually with attacks against the American homeland.

For years the answer to that question of "What are you prepared to do?" seemed to be a tit-for-tat response. They blew up something of ours, we lobbed a missile at something of theirs. The international community cried if we killed civilians in our attacks, but shed no tears for American Marines and other service persons and civilians killed in attacks against our embassies or troops.

Nothing much changed until finally the radical Islamists were able to pull off a large-scale attack right here on our own shores with the physically, financially, and emotionally devastating attacks of September 11th, 2001 against Washington and New York.

Less than one year into his first term in office, President George W. Bush was faced with the question for the first time: "What are you prepared to do?"And for the first time, an American leader did not pull a knee-jerk response by lobbing a missile. For perhaps the very first time, an American leader and his team actually sat down and took a good, long, hard look at the reality of the situation.

The United States was not the victim of some random attack by 20 guys who hijacked some planes. The United States was attacked by an entity which viewed us as a sworn enemy and wanted nothing less than either our destruction or our capitulation to their worldview. Join up with Islam completely or die, that was and is the message from this enemy.

This was not the usual, traditional type of enemy, and fighting them would require an entirely new mindset and commitment level. In days now long gone by we could identify an enemy as a nation-state or group thereof, and largely pinpoint this enemy and defeat them on a geographical battlefield.

The enemy that we now faced was more of a network of ideological radicals scattered in both large and small groups all over the globe, including some in our own country, that was in some cases well-funded and trained. In some cases this network was being expressly, implicitly, or tacitly supported by a nation-state.

Faced with destruction, devastation, and death on his home front on his watch, President Bush answered the question fully when on September 15th, 2001 he said "This act will not stand. We will find who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running; and we will bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them, and feed them, and house them. Make no mistake about it. Underneath our tears is the strong determination of America to win this war. And we will win it."

In this statement, Bush correctly recognized that the problem was not only with the people who actually pulled off the attacks of 9/11, but fully extended to those who supported and nurtured these people both physically and ideologically. Bush also here became the first American leader to publicly acknowledge that we were at war, and further, he promised that we would win that war. But he also went further, recognizing that this war would be long:

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus...It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century."

The problem was clear, a war was declared on us, attacks were taking place against us, and Americans were dying. The problem was recognized with an acknowledgement that we were indeed at war. The question of what we were prepared to do about it seemed to be answered appropriately: we would fight wherever necessary for as long as necessary to win decisively to ensure lasting peace.

While we dealt them blows on their home bases in Afghanistan and began to establish a democratic foothold in the Middle East both there and in Iraq, the Islamists continued the war with attacks on the trains of Madrid, Spain on March 11th, 2004 and on school children in Beslan, Russia on September 1st, 2004 and on the buses and subways in London, England on July 7th, 2005 among others.

Unfortunately a problem began to develop. As we finally took the fight to the radical Islamists, some Americans, particularly Democratic Party politicians who were out of political power and their media lackeys, all too quickly forgot the pain and destruction of 9/11 and the many other Islamic attacks on America and our allies. They began to use the continuing war and the inevitable American service person deaths as a political football.

During the final 2,682 days of his two terms stretching over more than 7 years following those 9/11 attacks, the policies and strategies of President Bush and his team kept the United States safe from any further successful attacks by a determined enemy who was demonstrating all around the rest of the world that it was still very capable of delivering death and destruction.

The current American administration wants desperately to end our involvement in this war. It was elected largely by painting President Bush as a hateful war-monger and won with a promise to take that very action, in fact. However, on actually taking office and being faced with the reality of the situation themselves, Barack Obama and his people seem surprised to find that is it not America that is the problem after all.

This past week saw a reminder from al Qaeda and the radical Islamists that this war is far from over. They again attempted to use airliners to deliver devastating attacks against the United States on American soil. In fact, they continue to seek nuclear, bio-chemical, radiological and other weapons of mass destruction in what will likely one day be a successful large-scale attack on the United States.

The radical Islamists do not care what American political party is in power. They do not care what the skin color or sex or age is of the American president at any given time. They care only about one thing, that America openly convert to Islam and accept Sharia Law as the ruling cultural influence and legal authority. Anything less will result in the continuation of the war from their end.

That is the real important thing that we need to remember, that a war is not over just because we pull many or even all of our troops out of any country. Vietnam did not end when we Americans fled with our tails between our legs. Instead, the victorious North Vietnamese slaughtered an estimated 4.5 million South Vietnamese who our brave military persons had been protecting. But hey, a bunch of hippies and newscasters felt better, so it was okay.

Unless we become even more determined to fight this war against radical Islam with stronger conventional forces and tactics backed by more determined diplomatic energy and support to the region in finances and infra-structure development over what will likely be decades of commitment, we will lose. And the ramifications of our failure now will be even greater than our failure to win in Vietnam.

It likely won't happen suddenly or overnight, and maybe not even over one generation. But Islam and its accompanying discrimination, intimidation, and hatred will eventually win out. Either that, or some totalitarian regime of Communism led by Russia or China will become the dominant power. The failure this time of the world's beacon of freedom, the United States of America, will be a devastating blow to freedom everywhere.

So as every bomb explodes, as every school is attacked, as every head is lopped off, as more Americans are threatened and killed, as our leadership continues to talk tough after an attack while plotting our retreat the question begins to shout out to the American public. Do you want to become Islamic, or die? If the answer is neither, then you are again faced with that one simple question: what are you prepared to do?

NOTE: This continues the ongoing 'Islamism Series', each entry of which can be viewed by clicking on to that label below at www.mattveasey.com

9/11

"The British are Coming!" "Remember the Alamo!" "A Date Which Will Live in Infamy" "9/11"

All of these phrases are now burned by history into the collective American consciousness, automatically bringing us back to times when our nation was under attack right here on our own soil. However, the first three are actually a bit misleading in that regard. Neither the British attacks in the Revolutionary War, the Mexican attack in Texas, or the Japanese attack in Hawaii happened in an official state of the Union.

In the first, the United States was not a fully formed, world recognized, independent nation, but instead was fighting for some type of independence from the British empire. It shouted a warning among the American colonists that British troops were approaching, and is usually specifically related to the midnight ride of Paul Revere. It also hearkens us back to a time when British 'red coats' were firing on Americans, burning homes and businesses, and marching across the land that we now know as the United States of America.

The battle at the Alamo mission also was not fought on what was then technically United States soil, but was fought between the Republics of Mexico and Texas in the aftermath of the Mexican revolution. It was a decade before Texas would officially become a U.S. state. The Texian forces fighting for their independence from the Mexican government where vastly outnumbered, yet fought off the Mexican troops valiantly before finally being overrun and massacred. The incident rallied Texians to eventual victory, and ultimately to statehood.

Again, the Japanese sneak attack in Hawaii did not technically take place on an official state in the Union. On December 7th, 1941, Hawaii was an annexed American territory and the site of an extremely strategic naval base located at Pearl Harbor. When the Japanese bombs and kamakazi pilots virtually wiped out the American Pacific Naval fleet that morning, it not only sparked our entry into World War II, but also showed the importance of Hawaii to our interests, resulting in full statehood by 1959.

Most people alive today know full well of the events of 9/11 as they relate to more attacks on American soil, attacks this time on an official state (New York) as well as on the seat of our government (Washington, D.C.), along with a thwarted attack that ended in the loss of American lives in Pennsylvania.

Here in Philadelphia and along much of the American east coast, today is a dark, gloomy day on which the rain pours from the skies. I will refrain from talk of it being tears for the lives of the nearly 3,000 victims lost that day. The only reason that I point out the bleak weather conditions today is to relate how stark the contrast it is with that absolutely gorgeous late summer morning, now eight years ago.

America awoke and began it's commute to work on that Tuesday morning with little thought of the radical Islamic assault that was fully planned and already operational. Despite repeated threats and actual attacks leading up to that day, most Americans had their heads in the sand regarding men such as Osama bin Laden and groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. We were virtually untouchable and absolutely indestructible as a nation. All that went away in just a couple of hours.

Despite the magnitude and suddeness of those attacks, the loss of all of those lives, the televised attacks on and collapse of the iconic Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, a jet airplane ramming through the core of our national defense at the Pentegon, the grounding of American air traffic for almost a week, and the subsequent wars fought in Iraq and Afghanistan we seem to have learned little.

The radical Islamists who attacked us that morning were not representatives of any particular nation. We were not attacked that morning and at other times by Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Libya, or Egypt, or any single Middle Eastern or Arabic nation or group of nations. We were attacked by radical groups operating within those nations who are inspired by the Koran and their faith to conquer the world on behalf of Islam.

In past wars and battles, whether fought to form the United States as with Britain, to expand the United States as with Mexico, or to defend the United States as with Japan the enemy was usually an easy to define nation-state. It had borders, populations, armies, resources, and allies that were usually easily definable. To win, you had to defeat the other guys in head-to-head physical combat. There was a measure of ideology that needed to be defeated as well, but ultimately if you won the physical battles and suppressed the enemy troops and their leaders, you were the clear winner.

I put it to you that it is no different now. We still need to win that physical battle. But as with those past conflicts, this is also a war of ideologies, and we must also win on that front to ever have a long-lasting peace. This war must be fought and won on two fronts, both of which we must be willing to support and sustain if we want to win.

On one hand we must support and sustain the ideological war that is raging within Islam itself. There are moderate forces within that religion, the 2nd largest on the planet with an influence over approximately 1.5 billion people, or almost 1 in every 5 people on the planet. The radical forces calling for that religion to control the world not only religiously, but also sociologically, financially, politically is growing. We must support in every way the forces within Islam that want to maintain it as a part of the whole where the world is concerned, not as a world domination ideology.

On the other hand, we must be willing to back that financial and rhetorical support up with our armed forces. The radical Islamist groups are heavily armed, well equipped, and train regularly. And their numbers and influence are growing, as is their technology. It is just a matter of time before nuclear weapons are in the hands of radical Islamic terrorist regimes. Once that happens, these groups will use these weapons to further their agenda in Israel, Europe, and here in America. Until such elements are effectively wiped out, we are going to have physical battles to fight.

There will be a number of remembrances across the country and around the world today on the 8th anniversary of those radical Islamic attacks on September 11th, 2001. There will be a few television programs this evening that will recall the events of that day. If you have not yet seen them, I can highly recommend four different films that you need to watch.

"9/11" was perhaps the best documentary on the day of the attacks, and is available by clicking on to the title of this article through Amazon. This and "United 93" are probably the two best films ever made to this point. "World Trade Center" is also a well made dramatic depiction of the New York attacks. Finally, the documentary film "Obsession" tells the full story of the radical Islamic problem across the world today.

9/11 was not the beginning of this world-wide ideological struggle, and we will not likely see the end any time soon, if ever. There will be further dates to remember, catch-phrases to live in infamy. Today we should remember those who lost their lives that day, as well as those who fought and continue to fight for victory in the continuing ideological struggle against the forces of radical Islam. Those forces are still out there, still bent on that same world domination, and the United States of America continues to stand as the best defense against their aggression.

Islamism Series: Coming Soon to a Hood Near You?

How would you like your family’s next-door neighbor to be a former Guantanamo Bay inmate who was trained in a military camp in pre-9/11 Afghanistan? Would it matter if they were declared no longer to be an “enemy combatant” by the Pentagon?

That’s the fundamental question that ought to be going through the minds of Northern Virginia residents this week, amid news reports - including my own New York Daily News exclusive today - that a group from Gitmo may soon be making house in the D.C. surburbs. Officials tell The News the ethnic Turk Muslims from China, known as Uyghurs, will be settled in a Uyghur community in Fairfax, Va. - if Team Obama gives the thumbs up.

While Republicans have unarguably been making political hay out of this news - as well as the release of the Bush-era “torture memos” and President Obama’s plan to close Gitmo by January - they are indeed representing the views of many counterterrorism officials by objecting strenuously to plans to resettle a half-dozen former detainees in the D.C. suburbs.

“There are people in the intelligence community who are concerned about the Uyghurs from a security standpoint,” Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), ranking GOPer on the Homeland Security Committee, told me this week. “They have very real worries.”

Counterterrorism officials I spoke to have expressed concern but no great alarm. Some see a greater threat than others. But at the core of the debate is that it’s not entirely clear how connected the detainees were to a Uyghur terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, before they were nabbed after 9/11.

“How do you say for sure? You don’t, and that’s the problem,” said one U.S. official briefed on contingency operations involving the Uyghur detainees.

Another matter is whether they grew into hardened jihadis during the seven years they’ve been held at Gitmo, though now in a minimally restrictive camp.

“You don’t know what kind of radicalization happened down there,” said Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), whose district is the spot where U.S. officials are looking to relocate the Gitmo group.

Wolf and King complain Team Obama hasn’t told them much. But other officials insist the members have been regularly briefed on Gitmo plans.

As The News reported today, a sweeping security operation by the FBI and Homeland Security Department is in place to keep a watchful eye on the Uyghurs if they’re released in Virginia. But Wolf said the costs to taxpayers of the surveillance will be high for a decade or more, during which time the Uyghurs may become determined to attack the Red Chinese government.

“Will they one day try to kill the Chinese ambassador?” Wolf wonders. “You’d have to do (surveillance) forever.”

“We are not as much worried,” said Alim Seytoff, general secretary of the Uyghur American Association in Washington. “If the Uyghurs (at Gitmo) are released, we will welcome them.”

WRITTEN by James Gordon Meek for the CounterterrorismBlog.org on May 8th, 2009

Islamism Series: Back to Afghanistan

For a land-locked nation that is basically a pile of rock and sand, Afghanistan holds some serious sway in the international community. The reasons are many, but they are sometimes difficult to graps until you look more closely.

Afghanistan is bordered on the west by an Islamic nuclear-power wannabe ruled by a mad President in Iran, and on the east by the already nuclear-powered and increasingly fractious Pakistan. There is even a small slice of northeastern Afghanistan that borders up against a Communist behemoth known as China. Along its northern borders lie a trio of former Soviet states in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Its land-locked status means that it has virtually no natural water supplies. There are no seas against which it borders, no rivers running through it, no lakes in which water has gathered. In short, there is very little of the life-sustaining, not to mention economy-sustaining water that is necessary for a country and people to survive, let alone thrive.

The median age is less than 18 years, which might make you wonder where are all the adults? Many of them are simply dead, as the average life expectancy is only a little over 44 years. Because of the poor economic conditions there is a high risk of infectious diseases and wide-scale problems with other illnesses such as malaria, typhoid fever, hepatitis A, and 'bird flu' influenza strains. So why does everyone care so much about a country that is so desolate and so inhospitable? Simply because of its strategic location as a 'buffer zone'.

Afghanistan was founded in 1747 when Ahmad Durrani was able to organized the native Pashtun tribes into one people. For a long time it served as a buffer between the Russian and the British empires before gaining independence from Britain in 1919.

In the 1970's, the Soviets propped up a Communist government there, and then directly invaded the country in 1979 to put down rebellions from various native Afghan tribes and groups. This led to a decade-long war in which the rebels emerged victorious thanks to aid from the international community, most notably the United States (see the film 'Charlie Wilson's War'.)

In the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan war there was continual civil war in the country, with the Taliban finally emerging with control in the mid-1990's. The population is 99% Muslim, and the Taliban demanded observance of a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. They also allowed the use of Afghan territories by Osama bin Laden and his radical Islamic followers, which al Qaeda used to operate terrorist training camps.

Following 9/11, the U.S.-led coalition invaded, destroyed the terrorist camps, and drove the Taliban from power. This began a process of attempting to install a democratic government and elected leadership, which ultimately led to the current democratically-elected government of Hamid Karzai (pictured). Many felt that the U.S. lost focus from this important rebuilding program when it switched gears and invaded Iraq.

With the Afghan situation appearing under control, President Bush redeployed many American forces to topple the regime of dictator Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. As noble as removing the evil Hussein from power may have been, it did allow the Taliban to begin slowly regrouping and regaining some influence in Afghanistan.

The new American President Barack Obama inherited both the Iraq and Afghanistan situations when he took office. It is his position that Iraqi defense forces and the Iraqi government are becoming strong enough that they will soon be able to stand on their own, and is planning to slowly draw down U.S. presence in that area. At the same time he plans to increase the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

There is an upcoming international conference on Afghanistan that will take place at The Hague and which will be attended by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton along with leaders from all of the world nations having a stake in Afghanistan's short and long term future.

With both the historical and current instability in that region of the world, and with their significant strategic locations, successful democracies in both Iraq and Afghanistan are worthy and important efforts. The Afghans absolutely need and deserve more U.S. support, not just military but also economic and in other areas. But the Iraqis cannot be abandoned to fend for themselves to the point where the loss of 4,000 American lives over a half decade ends up being for nothing.


President Obama is basically taking us back to Afghanistan, and that is a good and necessary thing. But at the same time we need to be very careful in the process of drawing down in Iraq. In the 'big tent' meeting at The Hague, two groups with a stake in Afghanistan's future which will not be represented are the Taliban and al Qaeda. But the groups who do meet should not forget their presence or their interest.

Radical Islamic forces are still fighting in both countries to undermine the American-led efforts, convinced that if they just wait us out we will eventually retreat to our own homeland and leave these Middle East countries with little defense against their continuing Jihad.

NOTE: This is a continuation of the Islam Series, all items of which can be read by clicking the below label of that name.

Islamism Series: Our Grandchildren's Grandchildren

I recently had the pleasure of sitting in on a highly educational presentation by an American law enforcement professional that largely covered the topic of responding to a bombing or other terrorist attack in our city.

The individual presenting the class has been all over the world, particularly the hot spots in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and South America, aiding in their responses to such incidents. Perhaps most importantly, he was also gaining an education and making vital contacts that would keep him abreast on the latest information from those far-flung locales regarding updated terrorist activities, attacks, and tactics.

One of the statements that he made that I found most compelling is something that I have believed for a long time. That no matter who is elected to become the next President of the United States, no matter whether we 'bring the troops home' or remain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly expand the current conflict into Iran eventually, this is not a war that is going to end any time soon. His simple statement was this: "Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be fighting this war."

He had a very simple, straightforward reason for making this statement. The Islamists with whom we are at war have no intention of stopping until Islam is in control of the entire world. War has been declared on us over a decade ago. Our nation was directly attacked, and has had repeated attempted attacks on it. Our allies have been and are being attacked regularly.

Spain is the perfect example of how they intend to win. On March 11th, 2004, the Islamists bombed trains in Madrid, immediately resulting in 191 killed and over 1,800 wounded. They demanded that Spain pull out of Iraq, and told the Spanish people that they would pay for their governments involvement. Out of this fear, Spaniards went to the polls in elections held shortly after the bombings and voted out the democratic government, voting in a Socialist government that pulled Spain's troops. The Islamists had effected a coup d'etat, installed a sympathetic government to their cause, and cowed a member of the European Union. They had knocked a government with close ties to the U.S. out of power, and effectively ordered it replaced with one that is antagonistic towards America.

Frankly, thanks to the fear of the Spanish people, the Islamists won a great victory. The victory became complete when this summer the Spanish courts tossed out more convictions, including of the mastermind of the attacks, raising to 11 the number who have been acquitted, with a number of others receiving extremely lenient sentences. The Islamists have incited riots in the suburbs of Paris, and attacked London as well, and are well on their way to creating an almost riotous situation across all of Europe.

What will likely happen on the European continent over the next few years and decades could make the 9/11 attacks look paltry by comparison. They saw how we reacted to 9/11, firing overseas and lighting up their world, including overthrowing the Islamist Taliban in Afghanistan and the tyrannical regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. They find the response of the Europeans much softer, and so for now will simply be happy with turning their attention to slowly overwhelming our allies, who have proven to be far more soft.

The hard fact seems to be that the American people, at least right now, don't have the stomach to win the war being fought. They understandably want peace, a return to a time when American soldiers weren't in harms way, and when everyone can just sit down and talk out our differences. The unfortunate reality is that the other side in this battle doesn't want that, and will fight to the death. Because we may be unwilling to make the significant sacrifices now that it will take to overcome this global threat, we are likely to pay even greater costs in the generations to come.

I have two grandchildren now. My grandson was just born on August 1st of this year. It is highly likely that he, or his children, or his grandchildren, my grandchildren's grandchildren, will be fighting a much bloodier and far broader war at some future time because today's generation was unwilling to go all the way to victory.

NOTE: This is the continuation of my regular feature'Islamism Series'. At the bottom of this entry, you can click on the label of that name to read the prior entries.

Islamism Series: The Mujahideen and the Taliban

One of the most difficult hurdles for someone to overcome in understanding the meaning behind the many stories that they hear bandied about the airwaves and internet is basic definitions: who are we talking about, what exactly are they doing, why are they doing it, and how does it affect me? The stories, people, cultures, and issues are usually not easily definable in the few short sentences or paragraphs that a blog or column allows in order to really educate someone. When discussing the issues of radical Islam here, I usually try to be as simplistic as possible, because that is all that space allows, and it is enough to paint a picture that gives someone a basic education on the issue. Anyone who has paid attention to the news over the past decade or more has heard of both the terms 'mujahideen' and 'taliban', but few know who or what these terms represent. The most that many know is that they might have something to do with Afghanistan, and something to do with the war. Let's try to give you a basic primer. First, in our modern terminology a 'mujahideen' is generally one who struggles as a fighter for a radical Islamic cause and is inspired by religion and idealogy. Picture yourself in the Afghanistan of the late 1970's. The government of your country is aligned with the Soviet Union, and you don't like that, so you join a group which actively fights your own government to free itself from that influence. Your government asks the Soviets to come in and directly join the fight against your group, which is joined by other anti-Soviet and anti-government groups in this struggle, which you perceive to be largely about defending your Muslim faith. These groups joined in this struggle are the beginning of what we know today as the 'Mujahideen' forces. They fight in and around Afghanistan throughout the 1980's against the Soviet troops and their influence. You are largely supported with funds and weapons from the outside by forces that wish to see the Soviets fail, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran. Finally in the late '80's, the Soviets pull their troops out, and you are seen in your country as victorious defenders and heroes. Ronald Reagan himself calls you "freedom fighters", and you are portrayed positively in a number of western films. A key leader in those battles was a Saudi national named Osama bin Laden, who not only used his vast monetary fortune to help support the war effort, but also personally fought himself. In the aftermath of the Soviet pullout, various mujahideen groups fight one another for control in a devastating civil war that lasted for years. In an attempt to bring some order, a new group known as 'The Taliban', literally meaning 'students', was formed from among some of the students from the most restrictive Muslims schools. They wrestled control at the capital of Kabul around 1996, and then ruled over Afghanistan through 2001. During their rule they instituted the most strict and severe form of Sharia (Islamic law), including the mistreatment of women, that the Muslim world had ever seen. The Taliban had a very strict interpretation of Islam, and refused to allow other strains of the faith to gain a voice. They began an attempt to spread their views and their power into neighboring Pakistan as well. Mullah Mohammed Omar (pictured above) was considered the Taliban leader during this time, and he went into hiding at the start of the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, when the United States and others went into the country to begin addressing radical Islam by driving out the Taliban. After gaining control of the country, the U.S. and NATO powers began to assemble and help support a new, democratic Afghani government. Omar continues in hiding as a wanted man for supporting and hiding Osama bin Laden, who had gone on from his heroic mujahideen days to become the leader of a world-wide Islamic terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, which perpetrated those 9/11 attacks. After being driven from Afghanistan, The Taliban eventually gathered its remaining forces and adherents in the tribal areas of Pakistan and began to reconstitute itself, and now has begun fighting back in an attempt to overthrow the U.S.-backed Afghani government and regain control. The bottom line: the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets and the Taliban who fought America are both radical Islamic groups wishing to gain territorial and political power to back and strengthen their radical religious beliefs. These are exactly the types of groups, and both Mohammed Omar and Osama bin Laden the kinds of people, the we desperately need to eliminate in order to crush the oppression of Islamism and help the freedoms of democracy spread throughout the world.

Real American Hero: Paul Smith

The Congressional 'Medal of Honor' is our nation's highest military award. There have been over 3,400 recipients in our history, but just over 840 since requirements were tightened in World War II. In order to be eligible a person must be nominated by his or her commanders. The nominee then must have their story wind through a dozen levels of military and presidential reviews, during which various factors are taken into account to ensure that only the greatest among the many noble sacrifices are selected for the final honors. Some of it's recipients have gone on to fame, or earned it by their honored actions, including President Teddy Roosevelt, Audie Murphy in World War II, and even 'Buffalo Bill' Hickock. It's recipients have been called 'unsung soldiers who acted valiantly in a moment of extraordinary pressure'. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, over a million military men and women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the first from this 'War on Islamofascist Terror' to be so honored was Sergeant Paul Smith. He grew up in Tampa, Florida, enlisted in the Army in 1989, and served in the first Gulf War in 1991. He didn't join up at first out of patriotism, that developed later. At first he wanted just a good-paying job right out of high school, and saw this as his best shot. A career soldier, Paul Smith was serving in Bosnia when the United States was attacked in 2001. In April of 2003 he had moved on to Iraq, and was serving there as a combat engineer as his unit moved from Kuwait towards Baghdad, seizing a part of the Baghdad Airport on April 3rd, 2003. The following morning, Paul was part of a team that was constructing a holding cell that would house prisoners of war, when the company came under attack by at least 100 Iraqi soldiers of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard. Paul took charge of their defense and response, calling in for support and hurling a grenade at the Iraqi postions while coming under heavy enemy fire. Iraqi mortar hit an M-113 engineering vehicle, injuring all three occupants, and Paul rushed in to help them to the safety of a nearby medical unit, which was itself now becoming endangered by the growing Iraqi attacks. He could have retreated at that point, saving his life, but that would have meant the Iraqis advancing, and likely dozens of deaths on the American side. Instead, he grabbed control of the M-113's .50 caliber guns and fired back at the Iraqis, reloaded, and fired again, then reloaded and fired a third time. As he got off this round, pinning the Iraqis down, he was struck in the neck by their return fire and was killed. He had killed two to four dozen Iraqi troops, allowed wounded Americans to be evacuated, and saved the aid station and likely all those working, securing, and being treated there. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, with President Bush presenting to his widow, Brigit Smith, who later said: "I'm proud and honored that Paul would be recognized by his country in such a meaningful way. He loved his country; he loved the Army; and he loved his soldiers." That about sums up all you need to know about this Real American Hero, Army Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith, who is the first of many who will be highlighted here at my website as we move forward. Far above sporting and entertainment celebrities whom the media would have you believe are heroic and more worthy of your attention, these folks lay their lives, and the security of their families, on the line every day to ensure the security of the United States of America. (NOTE: you will be able to view all the Real American Hero stories by clicking into that below label)

Islamism Series: Return of the Caliphate

This is the continuation of my regular feature 'Islamism Series'. At the bottom of this entry, you can click on the label of that name to read the prior entries.

So what exactly do they want, these radical Islamists, these terrorists? Why don't they just live their lives, and let us live ours? Why can't they just leave us alone? Those are just a few of the many natural, normal questions that the typical, uneducated American usually asks themselves about the radical Islamists. Why are the terrorists blowing up themselves and others, cutting people's heads off, and hating Israel, the United States, and western culture so much? The answer lies in understanding one simple concept: the Caliphate. Radical Islamists want to overthrow and eliminate western governments and culture, and reinstall the rule of the Caliph over first the traditional Muslim lands of the Middle East, and eventually the entire world. So what is this 'Caliphate', and what is a 'Caliph'? Let's take a quick trip back in history, to the late 7th century. Muhammad is the key personality in Islamic history, but we will save a more full treatment of him for another day. For now, let's just preface things with the fact that he was inspired to, founded, and spread the Muslim faith during his lifetime. In 632 A.D., at the age of 62, Muhammad died, and control of the Muslim world was debated and fought over. One group, who became known as the Sunni's, believed that Muhammad's successor should come in the way that tradition dictated at that time: through election, appointment, or consensus. Another group, who became known as the Shiite's, believed that the successors should come from Muhammad's family. He had a family member by the name of Ali, and Shiite supporters felt that Ali should be the successor, and then his descendants down through time. The Sunni's were by far the larger, more powerful group, and their idea of succession through election/appointment took control of the largest portion of the Muslim world under an appointed leader known as a 'Caliph'. The word finds its origins in the old Arabic words halifa (successor) and halafa, meaning 'to succeed'. The Muslim lands ruled over by the Caliph became known as a Caliphate, and this ruling authority spread the rule and control of the Muslims to dominate much of the known world including the entire Middle East, westward into Europe, and eastward into India. Then around the year 1300 A.D., the Ottoman Turks first came to power, and the Ottoman Empire spread the rule of the Caliphate further into the east and west. This rule of the Caliphate would basically remain continuous in one form or another for almost 1,300 years until World War I. For one of the few times, the Muslim world got involved in an outside dispute at that point, joining the war effort on the side of the Germans, the Axis power, ultimately the losing side. In the aftermath of World War I, secular (non-religious) government came to power in the Middle East, and the new leader of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, abolished the Caliphate. For the first time in 13 centuries there was no central religious leadership in the Muslim world, and religious control fell to the local Imams and clerics in each country, where it remains today. So what do the radicals want? Ultimately what they want is the return of the Caliph to power over the Muslim world, and the expansion of control of the Caliphate to again occur throughout the Middle East, the hemisphere, and ultimately the entire world. That is their ultimate goal. Major obstacles to this goal include the presence and influence in the Middle East of the non-Islamic government and society in places like Israel, the financial and cultural influence of the west as led by the United States, and ideas and concepts like democracy and capitalism, which are wholly anti-Islamic in their view. Bottom line is, they demand that you and I, our government and societies sure, but we as individuals also, do one of three things. First, we can do what they really want: convert to Islam and be a good Muslim. If we don't want to do that, we can pay a tax to the Muslims, which they call the Jizya, and submit ourselves under their rule and 'protection' as second-class citizens. Failing conversion or submission, we can fight. That's it, there is no 'live and let live'. There is no 'you do your thing, I do my thing, and let's leave each other alone'. There is no peace treaty or deal to be cut. They want your conversion, submission, or physical destruction. Period. So now you know what the radical Islamists want: the return of the Caliphate, which includes your conversion or submission. Is that what you want? If not, you have only one choice, the same choice that faced our forefathers who fought the similar ideology of Nazism in World War II: fight them until their influence is completely destroyed. If we 'bring home the troops' from Iraq and Afghanistan, only one side will have quit the war, because they will continue it, that much is guaranteed. So we can have the fortitude to stay and fight them until their influence is eliminated, or we can continue to deal with their terrorism, attacks, destruction, and hatred throughout the world. Your choice.