Remembering the Christians of Iraq on Christmas Eve

Yesterday I was visited again by a member of the Iraqi Christian Community -- known variously as Chaldean or Assyrian Christians.  This man has brought me updates on a fairly regular basis and we have prayed together for the Iraqi Christian Community, which is suffering tremendously since the Iraq War began.  Things were never wonderful for this ancient Christian community, whose roots go back to the very earliest days of the church.  But since the war thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled their homeland, their churches, businesses, and homes being burned and bombed. 

While many have fled to America or to neighboring countries such as Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, the hope should not be that they will need to find safety in foreign lands, but that they might find safety and opportunity in their own homeland.  In fact, my friend has shared with me the desire of the Assyrian Christians to have their own homeland within Iraq -- in the region known as the Nineveh Province.  The biggest opponents of this is the Kurdish community in Iraq that wants to bring that region into their own orbit.  The Christian minority has a stronghold in the area around Mosul, which the Kurds want to bring into their own hoped for autonomous region.

For more on the history of Christianity in Iraq see Philip Jenkins'

Lost History of Christianity

The situation is not good, so may we, on this Christmas Eve, remember those who are suffering tremendously for their faith. 

But is it History?

Heather Cox Richardson

James Bridle has just constructed a twelve-volume history of the Iraq War. But this is no common history. It is a record of every edit made to the Wikipedia entry on the war from December 2004 to November 2009. The 12,000 changes take up 7,000 pages.

Bridle, a British writer and editor, is best known for his observations about books and technology. He produced these volumes to illustrate that history is not fact, but rather a process. History, he claims, is less important than “historiography,” which he redefines as the process by which humans come to understand an event. According to Bridle, culture is argument, dissent, and gradual codification of a narrative that may or may not be correct.

By illuminating every single voice in the history of a particular moment, Bridle wants readers to see how that process works. His goal, he concludes, is “to challenge absolutist narratives of the past, and thus, those of the present and our future.”

This set of volumes strikes me as a fascinating document for future scholars of the Iraq War, who will be able to watch ideas about the war change over time.

But it can not replace scholarly history.

Bridle’s claim that the process of cultural construction of understanding is more important than what actually happens illustrates a dangerous trend in our interpretation of human society. It forces the insights of deconstruction to carry far more weight than they are strong enough to bear.

The deconstruction movement was invaluable for historians, teaching us to question the biases inherent in narratives. But the fact that all narratives are biased is no reason to discard the idea that it is possible to come close to a factual account of historical events.

To argue otherwise is to claim that the comment of one Wikipedia user—“Saddam Hussein was a dickhead”—is as important as Colin Powell’s February 2003 speech before the United Nations Security Council advocating military force against the Iraq regime.

If these two voices are equally valuable in the history of the war, it’s hard not to argue that each lone voice is equally valuable in current affairs. This is the ultimate in deconstructionism—that a lifetime spent studying the Middle East is no more valuable for devising foreign policy than a gut sense; that an understanding of the rules of Congress is less important than a knee-jerk demonization of a political opponent; that actual facts can be discarded in favor of comfortable fiction.

The work of constructing fictional worlds belongs to novelists, and it is a rich world where each facet of human relations can be probed and prodded all the way to the extremes of behavior. But historians study the way real human societies work. To do that, while we must always try to look at all the different voices we can discern in the muddle that is our evidence, we must also try our best to find the actual facts that drive historical change.

General Lloyd Austin Breaks New Ground

A milestone was quietly reached this week with the appointment of General Lloyd James Austin III to lead the effort in Iraq (pretty massive milestone). Austin is the first Black General to lead an entire war effort in a major theater of operations. There have been other Black Generals who have led significant components of wars and conflicts in the past, but they were never number one. There have also been Black commanders of Army divisions and a Black Joint Chiefs Chairman (but that is mostly an advisory position.... not an operational one). Austin has himself led Divisions, and also became the first Black Division commander to lead troops into war (again in Iraq in 2003). He was also the ground commander for all multinational forces (#2) under General Ordiono, from 2008 onward.

Although I didn't support the war.... I support the troops. And it is always good to see a Black American in charge... showing the Country and the World that Blacks (especially Black men) can do more than behave like criminals, or minstrels on BET or "Empty-V". I love it.

However, he has been handed a mess IMO. Don't be fooled by the nonsense suggesting that the war is completely over. The U.S. has already taken a few more casualties and combat (although less intense) will continue.

Still hoping that Iraqi's decide to provide for their own security and eventually decide to form a new government.

The Persecution of Religious Minorities in Iraq -- Sightings

One of the consequences of the Iraqi War has been the dramatic increase of violence toward religious minorities in Iraq. The objects of persecution includes Christians, but they're not the only religious minorities that have been targeted. For many Christians, the days of Saddam were paradise compared to what is being experienced currently.

What many westerners don't realize is that for centuries after the birth of Islam Christians coexisted with their Muslim neighbors, with many Christians serving in positions of power.  The Crusades dampened some of this neighborliness, but didn't completely destroy it.  Interestingly enough, life for religious minorities is more difficult now than it was in the centuries prior.  To get a better sense of what was and why/how it disappeared, one ought to read Philip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity.

But, returning to the current state of affairs, Shatha Almutawa, a Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago helps us understand the current context, reminds us that this isn't the way it's always been, and points us to helpful resources.  It is important that we stay up on these developments, because in many ways the American presence has unleashed violence that has affected these groups with great severity.

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




Sightings 6/10/10

The Persecution of Religious Minorities in Iraq

-- Shatha Almutawa

About a thousand years ago, a group of Iraqi philosophers in Basra wrote a dialogue between a Muslim in hell and a Muslim in heaven. The Muslim in heaven asked the Muslim in hell what he had done that led him to hell. The Muslim in hell responded that he tried to convert people who did not believe in what he believed, and if they did not agree, he used force against them, killing those who did not yield.

It was the Muslim in hell who waged war against those who didn’t follow his creed, not the Muslim in heaven. The story shows that even a thousand years ago, tolerance and peace were valued by Muslims, even though there were always those who chose violence. The philosophical encyclopedia in which this story appears, Rasa’il Ikhwan Al-Safa, or the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity, was read by Muslims, Christians, and Jews not only in Iraq but throughout the medieval Muslim world, valued especially by the Arab-speaking Jews of Muslim Spain.

But the Iraq of the tenth century is not the Iraq of 2010, a country that is overruled by violent militias, where more than 1,200 suicide bombings have taken place since 2003. Despite the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s rule and the violence following the 2003 US invasion, Iraq still remains a cradle of many religions, but a rather dangerous one. Besides Sunni and Shia Muslims, today’s Iraq boasts at least six denominations of Christianity, a small Jewish population, and several less-known religious groups such as the Yazidis, Shabaks, and Sabean-Mandeans.

After the Coalition Provisional Authority dissolved the Iraqi military and police force in 2003, militias took over the streets of Iraq, persecuting minorities. With the withdrawal of the US military from Iraqi cities last June, violence intensified in some regions, such as the Nineveh province. Suicide bombings targeted Shabaks and Yazidis, whose religion is influenced by Sufism and Christianity and who are considered heretics by some Muslims.

According to a Human Rights Watch report, the Chaldean Archbishop Paulus Faraj Rahho was kidnapped and later killed in Mosul in 2008. A year earlier Friar Ragheed Ganni and three deacons were shot, and Friar Mundhir Al-Dayr of the Protestant Church was killed in 2006.

But it is not only religious leaders who are targeted. Graffiti on walls tells Christians to leave, loudspeakers from cars spout death threats, and individuals are approached on the street or in their homes, asked what their religion is, and then shot if they give the “wrong” answer. Christians have been fleeing Iraq ever since, their numbers decreasing from one million in 2003 to about half a million now.

What could be causing this violence? Surely there are many factors, including a lack of transparency on the part of the Iraqi government that allows vigilante crimes to take place without consequence; corruption in the same government; as well as abject poverty and a lack of jobs, causing young, unemployed men to be lured by extremists.

With a new government forming in Iraq, new leaders must take steps to protect religious minorities. In addition to addressing the circumstances above, they can stop printing religious affiliation on identity cards, disarm militias, investigate the murders and kidnappings of religious minorities, and do more to bring perpetrators to justice, for the safety and dignity of all citizens.

References:

Human Rights Watch. “On Vulnerable Ground: Violence Against Minority Community in Nineveh Province’s Disputed Territories.” November 10, 2009. 

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/11/10/vulnerable-ground

Robert Fisk. “The Cult of the Suicide Bomber.” The Independent. 14 March 2008.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-cult-of-the-suicide-bomber-795649.html

Debbie Elliott and Corey Flintoff. “Report Reveals Corruption in Iraqi Government.” NPR. September 1, 2007.  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14117853

David Corn. “Secret Report: Corruption is ‘Norm’ Within Iraqi Government.” The Nation. August 30, 2007.  http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/228339

“Iraq Corruption ‘Costs Billions.’” BBC News. November 9, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6131290.stm

“Iraq: Civilians Under Fire.” Amnesty International. 2010.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/002/2010/en/c9dc5d8d-95fa-46e4-8671-cd9b99d0378c/mde140022010en.pdf

Shatha Almutawa is Iraq Country Specialist for Amnesty International USA. She is a PhD candidate at the University of Chicago Divinity School, where she studies Muslim and Jewish intellectual history.

----------

This month's Religion and Culture Web Forum features a chapter from literary critic Amy Hungerford's forthcoming volume Postmodern Belief: American Literature and Religion Since 1960 (Princeton University Press, August, 2010). In "The Literary Practice of Belief," Hungerford focuses upon two contemporary literary examples--the novels of Marilynne Robinson and the Left Behind series--in order "to engage (and revise) the current emphasis on practice over belief in our understanding of religion." With invited responses from Thomas J. Ferraro (Duke University), Amy Frykholm (The Christian Century), Constance Furey (Indiana University), Jeffrey J. Kripal (Rice University), Caleb J. D. Maskell (Princeton University), Edward Mendelson (Columbia University), Richard A. Rosengarten (University of Chicago Divinity School), and Glenn W. Shuck (Williams College). 

 http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

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

Lavena Johnson Story Now a Documentary

Documentary, The Silent Truth, coming in 2010.

Learn more here.

Warning: graphic images.

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.

Where Will You Be When the Missiles Drop?

During his State of the Union address back in January of 2002, President George W. Bush famously called the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "Axis of Evil", criticizing nations that sponsored terrorism and were seeking weapons of mass destruction. Liberals everywhere, and especially their cheer leading media, called Bush a war monger and a liar, among other choice names.

Sitting here over seven years later, we understand far better that President Bush was in actuality simply a truth teller.

At the time of Bush's speech, former Iraqi leader Sadaam Hussein was still in power. He had already shown his propensity for evil and terror by using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He tortured political enemies, and his sons used 'rape rooms' to satisfy their own lusts and to further punish political enemies. Thankfully, the United States acted to rid the world of this evil power structure.

In Iran, a crazed President came to power under with the blessing of the Islamic religious leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to assail the United States with threats of destruction and domination by Islam and accelerated Iranian efforts to develop or otherwise obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a fundamentalist Islamic regime will mean devastating war at some point in the near future. They are simply that crazy.

For years, as the U.S. took the first steps against that 'Axis of Evil' by destroying and dismantling the repressive Iraqi power structure and installing the beginnings of a nascent democracy, and while we kept up pressure on Iran to change course of its own volition, we pretty much turned a blind eye towards North Korea. Oh, there were statements made, and back channel discussions held, but nothing concrete.

So what have the North Koreans done during that time under the direction of their crazed, despotic ruler Kim Jong Il (pictured)? They have aggressively pursued a nuclear weapons and missile strategy, warning western nations not to interfere, and now have nuclear weapons and are developing the missile systems necessary to deliver them against their enemies.

For the past few days, the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, has been tailing a Korean ship named the Kang Nam, off the Chinese coast. The reason is that this ship has been found to transport illegal goods in the past. Korea stated on Wednesday that if the U.S. intercepted the ship, they would consider it an act of war: "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will...wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."

Very soon, the U.S. leadership under President Barack Obama is going to be faced with the choice of confronting North Korea militarily, or facing a world where a hostile dictatorial regime has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out American cities. Will Obama try to talk while the North Koreans build missiles and bombs? Will America become like Europe, issuing strongly worded statements, with nothing to back them up? Will he fiddle while Rome burns?

It turns out that President Bush was not lying about these aggressive regimes after all. Maybe we can just allow as many nations that wish to do so to build nuclear bombs and missiles, right? After all, who are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? How arrogant, right? As long as we are nice to them, they won't bother us, right? If only the world had been nicer to Adolf Hitler, right?

Peace comes through one thing, and one thing only: strength. If you have it, but show that you are unwilling to use it, then you may as well not have it at all. Now many have voted for Obama to get us out and keep us out of military conflict. So perhaps if you're a liberal who voted for him, the more important question that you should be asking yourself is, where will you be when the missiles drop?

Islamism Series: Challenging Obama

Welcome to the real world, President-elect Obama. It was one thing to use speaking eloquence and the Chicago political machine to rise to power. It was one thing to win a U.S. Senate seat, and then use dissatisfaction with the status quo to rise to the Presidency. But that inexperience is about to catch up to you. A few years in the Senate, most of it spent running for President, is simply not enough experience to be the leader of the free world. We in America and the entire Western world have to hope that the man is a fast learner. Just a day after Barack Obama received his first official security briefing from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, the New York Sun reports that Obama and the American public will soon receive a video address from none other than Osama bin Laden himself. Fanatical hate preacher Omar Bakri has led chats in extremist Arabic chat rooms announcing that the new video will likely come when Obama names his cabinet, and will warn Obama that "We will fight him if he fights against Islam." A key Iraqi al Qaeda propagandist, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, made an internet speech in which he told Obama that "it's better for you and us to withdraw your forces and return to your homes." Obama has pledged that he will redeploy American resources in the Middle East in order to go after bin Laden in the Afghani tribal regions where the al Qaeda leader is believed to be hiding. However, the CIA apparently has far greater intel on the whereabouts of al Qaeda's #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, which might lead to addressing efforts to go after him first. President George W. Bush will meet directly with Obama on Monday in a further effort to update him on homeland defense, among other issues. In a recent speech in front of various White House staffers, President Bush stated that the terrorist threat is a main reason that they “all of must ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running.” During the campaign, Obama pledged to give commanders a new mission in Iraq: to successfully end the war with a 'responsible and phased' withdrawal of troops. Dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the war was a key component to Obama's election victory. It was also yet another sign that the American press and public simply do not have the fortitude at this stage to win this vital struggle between civilizations and ideologies. The Obama camp and many of its followers simply do not believe the magnitude of the threat that Islamofascism poses to Israel, the United States, and the world. Either that, or they know and simply do not care, choosing instead to focus on other issues for now, and deciding to deal with military issues as they develop in the future. In other words, they are choosing to once again put a band aid on a longterm serious problem, rather than address it now and completely. This is a recipe for disaster that will likely play out now in an Obama administration. Islamofascists will view any U.S. withdrawal as an opportunity, and a victory. They will rightly say that they again simply waited us out, that they knew we could never defeat them long term, that we simply didn't have the stomach for it. They will consolidate their power in the Middle East once we leave, including increased pressure on Israel, igniting even worse conditions than exist today. The Veep-elect, Joe Biden, stated in the run-up to the election "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama...we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy...he's gonna need help...because it's not gonna be apparent initially that we're right." It's a shame that those of us who know this will be the outcome have not been able to convince enough of America, but apparently it will take another 9/11, or worse, to awaken that sleeping giant fully. I have to hope that the President-elect is finally exposed to the reality of the situation in the coming days, weeks, and months, and changes his tune on what needs to be done. Otherwise, the Islamofascists will seriously challenge a President Obama, judging correctly that he will do little or nothing to stop them.
NOTE: All items in the 'Islamism Series' can be viewed by simply clicking on that below 'Label'.

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.

Real American Hero: Jason Dunham

On November 10th, 1775, at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, what was then known as the 'Continental Marines' was organized directly by the Continental Congress for the Revolutionary War as the on-board force directed to protect the Captain of a naval ship and his officers. In January of 1783, with the war over, the Marines and the Navy were disbanded. However, a few individual Marines remained as security for the few American naval vessels remaining until, in 1798, the entire institution of both the Navy and the Marines was reconstituted to meet the needs of a pending naval war with France. Since that time, the Marines have fought in every American military campaign, rising to particular prominence with their efforts in World War II. My own father, Matthew Veasey Jr, was a United States Marine, serving during the time between Korea and Vietnam. My wife's father, Robert Marshall, still living, actually served in the Corps during WWII. They are a part of the great tradition of defending our nation, as are the approximately 194,000 active-duty and 40,000 reserves of today's United States Marine Corps. As many heroic Marines as there are serving today, and have served in the decades since the end of the Vietnam War, there have been none more heroic than 22-year old Corporal Jason Dunham of Scio, New York. Dunham is the latest Real American Hero to by highlighted here at the website, the only U.S. Marine since Vietnam to be awarded the nation's highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor. A man who had selflessly served his country and was scheduled to go home, Corporal Dunham had nevertheless extended his service in order to continue on with his group, some of whom told him he was crazy to stay when he was able to go. But Dunham had told them that all he wanted was to do whatever he could "to see that my boys all get home." As CNN told the story, Corporal Dunham was leading a patrol in the Iraqi town of Karabilah near the Syrian border on April 14th, 2004. The patrol stopped a convoy of cars that was leaving the area of an attack on another Marine convoy. One of the vehicle occupants suddenly attacked Dunham, and the two began a hand-to-hand struggle during which his attacker suddenly pulled a grenade. Dunham yelled to his fellow Marines "No, no, watch his hand" and the attacker dropped what turned out to be a bomb-type hand grenade near the group. Dunham instinctively hurled himself on top of it, using his helmet to help try to blunt the force of the blast. Dunham was critically wounded as the grenade exploded, dying eight days later at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland. A member of his group was quoted as saying "He knew what he was doing. He wanted to save Marine lives." There is no greater love that a man have than he lay down his life for his friends. This is an old motto that encapsulates the split-second decision that Jason Dunham made on that fateful day, the kind of decision that highlights the differences between real heroes and the rest of us. On April 11th, 2007, President Bush presented Dunham's parents with his Medal of Honor, and in the body of the citation it describes his actions: "In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Navy." Michael M. Philips, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, penned Dunham's story in his book "The Gift of Valor: A War Story" which is available through Amazon by clicking into the title of this blog entry. (NOTE: you will be able to view all the Real American Hero stories by clicking into that below label)

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)

A Better Country

In September of 2002, with the first anniversary remembrances of the 9/11 attacks taking place across the country, and with America obviously preparing to go to war to thwart another such attack, Arthur Borden began to notice some disturbing reactions coming from his Democratic Party, even among his own friends and colleagues. These reactions and the totality of the circumstances involving 9/11 and it's various related issues led Borden to study the issues more closely and led him to realize that he was now living "..in an America which is not the country where I went to college, served in a good war, and enrolled in law school.." The result of his studies is the book "A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq" released this year as a soft cover by Hamilton Books. In it's short number of pages (67 plus a handful of indices), Borden makes a compelling argument that not only was President George W. Bush right in going into Iraq and deposing it's despotic leader Saddam Hussein, but that this move was vital. He also makes the case for remaining in the country, and possibly for the need to extend the conflict into Iran in the near future. From the free flow of the oil that is vital to our national and the world economy, to a geo-political presence vital to securing peace and democracy, Borden moves through the many varied and important issues over the last few decades that led to the Iraqi campaign and the larger War on Islamofascism. Borden presents that both of the Bush administrations and the Clinton administration recognized the threat of the Hussein regime. These administrations recognized that it was reasonable to confront the Iraqi regime based on the longstanding and widely-supported 'Carter Doctrine' which recognized the vital interest regarding the free flow of oil from the Middle East. He goes on to present that a combination of intentionally biased liberal media attention, a near traitorous attitude by many Democratic Party politicians, and even the faux pas committed by the current 'W' administration led eventually to the public turning on this necessary war effort. His chapters on "The Missing WMD" and the Joe Wilson-Scooter Libby issue of the "Aluminum Tubes and Yellow Cake" are particularly insightful, revealing, and well researched. What Arthur Borden does with "A Better Country" is present a better narrative for this necessary effort in Iraq. The book is a short and easy read, but also a detailed and educational must-read for anyone interested in exploring the issues behind the necessary sacrifices being made by America's troops in Iraq over these last few years. As always, the title of this posting is a link, this time to the 'Amazon' listing where you can purchase the book.

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.