Hello Friends,
I read an excellent 2 part series about the errors made by the US (and the world) in regard to the war on terrorism and Radical Islam.
It's in great detail and I won't bother giving my thoughts about it in advance but will continue the discussion after posting the 2 articles in future posts.
They are quite long but excellent reads.
Shalom,
Peter
January 11, 2010
D. L. Adams
Thebarely prevented horror that was the recent Christmas Day jihad terrorattack on an inbound flight to Detroit from Amsterdam seems to haveaffected people in our country in a way that other recent terrorattacks have not. Only eight years since 9/11 and only weeks from theatrocity at Fort Hood, it is now clear that we continue to be unsafeand profoundly vulnerable; the commonalities of our daily lives put usat risk in ways that we never thought could be possible in our country.
Thereis loaded symbolism also in Abdulmutallab’s terror attack of ChristmasDay; an inbound flight to perhaps America's most devastated city(Detroit) was almost destroyed by an ideologically drivensadist and would-be mass murderer. The image of a blown up (with allits attendant casualties) American aircraft at the aerial doorway ofDetroit is horrific; a revolting unity of destruction and failure inthe air and on the ground. The just-prevented terror attack is a symbolthat every American city could one day become just like Detroit throughacts of jihad war and hate.
Theeconomic failure of Detroit is complex and occurred over many decades;the devastating cultural bankruptcy that now impedes the legitimatedefense of every American city will likely result in futurecatastrophic disasters that will take only seconds to transpire, notdecades. The failure of Detroit is not an illustration of the failureof Americanism, or democracy but rather a failure of attention paid; wehave an obligation to do our best for the city of Detroit (or anyAmerican city) just as we have an obligation to secure our people,borders, cities, and the infrastructure of our country.
After the Christmas Day attack on the Detroit flight we stand at a crossroads; a crossroads where denial and ignorance meet rationality and common sense. We enter the New Year observing a disturbing confluence of errors, mistakes, malfeasance and incompetence that puts every American and all of our friends across the world at increased risk. The last minute prevention of the “crotch bomber’s” attack is a rare bright spot for us; there are few silver clouds to be found in these dark linings.
We continue to send our best and brightest men and women to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. The presidentsaid recently in a speech at West Point that U.S. troop levels would beincreased by 30,000 in the Afghanistan theater of operations – a newsurge. The president did say during the campaign that Afghanistan was the most important fightand Iraq was not; why this was so was never explained other than withderisive accusations of the previous president’s “errors.” Thecomparison dismissed by the current residentof the White House is an important one and should not be so readilyminimized; Iraq and Afghanistan are the same battle in a much widerwar.
Afghanistan and Iraq – War for the Enemy’s Ideology
While his "progressive" supporters were almost universally condemnatory of this new surge, those on the political right were almost universally supportive.But they are all wrong because the foundations of both conflicts arebuilt upon concepts that are contrary to American ideas of freedom,tolerance, equality of the sexes, and justice.
This“mission” in Iraq and Afghanistan appears to be “nation building” withideals of democracy given lip service but no substantive backing. Thisis because the constitutional foundation of both beneficiary “states”is Islam and Sharia law.
Therecan be no doubt that Sharia law is anti-women, anti-tolerance,anti-homosexual, and anti-democratic and contrary to our concepts ofjustice and human rights. American support for such a brutal andanti-human system in two countries with the blood of our best and agreat part of our national treasure derived from all citizens throughtaxation defies explanation.
Ifthe foundation of both “states” is the law of Islam (Sharia) and thelaw of Islam is contrary to American concepts of freedom, justice,equality, and tolerance why then do we support these “states”?
Whenquestions of ideology are presented to the planners of the wars and ourleadership, the questioner is excoriated for his/her intolerance andimpropriety and lack of consideration for another “culture;” but thequestions themselves are never answered. We are experts at blowingthings up, but we seem ill prepared for the ideological component ofthis massive conflict of which Iraq and Afghanistan are but a part.
The indefensible fact that no answers are forthcoming and, that the questions themselves cannotbe asked, is a national tragedy upon which future tragedies will beconstructed and for which our leadership must be held accountable.
Thewars in Afghanistan and Iraq are deeply flawed because we are fightingfor Sharia law (Islamic Law) in both countries. We are, in effect,fighting for anti-democracy and monoculture (Islam), hatred,intolerance, and jihad. Astoundingly, we are fighting for the sameideology then for which our existential jihadist enemies fight – thecreation of an Islamic state and the rule of Sharia law.
InAfghanistan, does it make sense to support a Sharia law country(Karzai’s government) that is fighting a Sharia law former government(Taliban) when Sharia law itself is fundamentally opposed to everythingfor which the United States stands? Can there be a national foreignpolicy anywhere based upon greater moral, ethical, and intellectualconfusions, ignorance, and foolishness than this?
Theidea that American soldiers fight and die, and that America wouldstretch its economy to the breaking point, for a totalitarian system ofbrutality and cruelty (Sharia) would have been unthinkable only ageneration ago. We have surely passed some kind of red line.
Afghanistan Constitution: Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
Iraq Constitution: Article 2 –
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
If establishing Sharia Lawwith all its cruelty, misogyny, brutalities, anti-homosexuality,anti-religious freedom, denial of individual rights, and theinculcation of Islamic supremacism and obligatory jihad is notthe purpose of the United States government in supporting Iraq andAfghanistan it is certainly going to be the result. The purpose ofjihad is to actively oppose the existence of systems of government,cultures, and religions that are not Islamic and bring the entire worldunder Islam and jihad.
Participationin jihad is an obligation for all adherents of Islam. In Koran this“fighting in Allah’s cause” and is mentioned over 100 times; it is acentral if not the central them of Islam itself.
Thequestion must be asked: What is our purpose in supporting the creationand growth of societies and governments that are fundamentally opposedto our existence (as delineated in their founding documents and inIslamic doctrine) and the concepts of liberty and freedom, toleranceand openness, for which the United States has always, until recentlyapparently, so steadfastly stood?
Wars of Self-Destruction – Abandoning our Heritage
What,then, do our American ideas of freedom and justice mean when weencourage the existence and growth (with both blood and treasure) ofsocieties that are opposed to such ideas? These wars are a disasterwhose purposes must be understood. American support of Sharia lawanywhere is evidence of an American cultural failure and an abandonmentof the foundational concepts that form our national character and thefoundations of our country. Support of Sharia law anywhere by theUnited States here at home or abroad is a foundational failure ofunderstanding the doctrine of Islam.
Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in Americacompared the importance of the concepts of religion and Americancivilization in the early 19th century. His observations are as validtoday as they were in 1840.
Mohammedprofessed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, notonly religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminallaws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, only speaksof the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond whichit inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides athousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of thesereligions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democraticage, whilst the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as atall other periods.
(Democracy in America, Vol 2, Cambridge: Sever and Francis, 1840; reprint, 1863); p.26.
Theconceptual foundations of America as understood by early historians ofthe republic and of later analysts is in the Judeo-Christian andGreco-Roman tradition. De Tocqueville’s assessment is essentiallycorrect in analysis but mistaken in its prediction; how could he haveknown that we ourselves would finance the resurgence of Islam throughthe greatest transfer of wealth in human history through our purchases of Arab/Islamist oil?
Overtime it appears that we have been our worst enemy – forgetting thoseprofound concepts of freedom and justice upon which the republic wasfashioned with the intention that, like the Union itself, theseconcepts would be perpetual through our protection of them.
Inour forgetting, we have created an intellectual environment of radicaltolerance for other ideologies and cultures – even to the existentialdetriment of our own.
Islamicjustice, peace, war, tolerance, and civilization itself are profoundlyopposed to American understanding of the same concepts. The failure ofAmerican leadership in acknowledging the fundamental oppositionalrelationship between Islam and American democracy is at the core of ourfailure post 9/11, to Fort Hood and the skies over Detroit.
Becausethe Taliban is entirely ideologically motivated (by the Islamicdoctrine), and since their purpose is the implementation of Sharia Lawwherever they hold power, what is the difference between the Talibanand the Karzai government? The Afghan Karzai constitution states in itsfirst article that Afghanistan is an "Islamic Republic" and in the 3rdarticle that
“In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”
Whatcan be the difference between the Taliban and Karzai’s governmentexcept the cooperation that the Karzai government provides to the kaffirAmericans? The two forces are unified by Islamic ideology after all;the Taliban fights the Karzai government because the American-supported government isn’t Islamic “enough”; that is, most importantly, they cooperate with the kaffir (non-Muslim).
Why are we fighting a war in which the purpose of both sides is the implementation of Sharia law?
In plain terms, what is the difference if Karzai and his kleptocratsimplement Sharia or the Taliban does? Either way, American support ofSharia law and its savagery is a humanitarian and philosophicalfailure.
Insuch a conflict how is “victory” defined – through self-negation?Everyone will accept American funds and all sides will continue tofight for the success of Islam.
Priorto 9/11, our foreign policy was founded upon both national defense andsupport for those who wanted freedom if it was within our power tosupport them. Now, we ignore the freedom fighters on the streets ofIran and fight for Sharia law states in two countries; our foreignpolicy is overturned.
The"progressives" who opposed the surge in Afghanistan are correct but forthe wrong reasons; the surge in Afghanistan is a mistake because themission itself is confused and based upon a total ignorance of Islamicdoctrine and purposes; goals in which both local sides in theseconflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) share.
Ifthe conflict in ideologies between American society and theTaliban/Karzai administration weren't enough, there are the lessons ofthe Vietnam War that must be acknowledged but thus far have beenignored or too derisively dismissed.
Denial of History
Ngo Dinh Diemwas the corrupt ruler of Vietnam from 1955 to 1963. Unwilling to checkcorruption and unwilling to follow the American line, Diem wasoverthrown with American help (and John F. Kennedy’s personal approval)in 1963 only a month before Kennedy’s assassination. The parallelsbetween the Obama Afghan surge and Johnson "surge" in 1965 in Vietnam(despite Johnson's promise to continue President Kennedy's policies of slow disengagement) are mistakenly ignored. It should be our policy universally to avoid the errors of our past.
There is no question whatever that our support of the implementation of Sharia law in Afghanistan by either the corrupt Karzai government or the abysmal Taliban is morally and ethically untenable. These facts put our entire effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq into serious question.
Ifthe leadership in Kabul which we support is corrupt, and if the peoplethere know it, and if we know it, and if the purposes of the supportedgovernment there and the opposing party (Taliban) areessentially the same (implementation of Sharia law and creation of anIslamic state), we have neither provided the people of the country witha viable alternative to the ideology of the forces we oppose or theconflict itself has been couched in terms that are false.
IfIslam and its draconian and savage “legal system” of Sharia law isitself a form of slavery and barbarism and totalitarianism we havefailed to provide an alternative to the people of either Iraq orAfghanistan; this is a failure on our part.
Ifwe had created a secular state in either country in which religion wassubordinate to the state (as in the American system) then we would haveprovided a beneficial alternative to Sharia and Islam to the people ofboth countries. However, in Islam there is no separation betweenreligion and state; Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.
Evenin Afghanistan in 2006 years after the Karzai government had beeninstalled, leaving Islam (apostasy) was a crime punishable by death;this is Sharia law.
Regardless of the self-destructive extreme radical tolerancenow in vogue in the United States support of a culture and ideologywhose adherents are literally hostages to the ideology of the stateitself (Islam is the state in both Afghanistan and Iraq) is clearly contrary to American concepts of justice, and individual rights.
Ifthe people of Afghanistan wish to continue living in an Islamic societythen we have no cause in which to be involved in what is essentially aninternal conflict between adherents of Islam. What kind of “nationbuilding” is possible when the only result can be a Sharia law “state”?
Therehas been no discussion of freeing the people of Afghanistan from thetyranny of Islam, as they appear to have no such interest; nor is itwithin our capabilities at this time to do so if we were to embracesuch a concept. (Because of the totalitarian nature of Islam the peopleof Afghanistan, or any Islamic state, do not have the means ofcommunicating such a desire.) Of course, such an approach would becondemned by those who know nothing of Islam, jihad or the doctrine of cruelty, hatred, and war upon which Islam is constructed; such an approach would be condemned as “intolerant” or simply “not nice.”
Afghanistan and Iraq – The Victory of Islam with American Aid
Thepeople of Afghanistan with or without American help will continue tolive under Islam because this is the only option that they have. Thevictory of Islam in Afghanistan which will occur with either a Karzaior Taliban victory is a negative result for Americans and lovers offreedom everywhere.
Whatis the difference between the brutality of the Taliban implementingSharia and Karzai's corrupt government implementing Sharia? Even afteryears of American military and financial support the Karzai governmenthad plans to kill an Afghani who had converted to Christianity in 2006.
AbdulRahman, 41 years, is separated from his wife; he was arrested lastmonth after his family – fighting with him over the custody of hischildren – denounced him for being a convert. The man, who was foundcarrying a Bible, was accused of having rejected Islam.
The "rejection of Islam" is a crime under Islamic/Sharia law. The penalty for this crime is death under Sharia law.There is no religious freedom in any state under Islamic law; leavingIslam is a matter of both religious and state authority; it is thegravest of crimes in Islam, it is considered worse than murder.
Butany of you who renounce your faith and die an unbeliever, will haveyour works count for nothing in this world and the world to come. Thesepeople will be prisoners of the fire, where they will live forever.(Koran 2:216)
TheKarzai government rejected the death sentence for the Christian convertonly because of American outrage; biting the hand that feeds has neverbeen a great strategy in international relations. The Afghanauthorities conveniently however found though that the convert wassuffering a mental illness which is one of only several ways in which aconvert is spared the death sentence.
The minister said: "We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to.
"His family were there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken."
Deputy Attorney General Mohammed Eshak Aloko said prosecutors issued aletter calling for Mr Rahman's release because "he was mentally unfitto stand trial".
Mr Aloko added Mr Rahman may be sent overseas for medical treatment.
Critics said Mr Rahman should be free to follow the religion of hischoice but under Afghanistan's deeply conservative Sharia law, he hadcommitted a capital crime.
Hundreds of clerics and students chanted "Death to Christians" at a protest against dropping the charge.
SkyNews
Ibn Warraq, the celebrated scholar of Islamic doctrine (and former Muslim), explains the exceptions as follows.
UnderMuslim law, the male apostate must be put to death, as long as he is anadult, and in full possession of his faculties. If a pubescent boyapostatizes, he is imprisoned until he comes of age, when if hepersists in rejecting Islam he must be put to death. Drunkards and thementally disturbed are not held responsible for their apostasy. – Apostasy and Human Rights, International Humanist Ethical Union
Thecritically important differences between the Afghan government that wesupport and our own society could not have been more starkly ondisplay. The differences remain but we as a culture mainly pretend thatthey do not exist. Our denial of the totalitarian nature of Islam is folly.
The purpose of jihad is the advance of Islam and the destructionof all non-Islamic religions, political systems and cultures. Theholding of great wealth (the jihadist on the Detroit flight lived in a£2 million apartment in London) is irrelevant to those who adhere toand embrace the doctrine of Islam and its warfare against the kaffirs(unbelievers). Jihad war is not about the frustrations of poverty.
Abdulmutallab, 23, had lived a gilded life, and, for the three years he studied in London, he stayed in a £2m flat. – Independent-UK
Our failures to prevent crimes of doctrinally motivated Islamic killers (even when we are warned by their parents) is further evidence that we do not take the threat doctrine of Islam-motivated haters seriously enough.
Youare commanded to fight although you may dislike it. You may hatesomething that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you.Allah knows and you do not. (Koran 2:216)
PartTwo will continue with a discussion of denial and ignorance, theconglomeration of failure and forgetting the lessons of history.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor D.L. Adams is an analyst and historian, and a co-founder of SIOA.
Part 2 of this series is on the next page.