High-level delusions about Islam

The New York Times has done it again, how many times now? A scoop about our war with the jihadists endangers American lives. Editors piously cite "the public's right to know." Never mind national security, or for that matter national survival. This time it was a Nov. 9 story headlined "Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda." It’s easy to guess the mechanism at work: Progressives in the State Department leak information to Times reporters. State Dept Officials believe it is their duty to hold “this irresponsible war monger right wing President in check” with strategic embarrassing leaks, of which this latest is only one of many. The President, defeated and dispirited, does nothing.

The State Department is of the “Academic School” for the study of Islam. They study Islamic art, architecture, literature and poetry, maybe the obsolescent Medinan Suras. They do NOT study Jihad, nor can they predict Islamic behavior except as a reaction to the West (the “blame America First” position). This is the school as taught in most of the Islamic Studies Centers at the major Universities, and funded by the Saudis. It is the study of Islam as done by the “Dhimmis”, the semi-slave non-Muslims who have already submitted to Islam.

If American society and Western Civilization are to survive, there must be some “change” in this regard, although we are not likely to find any change for the better with the incoming administration. An obvious step is to convert the “Academic” school to the “Foundational School”.

The Foundational School studies the SAME foundational documents of Islam as the believers themselves! This means not only the Qu’ran, but the “The Hadiths”, or the “Sayings of Mohammad” and the “Sira”, “The life of Mohammad”, the perfect man whom we all must emulate, (but I will pass on the 9 year old wife).

The Foundational School CAN predict Islamic behavior by understanding the Theology that drives them! This is the key to understanding political Islam. And by the way, there is no difference between religious and political Islam, as the Islamics themselves will tell you. When the Imams preach “Death to America and Death to the Jews” in their houses of worship, it gives us a very good reason to treat Islam as a political movement and not allow them to hide behind the veil of religion.

The Foundational School also studies the full history of Jihad and its victims, some 270 million killed over the centuries. It is the School of “The Kafirs”, the “hated ones” who have NOT submitted to Islam!

Once the State Department converts to the Foundational School, and gets rid of their Wahabbist translators that are keeping them blind to true Islamic intentions, possibly their instinct for survival will kick in and America will have a chance.

Kris the Welder, Gold Star Dad

An Open Letter to Sen. Barack Obama: On the surface I would appear to be an example of your target audience, a perfect candidate for your message of “change.” In 2007 my world came apart. I lost my business and filed for bankruptcy. I lost my modest condo to foreclosure. Everything I owned is gone. And most importantly, I lost my son in Iraq. He was killed in action serving his country and protecting his “boys,” those who served beside him. If anyone has a reason to reach for the lifeline you describe in campaign stops, it is me.

But Sen. Obama, I have asked for only one thing from you and the leaders of your party. I have asked for a five minute phone call. I started calling your office last March and I have made dozens of calls to various Senators and Representatives who express their views about the war in Iraq with a “national” voice. You have ignored me. Why?

Perhaps had I stood on the street corner and shouted that “Bush Lied! Soldiers Died!” you would hear me. Perhaps if I screamed that corrupt lenders forced me to take a mortgage that was beyond my means, you would have heard me. Perhaps if I would have contributed money, you would have heard my cry. Perhaps. What I did offer was a private meeting with 25 Gold Star Dads. I know from your staff, you heard that and rejected it. Why?

Sen. Obama, I have lost everything in life that I held dear and you offer nothing to me of value. I do not want government gifts and yet I am now receiving aid from Medicaid and I have an application for a small benefit from Veterans Affairs. It pains me more than I can say to have fallen so low. But Sen. Obama, you were not responsible for these programs and they remain in place even with eight years of President Bush.

What I do want is for this country to consider the price paid for freedom and what freedom really means. FREEDOM includes the possibility of failure. I have failed many times over and that failure was of my doing. FREEDOM includes failure. It must or success is without value. FREEDOM includes the sacrifice of service and the reward of condemnation by those who hate without cause. FREEDOM means I will sit and cry as I consider the life my son might have had and the HERO he will remain.

Sen. Obama, you sell servitude cloaked as a “tax cut.” You claim support for our military while you plot with those who hate everything for which my son died. Sen. Obama, you are the Blind, Deaf and Dumb. You did not see William Ayers on your street, did not hear twenty years of hate in church and you did not speak out to save the life of a single unborn baby. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. If you are the answer as so many seem to believe, God save us from ourselves.

Kris Hager Gold Star Dad Venice, Florida

We can trust McCain with our security

Arizona Sen. John McCain has long been regarded as the most credible candidate when it comes to national defense. He has always supported a defense establishment second to none in the world, but no less the prudent use of that power at the lowest reasonable cost. He supported the invasion of Iraq and unfortunately his advocacy for a larger troop commitment to deal with the insurgency was for too long unheeded. But when Gen. David Petraeus implemented the "surge" two years ago, the tide turned in the Iraqi peoples’ favor and McCain was proved right. Sen. Barack Obama imagines that in opposing the decision to invade he is vindicated in his criticism of the subsequent "soft-footprint" counterinsurgency. But the decision to topple Saddam Hussein’s expansionist regime with its history of chemical warfare was the right one, and any failures subsequent to that hardly discredit the original strategy. Obama not only advocated premature withdrawal from Iraq but denounced the surge as a failure. He tries to distract attention from his reckless position on Iraq by insisting that the United States "took its eye off the ball" when it followed up its successful toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with the decision to eliminate the regional threat posed by Baathist Iraq.

But there is no more reason to believe that Obama would prosecute the campaign in Afghanistan than he would in Iraq, for his overall military posture is to draw down military forces overall and around the world. The fact is, terrorists have been thwarted in all their efforts since 9/11 to strike at our homeland. Obama will revert to the discredited Clinton Administration policy of trying to defeat terrorism largely by legal means, with undue concern for the terrorists’ "rights."

McCain is proud of America, not only for its republican form of government and security for the citizens’ liberty and equality, but also proud of its determination to defend our nation and others against aggression. To that end, he did not hesitate to support our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of the infamous terrorist attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. He understood that nations that harbored terrorists or cooperated with them must be dealt with in whatever manner the nature of the threat they pose indicates. Afghanistan was the base of the Taliban and al-qaeda, the former providing cover for the latter to carry out terrorist acts.

Saddam Hussein had violated the terms of the truce following the 1990 Gulf War we successfully fought in response to his attack on Kuwait, and he had used chemical weapons in an earlier war against Iraq in the 1980s and even against his own citizens as well. Obama repeats over and over again his lament that America’s reputation has suffered in the world for doing its duty and securing its interests. While carefully concealing his long involvement in radicalism behind a cover of alleged concern for American interests, Obama cannot be trusted to go any farther than Bill Clinton in his half-hearted response to international terrorism.

Given his long association with men like the anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright and onetime Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, there is every reason to be concerned that Obama would be disinclined to give America the benefit of the doubt in international relations. His willingness to meet without preconditions with the dictators of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela may be all that voters need to know. Whether it is a conceited claim to persuasive powers that have eluded all past American presidents or naivete’ that borders on the recklessly irresponsible, we would be best advised not to place our country’s fate in the careless hands of Barack Obama.

Words worthless to halt aggression

(London, Oct. 6) The mistaken belief that clever diplomacy was a substitute for force of arms led to Athens’ defeat by Sparta, according to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. Two thousand years later the French statesman Cardinal Richelieu- himself a master diplomatist- observed that diplomacy was useful only when it was the “velvet glove adorning the mailed fist.” Finally we recall the 19th century German Chancellor Bismark who famously stated that “ the great questions of the day are decided not by speeches in the Diet but on the battlefield by Blood and Iron.”

These ideas may sound harsh to some contemporary ears but they remain highly applicable in our very imperfect modern world, as the Russian invasion of Georgia reminds us yet again.

Russia’s aggression has rudely shattered illusions and highlighted unpleasant truths worldwide.

Prominently revealed in the wreckage is the terminal disunity of the European Union. While French President Nicholas Sarkozy flew to Moscow to appease Vladimir Putin- reminding many of Neville Chamberlain’s infamous flight to Munich to appease Adolf Hitler- the Presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine flew to Tbilsi to support the embattled President of Georgia.

Besides revealing the stark divide between “Old” and “New” Europe this sad scenario puts a final end to EU dreams of being a coherent diplomatic and military power on a par with Russia, China, and the United States.

Thoughtful commentary across Europe is now realizing the EU is trapped between its ongoing hostility to its nominal American ally and its newly revived fear of Russia’s imperial ambitions. Equally clear is the fact that answers to these challenges are different in virtually every member state and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The major lesson here is that diplomacy and the attendant speeches in the U.N., European Parliament and U.S. Congress are utterly useless absent a credible determination to impose serious consequences on aggressors.

Just as Hitler correctly perceived the flabbiness of the Western democracies at the time of Munich, so too did Putin calculate that he would face no serious consequences for his invasion of Georgia. Also like Hitler, no one should believe that he sees Georgia as Russia’s final territorial acquisition.

The hard lessons that Europe is relearning have considerable implications elsewhere in the world and are highly relevant to the choice Americans will make in the upcoming Presidential election.

Within the coming year the United States will face important decisions regarding the next chapter in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly the nuclear confrontation with Iran may reach critical mass.

As their first debate illustrated, Senators McCain and Obama have starkly differing worldviews and approaches to the projection of American power around the globe.

While Obama ritually insists that “all options are on the table” and casually repeats a willingness to send U.S. troops across the Pakistan border, absolutely everything we know about him and the Democratic Party he now leads strongly suggests that the preferred options favor talk over action. These include deference to the U.N., the World Court, the E.U., and “world opinion” generally. He worries that the U.S, is not “liked” and believes this should be corrected by a multilateral approach to just about everything.

When asked how he would handle Russia, Iran or other tyrannies Obama’s usual response is “tough, direct diplomacy." As Hillary Clinton pointed out he has a “naïve belief in the efficacy of sitting down face to face with dictators."

What exactly would he say to them? Does he really believe that his breathtaking eloquence would persuade Putin to leave Georgia, Ahmadinejad not to exterminate Israel, or Kim Il-Jong to cease his nuclear program? Would he be willing to actually threaten them with consequences, even if he lacked the full backing of the U.N., E.U. etc.?

McCain is much more like Truman or Reagan: Utilize diplomacy when helpful, but always be willing to take forceful action when needed. Seek allies whenever possible, but be prepared to go it alone when vital American interests are at stake. McCain’s motto as he noted in the debate is that of his hero Theodore Roosevelt who said “Speak softly and carry a big stick."

The worldview, policy inclinations, and attitude toward their country of these two men is as divergent as their life experiences. Not within living memory has a Presidential election presented Americans with a clearer choice. ---------------- William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

Biden's dubious 'expertise'

For a supposed foreign policy guru with 35 years of senatorial experience, Joe Biden embarrassed himself in the Vice Presidential debate with a startling number of gaffes, misstatements, errors, and out-and-out falsehoods. Or maybe Joe’s just a proponent of the school of “you can fool all of the people some of the time…”

Biden’s statement that “Pakistani missiles threaten Israel and the Mediterranean basin” was just plain ludicrous. Given that Pakistan IS a nuclear power, and does have missile technology – the potential threat is pretty much limited to their immediate neighbors, India and China. Pakistan does NOT have the reach to threaten the entire wider region – Biden displays a startling ignorance on a critical issue. But don’t take my word for it – look it up yourself.

Likewise, his contention that the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has stated that the “surge philosophy” would not work in Afghanistan is just flat wrong. General McKiernan (yeah, Palin goofed on the name; but so did Biden) has in fact called for both more troops, and expanded non-military activity (construction, infrastructure expansion, and various economic development and educational programs). Sounds kinda like a surge, eh?

Biden is trying to parse words here, rather than focus on the issue (sound familiar?). Palin got the basic thrust here correct – “The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan.”

Here’s McKiernan according to the New York Times:

The top American military commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that he needs more troops and other aid ''as quickly as possible'' in a counter-insurgency battle that could get worse before it gets better.

Gen. David McKiernan said it's not just a question of troops — but more economic aid and more political aid as well.

''The additional military capabilities that have been asked for are needed as quickly as possible,'' he said.

Continuing on the area of Afghanistan: Joe Biden further characterized the strategy in Afghanistan over the last six years as a strictly military approach, that was doomed to fail. This displays either shocking ignorance or willful mischaracterization of what has actually been happening in Afghanistan.

Having served over there, I can speak from personal experience on this one: the U.S. military has had a broad-based approach in Afghanistan, including constructing infrastructure (roads, mine-clearing), building schools and training teachers, and training the Afghan military from a VERY early date. ( My experience covers the period Sep 02 – Apr 03, during which time ALL of these initiatives and activities were in effect). The first multi-disciplinary Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) were formed and deployed in early 2003; I saw this firsthand.

Joe Biden is either ignorant or lying on this point; neither bodes well for his foreign policy "expertise".