Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Why The West Is Doomed...


Unless we make a major corrections and entirely change direction, what happened in Paris is just the beginning of the end, and the West is headed for horrendous consequences and perhaps even defeat.

It's been just a few days since the atrocity in Paris, and the response to it has been similar to other jihadist attacks. They range from the usual suspects actually excusing the brutality and talking about how it has nothing to do with Islam ala' Mrs. Clinton  to misdirected remarks for 'action' that resemble nothing so much as the old carny game of whack-a-mole, this time with ISIS as the target d'jour.

Walk with me awhile and let's examine the real problems we face, along with what's really involved in solving them.  I guarantee you won't be bored. I haven't seen much real analysis anywhere on how to actually win this conflict for obvious reasons,because they involve dealing with some uncomfortable realities. Here's a small spoiler preview...ISIS is neither the main problem nor even the main target.

From the first, we were lied to. According to President George W. Bush post 9/11, we were fighting a war on 'terrorism'. To President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we're at war with 'extremism.' They all have their own reasons for misdirecting the American people, most of which have nothing to do with either the good of the United States or making any real progress in actually winning the conflict against the faux target they've created.

We're in a war, all right. And ISIS is just one of the players.It's high time we realized that rather than an ISIS problem, we have a major problem with Islam..in particular, with Islamic fascism and its adherents.And even worse, we have problems that could very well doom civilization and freedom as we know it if we continue along the present course.

The idea that we're fighting 'terrorism' or 'extremism' is especially ludicrous and using the terms are   a gross insult to our collective intelligence. 'Extremism' is a vague, dubious and deliberately subjective term designed to cloak reality in fog, and  'terrorism,' after all, is a common tactic of war, designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to erode an enemy's desire and ability to make war.

In the Middle Ages, a common tactic of waging war was to try to destroy the wealth of an enemy and its ability to support warfare by sacking towns and farmlands. Another example more familiar to Americans was General William T. Sherman's March To The Sea through the most productive part of the Confederacy, leaving a swath of destruction and desolation in their path. They burned Atlanta and other cities and towns  to the ground, destroyed not only military targets but civilian property and infrastructure, and lived off the land by 'foraging,' which essentially meant stealing whatever they found and leaving the civilians with a bare minimum to survive on if they were fortunate.The idea was to end the war by degrading the South's ability and will to fight, and it was very successful in that regard.


We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience. - General Sherman in a report to Union Chief Of Staff  General Henry Halleck, December, 1864.
Similar tactics were used in both world wars by both sides for similar reasons.

French President Hollande was entirely correct that the attack on Paris was an act of war, but it was not 'terrorism' or mindless carnage to no purpose. After all, France has been committing acts of war against ISIS by flying 200 air support missions against both combatants and civilians in ISIS territory since September of 2014.

The tactical idea involved also made sense - to remind the West that their cities and their civilians are also vulnerable and can be reached by ISIS.

Every master of strategic thinking whether its Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, General MacArthur or Napoleon has shared certain basic principles in common. They've all agreed that in order to successfully wage and win a war, you must have clear goals, know whom your enemy is and secure your base. To that, I'd add utilizing effective leadership and motivated forces.

Not only is the West not doing any of these things, it's doing its best to do the exact opposite. To really get perspective on that, let's look at how ISIS and other jihadist entities, both Sunni and Shi'ite are waging their war against us as opposed to  how we're doing whatever it is we've  been doing for the past decade and a half or so.

They have secured their bases, and there's little or no fifth column within. Anyone they even suspect of betrayal or less than full commitment to victory is immediately and ruthlessly dealt with. Both their enemies and their goals are clearly defined and marked out with formal declarations of war after the Islamic tradition, which both Osama bin-Laden and ISIS adhered to. On the Shi'ite side, Iran makes no secret of their hostility to us. They want death to America and President Obama is helping them get the tools for the job.

ISIS leaders and their fighters are dedicated, brave and more than prepared to fight and die for Allah and the Caliphate. The Paris attacks were carried out by young fighters willing to give their lives to accomplish their mission. So were their successful attacks on Iraqi forces who on paper outnumbered them and were far better equipped, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

In contrast, our leaders resort to the most tortuous euphemisms to avoid actually mentioning our real enemy or even establishing more than the most vague and general goals. Unlike al-Qaeda in it's heyday, The Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Hizb' al-Tahrir and ISIS, there's no declaration of war by us and no defining of whom or what we're fighting at all.

Not only have they not secured our base, but our current leadership has actually enabled the breaching of those bases, encouraging mass migration from questionable Muslim countries where Islamism and jihadist thought are quite popular.

As a result of that migration and in particular America's tolerance and even appeasement of  Saudi and Emirate funded Muslim Brotherhood  front groups like CAIR, The North American Islamic Trust, The Muslim Public Affairs Counsel, The Islamic Society Of North America and others, a fifth column in America is rampant. Not only are young Muslims radicalized in mosques and madrassahs here by radical imams, but jihadist web sites and platforms like al-Jazeerah, or Jihad TV as I call it are readily accessible.

As opposed to the militaries of our opponents in this war, our severely scaled back forces have seen much of their best combat leaders and experienced combat troops forced into retirement or out of the service to make way for a military that  appears to be far more concerned with transgender rights, 'diversity' and placing women in combat roles regardless of whether they meet physical requirements to do so than concentrating on defeating our enemies.  Retention is at an all time low. And as for faith, even mentioning G-d is likely to get you reprimanded or even bounced out of the service - unless of course, you're talking aggressively about Islam's ultimate victory  over the Infidels and putting 'Soldier of Allah' on your official business card like Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood murderer did.

Finally, our lack of decisive leadership speaks for itself. We have no strategy and no clear goals  and we haven't for years. President Obama isn't even following the old rule of  'at the very least, do no harm.'  His destabilizing the Middle East and paving the way for Iranian nuclear weapons is a nightmare his successors in office as well as the American people will have to face and it will not be pretty.

Again - and I can't emphasize this enough - we are in a war with Islamic fascism, and it's supporter are far from being as much of a minority as certain people would lead you to believe. And yes, is does have everything to do with Islam. There is nothing Boko Haram, Hamas,  Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, Hizb' al Tarir, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian regime or any of the other so-called 'extremists' are doing that is not sanctioned by the Qu'ran. Nothing.

That, by the way is very different from being in a war with Muslims. Many of them are decent and peaceful people. But Islam itself is not going to be reformed. It is a violent religion that brutalizes women and non-believers and was designed for world conquest. As Mohammed told his followers before he died in 632 CE, they are commanded to fight the infidels until they died, became Muslims or paid massive protection money or other tribute for their lives to Muslims and "felt themselves subdued."

In response to that command,The Faithful have killed and enslaved more people in the name of their religion than all other faiths combined, and perhaps even more than secular leftists like Stalin, Mao and Hitler. The Indian genocide alone might amount to as much as 15-20 million dead, as well as millions whom were enslaved. Islam isn't going to change, at least not yet and possibly never. So we need to take steps to protect ourselves and minimize the problem. Part of that is realizing that the weaker we get and the more we appease Islamic fascism, the more Muslims are going to go along for the ride and side with the triumphant Umma against the Infidel kuf'rs. Again, just look at Europe.

So how do we win? First, of course, we need strong leadership actually prepared to win. We have very little leadership in power in the West (which I'll use as a generic term for the non-Muslim world) right now. Based on the link I shared in paragraph two of this article, it's obvious that there's not a Democrat now running even vaguely qualified to be commander-in-chief, and the single one who was, Jim Webb got disgusted by the foul smell surrounding him coming from his party and ended his campaign. And neither our current president or our vice president are qualified either, as they've proven many times. We have no FDR, no Winston Churchill around today that is in power.

But assuming that resolves itself sometime in the near future, here's some quotes from something I wrote on the same topic way back in 2008, which I recommend you read in full for context. Regrettably, little has changed since then:

The second point in which I disagree with Professor Dershowitz is on the need for new rules in dealing with this menace.The old ones work quite well, although an intelligent and otherwise reasonable liberal like Professor Dershowitz shies away from them.

The US has dealt in the past with fanatical enemies as well as potential fifth columnists on its soil with great success. The way we did it was not by using half measures.

When World War II began, President Roosevelt took stern measures to secure the nation at home.For starters, he arrested and/or deported anyone with ties to our enemies who might have even remotely resembled a security risk. He gave the FBI carte blanche to wiretap,listen to phone calls and intercept suspect mail and transatlantic cables at will to protect the country. I myself once had had tea with an elderly woman who proudly showed me a medal she received after she steamed the stamp off of a letter and found a microfilm dot underneath that destroyed a dangerous espionage ring and sent six Nazi spies to the gallows.And perhaps most importantly, unlike the present administration, he engaged his fellow Americans in the task of security with a widespread publicity campaign warning against `loose lips that sink ships.' Using posters,speeches, the radio and the newspapers, the Roosevelt administration let the American people know that there was a significant security threat that could endanger the war effort and their freedom,and that their vigilance and help was needed.

On the battlefield itself, particularly in the Pacific,our military dealt with suicidal enemies not only by destroying them en masse but by taking the war to the Japanese home islands with a vengeance.There's no question in my mind that if the Japanese had not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US would likely have destroyed a substantial portion of the Japanese nation. As it was, that defeat of an honor/shame culture similar to the one we face today swept away the poisonous militaristic fascism in Japan and paved the way for a new beginning, just as it did in Germany.

As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940's and 1950's. Those laws exist,  are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.
I go on to site several applicable laws from  the US code of justice that apply to those attempting to subvert or overthrow the US or its Constitution or to engage in a conspiracy to do so. Nowadays, they would also combine with RICO and anti-Terrorism statutes, provided we actually had a president and a justice department willing to prosecute in the future.

 Those Muslims who advocates sharia law, the Islamization of America, or jihad against Americans who happen to be Jews or Christians obviously fit this definition. Likewise, anyone who gives material support to such causes does too. And let's not be coy about it - any Muslim advocating sharia law in America is advocating the overthrow of the first and fourteenth amendments as well as the statutes mandating equal protection, since sharia mandates inferior status for women and non-Muslims, and as such is in clear violation of our laws.

This also applies to the sort of texts the Saudis are pushing in the madrassahs they control financially and to those fiery Friday sermons preaching death to the Jews.

And by the way, that is NOT constitutionally protected speech.....and the Supreme court has always agreed, utilizing the test of a `clear and present danger'.
A re-visitation and tweaking of laws like the Smith Act of 1940 and the Internal Security Act of 1950 would provide further ammunition, as would a law banning foreign funding of political lobbying groups and religious entities. That would dry up funds for the Muslim Brotherhood fronts here and their building of jihadi mosques without violating the First Amendment. Surveillance of the existing mosques (about 80% of them are owned by the North American Islamic Trust, a Muslim Brotherhood front group) and suspect imams with deportation as a resource would be key to securing our base. Blocking al-Jazeera and jihadist web sites would likewise close off channels of jihadist indoctrination. I can't imagine why that isn't being done already.

Rather than the current charade at our airports and public places, we need to adopt Israeli-style profiling with a corps of highly trained and dedicated security personnel rather than expensive screens purchased from one of George Soros's companies that have been proven not even to work very well. And that goes double  for relying on unionized personnel actually trained in part by a Muslim Brotherhood front group with a long record of opposing US counter terrorism efforts, especially at airports.

And a ban on Muslim immigration from some of the obvious countries along with real border security would likewise help secure our base. It simply makes common sense, and all we need to do is see how well not doing it has worked out in Europe. Islam does not play well with others, and not only should we pretty much stop importing it, but we need to be alert to whom is practicing it and how it is practiced here in America. And we need to be  prepared to deport problem Muslims and Islamists unclear on the concept of America being a free society.

It is also necessary to forcefully show our political and elite class that we no longer have tolerance for their appeasing Islamists and jihad against the West for their own profit. A law that should be passed is one outlawing anyone in public service to accept employment or compensation in any form from a foreign government during their service and for at least 15 years after his or her retirement. This would eliminate what I call the 'golden magic carpet' pension plan financed by people like the Saudis and Emirates, among others. We must make an end to the funding of presidential libraries and foundations, the special 'business opportunities' the six figure speaking fees,honorariums and consulting fees showered on our politicians and others with influence after retirement in exchange for their loyal services performed while in office.

The actual military aspect is likewise self evident.

We have at present given billions of dollars and lots of military hardware to Muslim countries like Pakistan, Qatar and Lebanon (which means Hezbollah) that are by no means friendly to us in the least. Not only that, but we have spent more billions arming and training no less than 3 Arab armies who are definitely not our 'allies' in the least- Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority. The first  step is to be far more careful not to fund our enemies or undependable 'allies'.

The second step is restoring our military to its former strength and bringing back commanders like Generals Mattis, Ham and McCrystal. Our military when used needs to have clear goals and a strategy and to not be handcuffed by PC nonsense or ridiculous rules of  engagement. Their first order of business should be to kill people, break things and be victorious over our enemies.

The strategy part is extremely important. for instance, when we took out Saddam Hussein, we essentially removed the check to Iran's fascist regime. The same thing would happen if we decided to take out ISIS without curbing Iran. As Dick Cheney famously said about the Iran/Iraq War that cost a combination of a million casualties, "It's a pity they can't both lose."  Thanks to President Obama's abject stupidity and his appeasement of Iran, we're currently arming both sides of the current conflict, supplying arms and funding to Hezbollah via Lebanon and  doing the same thing to Jaish al-Fatah, the rebel 'Army of Conquest' for the Sunni rebels that has al-Qaeda allies as its main components and is no better than ISIS. We may end up being required to make sure that both Iran and ISIS lose, but if we do, we need to have clear goals, and declarations of war by Congress in the event we plan something more long term than a pre-emptive strike on Iran, for instance. In short, unlike before, we need to know what comes next and that should most assuredly NOT involve US nation building. In fact,having our military turn a militant and unrepentant jihadist haven into ashes, dead bodies and wreckage might be quite useful as a reminder and example to others who have forgotten whom we are and what we are capable of thanks to our failed leadership and their lack of resolve. It worked with Japan and the Nazis quite well.

Another step is cultivating and in some cases rebuilding relationships with real allies and partners, something Rome and Britain provided models for. President Obama has done his best to alienate them, but Egypt, Israel, and a strong and viable independent Kurdistan are obvious candidates in the region. And we need to make an attempt to come to an understanding with Russia's Vladimir Putin, who has actually done more to curb ISIS than we have. China, with their own problems with the violent Muslim Uighers is another possibility. So is India.

We can win this war provided we end our self defeating behavior. If not, we can look forward to a new dark age for our freedoms and our civilization. Those are the alternatives.


Anonymous said...

I do take exception with your description of ISIS terrorists as "brave." It does not take bravery to behead unarmed people, rape,crucify children, shoot into a crowd of unarmed people, blow up a plane, or murder people on their way to a religious celebration. It takes a certain amount of psychopathology, belief in an all consuming supremacist ideology that has not been employed by the majority of the world since the Middle Ages to commit these atrocities. But no it is not brave.

Rob said...

I hear what you're saying. But I think it does take courage and commitment to attack an army with modern equipment that outnumbers you more than two to one, or to carry out a strategic mission behind what amounts to enemy lines that you know there's a very good chance you won't return alive from.

It also takes religious faith, something ISIS in inculpating in its warriors while to Obama regime is doing everything possible to eradicate from ours.

That's really the whole point. No one denies that the Nazis and much of the Japanese military committed stomach turning atrocities they deserve to burn for against both military and civilian victims. But read eye witness accounts or ask anyone whom fought against them if they were brave, committed and courageous in battle except towards the end when they knew the war was lost and see what they say.

That's why it actually helps the jihadis to call them 'terrorists.'
Terrorism is a commonly used war tactic and done for specific purpose of breaking an enemy's resistance and ability to wage war. It's why Hitler bombed London, and why we bombed Dresden and most of Japan's cities into ashes.

And it's why ISIS attacked Paris. And with some success I might add. France's 'response' was limited to a desultory airstrike that dropped all of 20, count 'em 20 bombs on Rakkah. Hollande knows he can't very well alienate France's Muslims or the French Left and stay in power.

Another point lots of people don't appreciate is that from their point of view.

Yes ISIS is brutal, misogynist and cruel. But then, so is Islam, however decent individual Muslims might be. That's what we're at war with. It's time we realized it, even if our despicable president and his creatures refuse to.

Unknown said...

Make sure this treatise gets funneled to the transition team well in advance of January, 2017.

Unknown said...

I agree with Elise. They are cowards!! It doesn't take any bravery to kill an unarmed person, young or old. I have no respect for them. It is not just collateral damage. It's downright murder and rape and enslavement of those who cannot fight back.

Not only that, their willingness to die in battle is not courage either. Their minds are warped by what they believe they will receive from Allah when they die. It takes no courage to detonate yourself when you take down bystanders or your target with a suicide bomb. Psychotic yes, but hardly brave.

I usually agree with your writings, but I could not let your comment regarding ISIS jihadists being "brave" because they are merely contemptuous.

Rob said...

Hello D. Giova,

Thanks very much for dropping by. I think we're essentially dealing with semantics here, and I hope you enjoyed the article itself.

Again, I understand where you're coming from, and why. Remember, you're talking to someone who has advocated executing jihadis with a nice piece of pig in their mouths as a way to cut back on recruitment.

But the fact remains (at least, this is how I see it) that we are dealing with a relentless enemy who for whatever reason is willing to give all in any battle. I merely recognize a certain amount of courage and commitment in combat here. Many of the activities you and Elise are talking about are not combat related. The Japanese military and the Waffen SS had the same qualities and committed many similar atrocities.

The Japanese in particular had an ISIS-like fetish for beheading captives and using captured civilians as 'comfort women.'

I believe it was historian John Toland who wrote that one of the reasons for the number of casualties fighting the Japanese in places like Guadalcanal, Tarawa. Saipan and Okinawa was our failure for some time to realize what a fanatical enemy we faced. At Okinawa, civilians and their children actually jumped off cliffs rather than face the 'humiliation' of being captives to the Americans.

I agree that there's a psychotic element to most honor/shame cultures. I merely maintain that this psychosis if that's what you want to think of it as is a source of courage and esprit in combat and it's something we had better be aware of.

Warm Regards,