Winning battles while losing the war has taught them nothing.
[Check out Frontpage’s Disloyal Military series: HERE.]
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
A third of the way into his article, “Afghanistan Did Not Have to Turn Out This Way”, David Petraeus, former head of Central Command, who led forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and then headed the CIA, admits the war was never going to end.
“Some senior officials, including me, had cautioned that we would not be able to do in Afghanistan what we had done in Iraq—that though we might be able to drive violence down, we would not be able to ‘flip’ the country, as we had during the surge in Iraq, and provide it a whole new beginning,” he writes.
“When we recognized that we couldn’t ‘win’ the war, we did not even seriously consider that we might just ‘manage’ it,” Petraeus complains.
Managing the war would mean a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.
There was never any serious plan to withdraw from Afghanistan. Nation building, Petraeus argues, “was not just unavoidable; it was essential”. “How else do you help build the forces and capabilities that allow you to hand off crucial tasks—such as denying sanctuary to terrorists, securing the population and infrastructure, and running the country and its myriad institutions?”
The Afghan government and its military were never meant to function independently and couldn’t. As the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction’s report demonstrated, the Afghan military had not been designed to work independently. When the United States and our allies withdrew, the infrastructure was gone and it collapsed.
Petraeus’s theme is that Afghanistan fell because of a lack of commitment from us, but his idea of commitment is a permanent military presence propping up a permanently failed state.
“Forever war” gets thrown around a lot. And it’s unavoidable. The western world has been in a forever war with Islam for over a thousand years. There’s no reason to think that’s about to change except through our surrender. But did it ever make sense to turn Afghanistan into the frontier of a forever war? What Petraeus ignores is that the war quickly migrated back to its epicenter in the Middle East and the fighting followed it. Al Qaeda became irrelevant.
While Petraeus lobbied for a presence in Afghanistan, Obama’s Arab Spring poured gasoline all over the Middle East. Afghanistan became a backwater of the Global Jihad. And despite recent events, it still is. When Osama bin Laden headed to Afghanistan, there were few places in the Middle East where Islamists could safely organize, build training camps and plan a great war.
Al Qaeda turned to the outskirts, Africa and Afghanistan. These days, ISIS, Al Qaeda allies, and other Jihadists have plenty of room in Iraq, Syria, the spaces between Israel and Egypt, and Libya, not to mention much of Africa. Most importantly, they built networks in Europe and have a physical and internet presence that can recruit Islamic terrorists across America.
“Islamist extremists will seek to exploit ungoverned, or inadequately governed, spaces,” Petraeus observes. But those spaces now include European no-go zones, significant portions of the Middle East, and, at the rate we’re going, will come to include parts of the United States.
The Bush solution was to build up democratic governments as alternatives to the Islamists. Obama flipped that formula on its head by presenting Islamists as the democratic alternative. That approach led eventually to a deal with the Taliban and the collapse of Afghanistan.
But what happens in Afghanistan may matter much less than the broader scope of the war.
Petraeus warns that Afghanistan will “likely will be an incubator for Islamist extremism in the years ahead”.
True, but the country with the highest percentage of ISIS fighters was Tunisia, the vanguard of Obama’s Arab Spring. That’s followed by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, and France. Afghanistan doesn’t even place, but America, with 150 Jihadis, is 25th, right behind Algeria.
America and Europe’s major cities have long since become incubators of what he calls “Islamic extremism”. The Jihadist imams aren’t just running mosques, they’re teaching in major universities, they’re not just recruiting in prisons, but in Congress. Qatar’s Al Jazeera isn’t just a drop box for Osama’s videos, it sets the foreign policy agenda for the entire media. And D.C.
Petraeus is still fighting yesterday’s war, because he never understood the nature of the enemy. There’s no sign that any of our blind generals can offer more than the same failed strategies.
The Afghanistan withdrawal was a disaster because it was based on a series of lies built around nation building, beginning with the idea that Afghanistan could ever function as a non-Islamist and non-terrorist state, and concluding with the bigger myth that a deal could be made with the Taliban. Diplomats try to turn military problems into political ones, but Petraeus admits that he knew better, that there could be no political solution to Afghanistan’s problems.
Hanging over all this is the shadow of the failed policies of the Cold War.
After America abandoned efforts to fight Communism at home, we did our best to fight it abroad. The Soviet Union and Communist China dragged us into brutal battles against insurgent forces into narrow theaters that drained our morale and public support for the war on Communism. It also allowed the Left to radicalize the culture and begin the takeover of the Democrats.
Islamists and their leftist allies recreated this gameplan in the aftermath of September 11. And it worked the same way. The anti-Islamist Democrat is as extinct as his anti-Communist counterpart. Public support for the War on Terror collapsed after Afghanistan and Iraq.
A smarter retired general who serves on numerous influential boards and committees might examine how it was that our enemies got us the same way twice. And how we failed to learn anything either time. But we have a distinct shortage of smart generals or leaders of any kind.
Petraeus’ arguments recapitulate familiar Cold War paradigms. He argues for sustained commitments in war theaters, bipartisan foreign policies and accepting the fallibility of allied governments. These were the arguments coined by Cold War interventionists in response to leftist anti-war movements. And they have a certain truth to them, but they’re also defeatist.
Fighting Islamic terrorist outbreaks, like Communist ones, in certain places like Afghanistan made sense, turning them into another outpost of a global cordon sanitaire is a level of imperialist ambition we cannot afford and that Petraeus isn’t even proposing. Instead he envisions that we commit to fighting in the same theater in 2022 that we did in 2002.
Even if it makes no particular sense.
The Bush administration made plenty of mistakes, but believing that we should permanently remain in Afghanistan wasn’t one of them. It was Obama who insisted on an Afghan surge. That disastrous policy was championed by men like Petraeus and it led us absolutely nowhere.
The trouble with Petraeus and so many of the generals, woke or un-woke, is that they’re McClellans, procedurally and politically competent, but lacking any larger vision of the war.
That’s why we continue to win battles while losing the war.
Almost every time Petraeus mentions the I” word, it’s paired with, “Islamist extremism” or “ultraconservative interpretations of Islam”. Like so much of his essay, it’s an outdated formulation that acts as if the central issue in a global conflict is tone rather than victory.
Winning battles while losing the war has taught them nothing except to ignore the war harder.
Our enemies are using ideology to win a war. Our generals still believe that the war can be managed if we avoid dealing with reality, the nature of the enemy, the battlefield and the fact that the trajectory of the fighting has been steadily drawing closer to our interests and to us. If we don’t find some better generals soon, they will go on managing the war while dooming us to an absolute defeat within another generation, not in Afghanistan, but here on our own soil.
Afghanistan was always going to turn out this way. The question is how will America turn out?
mortimer says
Disagree somewhat with Mr. Greenfield who writes: “Managing the war would mean a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.”
You mean a permanent military presence such as exists already in about 100 places such as in:
Australia[edit]
•Pine Gap – Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap
•Naval Communication Station Western Australia.
•Robertson Barracks – Northern Territory.
•Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station – Kojarena
•Bahrain •NRCC Bahrain
•NSA Bahrain
•Belgium •USAG Benelux
•USAG Brussels
•Bulgaria •Aitos Logistics Center
•Bezmer Air Base
•Graf Ignatievo Air Base
•Novo Selo Range
•Cuba •Guantanamo Bay
•Djibouti •Camp Lemonnier
•Germany •Campbell Barracks
•Landstuhl Medical Center
•NATO Base Geilenkirchen
•Panzer Kaserne
•Patrick Henry Village
•Ramstein AB
•Spangdahlem Air Base
•USAG Ansbach
•USAG Bamberg
•USAG Baumholder
•USAG Darmstadt
•USAG Garmisch
•USAG Grafenwoehr
•USAG Heidelberg
•USAG Hessen
•USAG Hohenfels
•USAG Kaiserslautern
•USAG Mannheim
•USAG Schweinfurt
•USAG Stuttgart
•USAG Wiesbaden
•Greece •NSA Souda Bay
•Greenland •Thule Air Base
•Guam •Andersen AFB
•Naval Base Guam
•Naval Forces Marianas
•Iraq •Camp Baharia
•Camp Banzai
•Camp Bucca
•Camp Fallujah
•Camp Taji
•Camp Victory
•COP Shocker
•FOB Abu Ghraib
•FOB Grizzly
•FOB Sykes
•Joint Base Balad
•Victory Base Complex
•Italy •Aviano AB
•Camp Darby
•Caserma Ederle
•NAS Sigonella
•NSA Gaeta
•NSA La Maddalena
•NSA Naples
•Japan •Camp Courtney
•Camp Foster
•Camp Fuji
•Camp Gonsalves
•Camp Hansen
•Camp Kinser
•Camp Lester
•Camp McTureous
•Camp S.D. Butler
•Camp Schwab
•Camp Zama
•Fleet Activities Okinawa
•Fleet Activities Sasebo
•Fleet Activities Yokosuka
•Fort Buckner
•Kadena Air Base
•MCAS Futenma
•MCAS Iwakuni
•Misawa Air Base
•Naval Air Facility Atsugi
•Torii Station
•Yokota Air Base
•Yontan Airfield
•Kosovo •Camp Bondsteel
•Kuwait •Ali Al Salem Airbase
•Camp Arifjan
•Camp Buehring
•Camp Doha
•Camp New York
•Camp Patriot
•Camp Spearhead
•Camp Virginia
•Kyrgyzstan •Transit Center at Manas
•Netherlands •Joint Force Command
•USAG Schinnen
•Peru •Naval Medical Research Unit Six
•Portugal •Lajes Field
•Puerto Rico •Fort Buchanan
•Qatar •Al Udeid Air Base
•Saudi Arabia •Eskan Village Air Base
•King Abdul Aziz Air Base
•King Fahd Air Base
•King Khalid Air Base
•Riyadh Air Base
•Singapore •COMLOG WESTPAC
•South Korea •Camp Carroll
•Camp Casey
•Camp Castle
•Camp Eagle
•Camp Hovey
•Camp Humphreys
•Camp Market
•Camp Red Cloud
•Camp Stanley
•Fleet Activities Chinhae
•K-16 Air Base
•Kunsan Air Base
•Osan Air Base
•USAG Daegu
•USAG Yongsan
•Spain •Morón Air Base
•Naval Station Rota
•Turkey •Incirlik Air Base
•Izmir Air Base
•United Kingdom
•RAF Alconbury
•RAF Croughton
•RAF Fairford
•RAF Lakenheath
•RAF Menwith Hill
•RAF Mildenhall
Baghram Air Base was the US’s only base in central Asia and it should have been maintained.
mortimer says
The above list includes bases that are currently used or ready to be re-activated. There are other locations where there is a US military presence as well in countries not on the list.
mea says
thanks for list – how many have been occupied by the chinese ?
Infidel says
None of the bases you listed are in enemy countries, except the ones in Turkey. Afghanistan was another story: we would have been in a forever guerilla war w/ the Taliban. The withdrawal agreement we had under Trump was actually optimal: we’d withdraw all our troops, while keeping a minimal amount of special forces there to hit back the Taliban should they have tried to topple the regime there. It wouldn’t have been done remotely like the way Biden did it
Daniel Triplett says
But bad neighborhoods are where we need to project and maintain American force. Bagram is surrounded by Iran, China, and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a full-on Sharia state now, and a massive nursery for new generations of mujahideen. This is where we need to be. We have no other US assets within a 5 hour flight radius of Bagram. The Persian Gulf is 5 hours away.
The now 1400-year deep global Islamic War is growing in scale, not retracting, and won’t end until the world is either 100% Islamic, or 0% Islamic.
Combat ops had become minimal in Afghanistan. Even with a deployed troop strength less than 1/10 the size of the New York City Police Department, we were able to dominate and subdue an Islamic state (Afghanistan) larger than the state of Texas. During the prior 18 months up to but not including Biden’s surrender day US 13 KIA, we had just 4 KIA. In each of the 5 years prior to that, we had an average annual KIA of 12 in hostile action. For perspective, St. Louis alone had 263 homicides last year. Detroit had 328.
CogitoErgoSum says
Completely agree with you, Daniel, that we are in a war with Islam that will not end until the world is either 100% Islamic or 0% Islamic. This is so not by our choice but by the decree of the Islamic god in the Koran. As long as there are Muslims who believe the words of Allah cannot be changed this war will go on and on. Killing off Islam before it kills us is going to take some kind of miracle.
gravenimage says
Agree, Infidel. Maintaining a defensive military presence *in your own nation* or that of a friendly ally is entirely different from being in violent enemy territory.
JOHN L SCHARF says
NO! We do not need ground troops anywhere but on our borders. NO foreign bases when we can deliver destruction anywhere in the world in 24 hours. I agree Trump’s foreign policy was much better, but stop getting us into places forcing us to defend foreign territory. It is not our job to police nations within their own borders. Destroy their tanks, planes, missiles, and ships, but NO boots on the ground other than US territory.
Infidel says
I am somewhere in b/w. Mortimer and some others here suggest having our troops everywhere, while you suggest having it nowhere outside the US. I suggest that we mark the regions important to us, and have it there. I’m starting w/ the Americas, which incidentally has Left wing governments from Ottawa to Santiago, and then covering the Indo-Pacific, or else China will replace us worldwide
gravenimage says
Basically agree, Infidel. I don’t think we can be the world police, but being completely isolationist doesn’t work, either. Knowing where to draw the line is the rub.
Daniel Triplett says
Precisely.
We spent a whole lot of blood and treasure gaining those geostrategic assets. At minimum, we should’ve held onto Bagram AB. 2500 troops to secure and operate the base would’ve been a small price to pay for the benefit we’d have going forward. Most of the bases you mentioned in that list have more than 2500 US troops.
So-Sad says
We need to take care of ourselves, sell weapons to no one, and when someone attacks us – wipe them off the face of the earth.
mortimer says
My personal opinion of Petraeus is that he is one of the best informed of all generals on the topic of Islam and he gets on well with Muslims because he knows their doctrines.
I actually believe he ‘gets it’ but he is too diplomatic to reveal everything that he knows.
If there is anyone who truly practices the dictum of Sun Tzu ‘know thy enemy’, it would be Gen Petraeus.
gravenimage says
I’m not so sure about that, Mortimer. He said at one point that it was “anti-Muslim bigotry” and criticism of Islam, not Islamic doctrine, that spurs Jihad terror. He also claimed that Muslims are our allies against “Islamic extremism”, but not if anyone says anything negative about Islam.
I think it is pretty clear that he knows next to nothing about Islam and what it teaches.
Infidel says
Just like we need to disband the FBI, we need to purge the top command of the US Armed Forces, who are wedded to forever wars. Hopefully President Trump nominates someone like Col Doug McGregor as his Secretary of Defense, and assigns him the job of withdrawing US forces from the bulk of the 150+ countries in which we have troops. And then focus on just a subset of that – namely the Americas and the Indo-Pacific regions
P.S. Pull out of NATO
Wellington says
Would not pulling out of NATO, Infidel, embolden Putin? Also, it very well could (would?) be interpreted by China, North Korea, Islamic states, et al. as weakness on the part of America. And then Western Europe would arguably be even more craven to the authoritarian regimes of the world and Eastern Europe understandably might feel abandoned.
I’m no fan of NATO (especially with Turkey remaining in it) but we may be faced with a situation where remaining in NATO is a lousy option but pulling out of NATO is even a worse option. Sometimes, you know, life leaves you no good option.
What we could do is tell NATO nations they either pony up even more (say, go from a minimum of 2% of GDP to 3 or 4% or we’re gone (and no cheating on this). Once in a while blackmail is highly moral and forces the weaker to do what is right.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Wellington.
Infidel says
No, if we weren’t a part of NATO, Putin probably wouldn’t care whether or not Ukraine joins it. It would also break our alliance w/ Turkey, among other things, and enable us to exploit any differences b/w Russia and China. President Trump wanted to repeat what Nixon did in the 70s, albeit by allying w/ Moscow rather than Beijing, but that was completely sabotaged by a bipartisan coalition, and now there is a war in Ukraine. Would not have happened had Trump been allowed to execute his proposed deals w/ Putin
Wellington says
We will have to amicably disagree here, Infidel. As for Trump trying to “pull a Nixon,” that would arguably have been fine if he could have done it and not blocked by knuckleheads in Congress and the Deep State, but it wouldn’t have required pulling out of NATO. Indeed, if Trump could have accomplished this with a more decent leader of Russia (Putin has no decency), then finally Russia could have been brought into NATO. The icing on the cake in this scenario would have been Turkey being kicked out of NATO.
gravenimage says
I’m not sure that this was President Trump’s aim, but let’s leave that aside for now.
Although he is frequently lauded for it, I don’t actually think that Nixon embracing the horrors of Communist China and throwing democratic Taiwan under the bus was a good thing. I don’t think doing something similar with Russia would be wise or decent, either.
And there is little indication that Putin would have left Ukraine alone if only he had been further appeased.
As for NATO, I have my issues with it–most of all, the presence of Turkey in it. Then, my understanding is that the US has had to contribute far more than other member nations, even while adjusting for GDP–definitely unfair.
That being said, though, Putin’s not just invading Ukraine but also threatening Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, the UK and US show how important NATO still is. Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if they were part of NATO. This is why after so many years Finland and Sweden are joining. So NATO is absolutely still worth it.
Wellington says
I basically agree with you about Nixon, gravenimage, though seen n the context of the Cold War it is arguable that driving a wedge between Russia and China was a positive though the rejoinder here would be that Russia and China were really only buddies during the 1950’s. After that there was mutual suspicion. And yes, I would have wanted Trump to have “understandings” with Putin but not at the expense of other nations.
somehistory says
Some guys under the general called him ‘betrayus,’ and what stands out to me….not being in the military…is the fact that he took the side of mozlums who were threatening Terry Jones because he was going to burn the unholy book of filth.
Mr. Jones had every right under the Constitution to burn whatever book he wished to burn, including the book of satanic filth that mozlums “worship” and flip into a rage if someone drops it, tears it, etc. while they do all kinds of things with it and with the Bible, which they have used for toilet paper.
but betrayus was telling Mr. Jones not to ‘because it would offend the moxlum world.’
I wouldn’t give two cents for his book and he couldn’t pay me to read it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/petraeus-burning-koran-puts-american-lives-in-jeopardy
gravenimage says
+1
CogitoErgoSum says
What does winning look like? I know what it looks like from the Islamic point of view – full submission to the “perfect” religion of Allah. What does winning look like from our position? Is it not offending the feelings of Muslims? Our side will lose if that is the objective. The Commander-in-Chief will have to provide the Generals with a new objective. We pick the Commander-in-Chief. Why can’t we learn? We are an ignorant people in need of learning.
somehistory says
the card sharks cheat. Hard to win when they keep all winning cards up their dirty sleeves.
garland has even threatened anyone who has criticized the fbi.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yep, we are being played for suckers. We face more enemies than one. Going to be tough to win. Need to pick our fights one at a time.
gravenimage says
Why Aren’t Our Generals Learning?
………………………………
Afghanistan is statistically 100% Muslim. There was never any way to turn this into a civilized nation.
CogitoErgoSum says
No, nation is not a word that really would apply to Afghanistan. I doubt that they even think in terms of a nation. They are an emirate and a part of the ummah. Their idea of a nation and our idea of a nation are two completely different things.
Just something else we need to learn … and we haven’t even gotten to kindergarten level yet. Well, maybe those of us who visit here don’t need to learn so much – but most other people in the West do.
somehistory says
the important thing to remember is: they want us just like them or dead. and they are working on that goal every minute of every day and nothing is beyond doing, using, trying, lying about, whining about, cheating, to get us all like them or dead.
And they like murdering and raping, so they are just as glad that so many of us refuse to be like them.
If a person knows those things, they are way ahead and don’t need to learn every word of every book or other writings mozlums use to incite the hoards inside their barracks and make attempts to justify the rapes and killings, terrorism and threats.
Knowing their goals, and that they will do anything they need to or want to…to meet their goals.is plenty for the average person to know..
CogitoErgoSum says
I don’t think the average person has any idea of the goals of Islam. I don’t think the Pope, Joe Biden, any Western leaders or any more than a handful of members in the U.S. House and Senate have any idea what the goal of Islam is. I’d be willing to bet most would say Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews. They would say that Muslims want the same things that Christians and Jews want. They think Muhammad is just another version of Jesus who preached love and peace and besides, even if Muslims don’t think Jesus is the Son of God, they still honor Jesus. Most people are certain this is true and have no idea what they don’t know because to think otherwise is just bigoted and racist. I just hope Trump has been spending some of his free time now learning about Islam – but I don’t know that he has. BTW, I think there is a very good chance Trump won’t live to run for President in 2024.
somehistory says
You’re right. the average person doesn’t know because they are being lied to and they believe the lies coming from the mozlums around us, the politicians, the churches, the media and entertainment industry. But, more of them could learn the truth.
It’s like a day at the beach…ignoring the warnings about sharks, jelly fish, rip currents and having a great day, going home with photos and fond memories …while another vacationer doesn’t get to go home at all, because they ignored the warning signs, and one of the dangers got another victim.
when terror happens, it happens to someone else and most people who don’t know the Truth, get to go home safe, so they don’t think about the dangers that still exist and they may be the victim next time.
and Glenn Beck said that if they can’t keep Mr. Trump from running…and winning…they’ll kill him.
James Lincoln says
somehistory says,
“If a person knows those things, they are way ahead and don’t need to learn every word of every book or other writings mozlums use to incite the hoards inside their barracks…”
Great point.
One can know the basic truth about islam without having the very detailed knowledge of Robert Spencer.
James Lincoln says
CogitoErgoSum says,
“…I think there is a very good chance Trump won’t live to run for President in 2024.”
Pres. Trump has received countless death threats from both domestic and foreign actors.
Very, very troubling.
gravenimage says
Agreed, CogitoErgoSum and Somehistory. Afghanistan has never really been a nation; just a stretch of Dar-al-Islam.
Infidel says
True, they are just a confederation of muslim tribes – Pathans, Tajiks, Hazaras, Turkmen… As a nation, they didn’t exist before the 1750s, and their history prior to that was the history of their neighbors, be it Turkistan, Iran or the various muslim sultanates in India. In the pre-islamic era, they were always either a part of a greater Persia or a greater India
somehistory says
That is why they are “turk min is “stan”….pakis “stan” and afghani “stan.” they are “lands” of those different tribes.
Michael 'Copeland says
Dear General Petraeus,
Islam does not do nation-building.
Islam only does Islam-building.
staffsgt7 says
Greenfield cannot even use the correct words! He uses the made up words such as ‘islamist’, ‘islamism’! To know the enemy is to not make up stuff in order to blur what they are about! There is NO difference between islam and islamism! And it is JIHAD – the obligation and it can be ANY tactic or strategy of war!!! To blur the terminology is to blur the objectives of islam/sharia!
Infidel says
Yeah, I do wish people would stop using terms like ‘islamism’ and ‘islamist’. It’s islam and muslim/jihadist, depending on what one wants to emphasize w/ the latter
JOHN L SCHARF says
If we are going to get tangled up in words, I use the word Muhammadanism. There is no “Islam” outside of Muhammad, just as Christianity is named after Christ. Were it not for constant disputes, Judaism would be Abrahamism, perhaps. When we have no ideology of our own, we should not be pushing a dozen forms on other based on which way the wind is blowing.
As an old Vietnam Vet, I have a great distaste for any war which uses small arms to bring “democracy” door to door when we have no such thing. We have no referendums, recalls, or initiative and we never had a plebiscite. Stop the lie that constitutional republics are democratic. China, Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam and US are ALL constitutional republics FAR from being democratic. ALL conscript their citizens into slavery. See Art.1, Sect.8, Clauses 16 & 18, if not Amendment 13. SEE: Butler v. Perry – 240 U.S. 328 (1916)
In the end we unite nations by uniting them AGAINST us. No more small arms in foreign nations.
If they leave their nation to make war, then use only tanks, planes, ships, and missiles to end it.
No more forever war that last ten years like Vietnam. When an invading nation returns to their territory, stop dropping bombs. Our enemies have made Vietnam their model for defeating us. Stop following the model of winning every battle and losing the war.
Infidel says
I like that term. In fact, it was in standard usage until somewhere in the 80s
staffsgt7 says
words matter. islamism is what? A way to confuse the non-moslem and to say there is a difference between a jihadist and a moslem that acts like they are innocent and/or a victim. They are neither – they are all jihadists since that is an obligation in islam.
Did we say Germanism during WWII instead of nazis? Those Germans were in full support of Hitler. The ones who were not left and why don’t the Christians help the moslems out of islam if they want to admit that many don’t believe in islam! Instead say, islamism and tell them/hint to them that it is ok – islam is ok. Not it is not.
The only reason why we see moslems come here to the USA is for 2 reasons – to do dawa (the call to islam) and to do jihad (war if we don’t accept dawa). 97% of the time jihad is mentioned in islamic texts it is about some tactic or strategy of war to advance sharia/islam. Even Dr. Oz demands we do not criticize islam and that tells me he is not in support of the Constitutional rights to criticize islam and its barbarism, pedophilia, polygamy, nature of war, etc. Oh, he like so many, don’t appear to be war like though – but he and many others do stealth jihad and infiltrate and demand we follow their sharia that says we are forbidden to criticize islam.
Wellington says
America is a democracy traditionally (though we are in the process of losing it). It is a representative democratic republic (as opposed to a pure democratic polity such as ancient Athens—which like early America limited its democracy only to certain people) with over 80,000 governmental units—states, counties, boroughs, cities, townships, etc. Can’t get much more democratic than this. The other countries you named are indeed not democratic at all. They are tyrannies posing as democratic republics.
If America throughout its history has not been a representative democracy, what polity has been? And thank you for your service.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington. With all her problems, the United States is a *far* freer place to live than are China, Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
And all respect, John, but how are these mostly Communist or Islamic crap holes constitutional republics? A lot of them laughingly use the word “democratic” in their names, but no one takes this seriously–not even most of the dictators running the places.
jca reid says
It is very difficult to come up with strategic initiative/s to sort out out this morass. A step is to stop talking about “Islamic Extremism”. Islam is extreme. It’s as simple as that. It is a Personality Death Cult on Steroids! As Mo said, “Islam will be spread by Terror.”
Want to sort it all out? Destroy the house of Saud. After all, it was the British & the Americans that put them in Power back in the 1920’s/30’s. Islam is like the Hydra – multi-headed & multi-tentacled. got to hit the brain.
Back in my schooldays I was reading a European history book. The Author had inserted a section from a German History book written in the 1890’s/1900’s.(certainly published prior to WW!). This German author had clearly stated that Berlin should be the Centre of the World & used a map to prove it.
Just a few weeks ago a senior Saudi government Minister said, “Riyadh should be the Centre of the World.” Of course folk would think as a Transit Point for aircraft toing & froing from Europe – Asia etc. But there is the ulterior motive the Political Influential Power.
They cannot do it militarily. They really did nothing inn the first Gulf Conflict. But by, setting up ‘migrations’ into non-Muslim countries, by any means, alter the demographics & bob’s your uncle in time.
I don’t see why the Coalition Forces in Afghan simply didn’t disarm the tribesmen. There are no apex predators to attack livestock. It worked in the Scottish Highlands in 1746 after the ’56 Jacobite Rebellion.
On another topic related to this Islam business, on Youtube, please watch: Lotus Eaters: Nonce Watch – Afghanistan. This all happened when Obama was President & he endorsed this & did nothing.
Another one is: Islam = Nazism with a God.
Do you want these people in your country, let alone as your neighbours, who openly view you as a target & your kids as bushmeat?
gravenimage says
JCA, I agree that the Saudis are pretty damned evil, and they sponsor Da’wa, Mosques, Madrasas, and Jihad terror. But they are *far* from the only such sponsors.
We should just stop believing that they are our allies.