When are we going to admit that there is a war going on between us and radical Islam?

I’m guessing that a majority of Americans (a slim majority, but still a majority) know that America entered WWII because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  What few stop to consider is why we ended up fighting, not only the Japanese who had just bombed us, but the Germans as well, since they, after all, had not yet done anything to us.  The answer to that unasked question is that, for reasons known only to a megalomaniac, a few days after the Pearl Harbor attack, Hitler declared war on the United States.  The United States took up the challenge with gusto.  Within months, America had become a war machine, cranking out ships, tanks, guns, airplanes, and trained troops.  If Hitler hadn’t acted, Germany might have won the war.  England, after all, was on the ropes by the time America came in to help out.

It’s a little chilling to think that, were we to replay December 1941 with Obama in the White House, America would simply have ignored Germany’s declaration of war.  We would have heard that we have no quarrel with the Germans, who are a peaceful people, except of course for a handful of madmen.  We would have been told that, if these madmen killed our citizens, we would bring the actual killers to justice, but that we had no quarrel with the nations or ideology that gave birth to those killers and that are hard at work to raise an army of madmen.

As our administration and media talked, Hitler would have tightened his grip on Europe; fought a single front war against the Soviet Union; killed all the Jews, Gypsies, mentally disabled, and homosexuals in Europe; and then enslaved all Slavs and Communists (never mind that Naziism was a variation of socialism itself).   At the end of the day, our government would have said that we’re scarcely in a position to criticize the Nazis, since America was once a slave country itself.  Congress would then have announced economic sanctions, but the Executive office would have failed to enforce them.

But we don’t need a hyp0thetical December 1941 to imagine what our current administration would do.  We can watch it in real-time today.  There is a saying that “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” — and it’s funny that you should mention Egypt right now.  As if 9/11/01 and 9/11/02 weren’t strong enough declarations of war, Islamist clerics are actively calling all Egyptians to wage war against the west, starting with kidnapping:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law.

I’ll admit that this is a challenging war because we are fighting, not a single nation, but a geographically diffuse ideology, but it is still war.  After all, what do you call it when a vast and recognizable group of individuals announces that it intends to kill and enslave your people, and then uses arms to carry out that promise?

We should be addressing this war on all fronts:  militarily, economically, and ideologically.  Instead, we are pretending it’s not happening.  To give credit where it’s due, George W. Bush figured out the military part and, with Iran, the economic part.  His problem, though, was that, as leader of a pluralist country, but he couldn’t bring himself to break through political correctness to admit that we are at war with a huge ideological foe.  After all, many Americans who are good, decent people share the same label (i.e., “Muslim”) as that foe. We confuse linguistic nuances with substance.

A problem of nomenclature, though, should not be allowed to obscure the fact that we have an active, resolute, powerful, and devious enemy.  We therefore do not fight that foe by excusing it.  Instead, we fight it by using every breath of free speech to challenge it in every way possible — debate, media, leaflets dropped from airplanes, and whatever else could work.

Obama has been the ultimate Islamist apologist.  He has only half-heartedly imposed sanctions against Iran, given a blank check to the Palestinians (who are a front in this Islamist jihad), weakened Israel (which is an ally in this existential battle), demoralized troops and energized enemies in Afghanistan by setting a certain pull-out date, and undermined a nascent democracy in Iraq by pulling out all troops without leaving a provisional force.  As for what just happened in Benghazi, that’s a chapter in itself, one that includes institutional cowardice and politicizing, lying, cover-ups and, with the imprisonment of a video maker, the destruction of our First Amendment.

Not only is Obama not much of a leader, he’s totally unsuited to military leadership.  You have to love your country to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  You have to believe in your country’s values to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  You have to courage to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  At every level, in every way, Obama fails as a military leader.  Let’s fire him from the job before it’s too late and we find ourselves defeated in the war we continue to pretend doesn’t exist.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    I don’t mean to be unfriendly or anything, but I really need a definition here.  To wit: what’s the difference between “radical” Islam, and any other kind of Islam?  You see, I’ve read their book.  Admittedly I didn’t read it in the original.  My first time through it – and a time or two since – I read George Sale’s translation, which is pretty good for two reasons.  Reason 1 – it’s the first genuine, literal, line by line translation from the Arabic to English: this is what it says, subject to zero interpretation, because; Reason 2 – he did the translation in 1734, long before there were any axes to grind or visible difficulties between Islam and the rest of the world.  (1734 was well before oil, and nobody had given a thought to the Muslim world since the Crusades.  They were entirely irrelevant to the western world.  George II was on the throne in England, Europe was preoccupied with the War of Polish Succession, involving France, Spain, Austria, and Russia, [looking back, you can only say: "Good God - why?" - but that's another story], and Islam was a festering sore in the middle of nowhere to which no one outside that particular nowhere ever gave, or needed to give, a thought.)
     
    I’ve read their book.  And if a good, observing Muslim is someone who – as they self-define – believes implicitly in that book, then they should be strangled at birth, because they’ll never be anything but a problem to everybody else around them.  Because at no point does the book allow that anyone, anywhere who worships differently, believes differently, thinks differently, lives differently, or even treats other people differently is allowed to exist in their original form, unmolested.  Or even, effectively, exist at all.  This is, not to put too fine a point upon it, the way all good, observant, Koran-believing Muslims are ordered to think. 
     
    I do not oversell this.  Read their goddam book!  See for yourself.  If the test of belief in Islam is that one accepts and follows the “teachings” in the book, then I repeat: what is the difference between “radical” Islam and any other kind of Islam?  The only thing that you can reasonably hope for is a definition that you impose: the “radical” ones will come after you with bombs, guns, and knives to shut you down right now; the “not-radical” ones possibly won’t – but the goal is just the same.  You, if you refuse to knuckle under – and your religious beliefs and your way of life – are to be extirpated, even by the “non-radical” believers.  There is no escaping this.  I repeat: read the book
     
    The difference between true-believer “radical” Islam and true-believer “non-radical” Islam is imaginary – there is no difference.  The polite ones want you gone every bit as much as the violent ones do – and why we pretend otherwise baffles me.  A “great religion” didn’t get hijacked  here, despite what W used to say.  The people who drove the planes into the towers weren’t hijackers of anything except the planes – as far as Islam’s concerned they were faithful, observant sons.  God, it’s stupid to pretend otherwise!
     
    The best we can do is hope that most Muslims are like most Christians and Jews.  We look at Deuteronomy and its injunctions to kill everybody in sight who doesn’t think and observe the way you’re supposed to, and we smile tolerantly – and don’t kill those who don’t hew to the path.  We hope that most of Islam treats their book somewhat similarly – though they have a hell of a lot more to ignore than one or two chapters in a single book written by a lunatic.  We hope that, based on absolutely no reason: it’s never happened.  And I don’t see much sign of it happening now.  But we hope it.
     
    We’ll delude ourselves right into the ground. 
     

  • Charles Martel

    Most Muslims, like most Christians and Jews, are lackadaisical about observing their religion. One of the reasons why the family compound in Arab cultures is as close as those benighted social systems can get to the concept of a man’s home being his castle is so that people have a private space where they can shed the strictures of Islam. We’re all familiar with  the stories of Saudi households where the women are unveiled, wear makeup and even expose their skin in chic, modern, western-style clothes. Families consume alcohol, watch sexy movies, and even eat forbidden foods behind closed doors.
     
    But that just means that until they are forced by threat of horrible death—a fate which Allah lovingly describes time and again in great detail in the Qur’an—they won’t be stirred to move against us. Left alone, they’ll continue committing petty offenses against the mullahs and Allah, and be content to let their “radical” representatives do the raping and Jew killing for them.
     
    But, because of the primitive mindset that Allah insists upon, getting supposedly indifferent Muslims riled up against Jews or the Great Satan is a fairly easy thing to do. When they have enough numbers or influence behind them, they will summon that fabled Muslim courage that has allowed them through the ages to murder Armenians, Hindus, and teenage girls caught wearing miniskirts.
     
    Here’s the silver lining: Islam, like communism, despises integrity and intelligence. People who possess both or either mostly wind up dead or cut off from any effectiveness. What takes their place are cunning, mendacious types, like the Saudi princes and Iranian mullahs. These people are clueless about growing an economy or conducting wars that require more than parade-ground strutting or getting impressionable 13 year olds to immolate themselves, dreaming of all that nooky in Allah’s Hooters in the Sky.
     
    That means that they will overplay their hands at some point. Countries like Israel, China, India, even Russia, that are a little less fastidious than the U.S. may tire of the game some day and put down a nuclear overlay on Dar al Islam. My hope is that they’ll leave those magnificent Central Asian mosques untouched for future tourists to ooh and aah over.
     

  • https://picasaweb.google.com/102427392960537405774 Kevin_B

    Generally I really like your posts, and very often I agree with you. I’ve seen some very thoughtful and good posts from you. But I’m afraid you’re going a bit of the rails here, certainly in your title. The rest of your post is fairly good, but your title phrase taints things at least to some level, I’m afraid.
     
    By using the phrase “radical islam” you are treading on thin ice, because you’re getting somewhat close to the politically correct view of islam, in which islam has a ‘radical’ of ‘extremist’ faction that is misusing islam to wage war and commit atrocities, and another faction of islam that is more humane and peaceful, and can be coexisted with (if appeased, of course). I really hope you’re not allowing yourself to be deluded into this view or to buy into it. That view is erroneous, false and dangerous.
     
    I think we really ought to know better that to hold such a view of islam. It has so far seemed to me, both in this post and in your earlier posts about islam, your ideas about islam, its tenets and the resulting actions are quite good. I really would have expected you to not buy into the idea of radical versus other islam, and sincerely want to believe that you (probably?) wouldn’t. Yet, you use a phrase which I find both erroneous and objectionable. Why use such a phrase? How to view islam in the right way? How to speak/write about islam? Those are questions you and all of us should ask ourselves, Bookworm. And I’m afraid on this occasion, at least in your title phrase, you’ve gone a bit of the rails, Bookworm. I give this criticism entirely with no malicious intent.
     
    No, I do not believe there is a such a thing as ‘radical islam’ or ‘fundamentalist islam’ and ‘other islam’ or ‘moderate islam’. Such a thing does not exist. There is only one islam, and it’s the islam of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, the 9/11 hijackers, the Taliban, the mad mullahs, ayatollah Khomeini and so on. The problem with islam is not ‘fundamentalist islam’, the problem with islam are the fundamentals of islam. Islam is in its core an ideology of hate, violence and perpetual warfare to conquer the entire world, subjugate all to Allah and install a global caliphate. 
     
    As jj said, its in their book. I repeat jj’s exhortation: read their book. Read the quran, and perhaps some of the hadith as well. I will openly admit I’ve not read the entire quran (although I’m working on that) nor all of the hadith, but those parts that I’ve read make it quite clear that islam is about hate, violence, warfare, conquest, subjugation, domination, slavery and atrocities.
     
    Let’s not delude ourselves. Islam is at war with us, with the west. We’re living in Dar Al-Harb, the domain of war, and we are seen as kuffar, unbelievers, at war with Allah and his messenger. Therefore, we are eligible for and deserving of whatever the muslims may come up with, from bombs, knives and guns to ‘rape jihad’. Islam is waging a war against us. We are at war with islam – without any qualifications added.
     
    Besides reading the Quran, a fairly good book documenting Islam’s war against the west is Geert Wilders’ recent book “Marked for death”. I’m currently reading it, and I would most certainly recommend it.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    When we admit Leftist Americans are allies of Islamic terrorists, then we can start admitting that little bit about the MidEast.

  • Roll Tide

    jj and Kevin_B,
      Well said.  Why is it so hard for good people to see pure evil, even as it tries to eliminate them from the face of the earth?