Tuesday, September 7, 2010

It's the Strategy; Stupid!

The last few weeks has been somewhat lacking generally propagated Intelligence reports on the progress in Afghanistan. Low quantity intel reports would usually suggest a lull in the AO but there seems to be enough coming out to indicate that isn't the case. At the same time, there has been more chatter coming from the White House about the future of the operation in Afghanistan and that, on the heels of President Obama's speech lauding the 'end of combat operations' in Iraq. From the story:

"Next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: this transition will begin – because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s."

I'm not sure what you could do to cause more damage to our efforts in any war than to give the enemy specific information indicating the limits of our resolve. This President has made repeated concessions to the Taliban. How? By saying that they should be part of the solution by becoming part of the governance in Afghanistan. Wasn't that what we had when we first entered that country? A theocracy punishing it's people and led by the Taliban. Wasn't it the Taliban who 'invited' Al Qaida and gave them health and comfort and a place to train and plan attacks to kill American citizens?

The vast majority of stories coming from DC and abroad these days amount to 'greasing the skids' for the next Presidential election cycle. For those who may have missed the point of the '2011' pullout from Afghanistan that Obama was touting during his campaign in '08, it was clearly an indication of the focus of his heart; Obama 2012. The suggestion that anyone, much less an individual with zero experience in foreign policy, could tell three years out that a war would be nearing an end is ludicrous. That a significant portion of the population seemed to find that reasonable, is laughable. That those same elements still think it reasonable to read those same tea leaves, two years later, is scary.

Of course the main points are still not discussed and the general lack of understanding of this enemy from a historical or current day perspective is as troubling as ever. General Paul Vallely made yet another attempt to educate those lacking understanding and I urge all to read his thoughts here.

Again, the discussion revolves around the question of use of force and whether or not the United States military is to be used as an international force or one whose sole purpose is to safeguard the United States and it's citizenry. It is also about whether or not we still possess the moral will to use that force to hold an enemy accountable for actions it may have taken against us. To date; the focus is still safeguarding Afghan civilians - at all costs. This of course brings into question the legitimacy of any comments from the White House suggesting that the government in Kabul is near ready to assume defense of it's own interests much less prepared to continue it's battle against the 'insurgency'.

Each country should be willing and prepared - as it's citizenry should be, to defend itself from rogue elements determined to undermine it's sovereignty or the safety of the people. It is not our responsibility as Americans to spill the blood of our youth in an attempt to secure for the Afghans what they seem unwilling to do for themselves. It is our responsibility to bring to justice those who continue to plot our destruction; a destruction, by the way, demanded by their religion and their deity.

So the question remains; will the American people choose a different course than the one plotted by this President and initiated by the last one or will we, as a people, declare once again, that we are first committed to wholly American concerns. Will we, as a people, select from among out number, representatives without the tarnish of prior political entanglement who understand what should be commonly known to all men. Will we choose, as a people, to recognize our national interests as the singular priority of our military and let them fight the war we have set before them, kill the enemy who would kill us and then let them come home victorious? Or will we continue to tolerate a political institution and an upper military structure that refuses to accept their constitutional duty to protect these shores uniquely, our people and our Warriors, regardless of the cost to others remembering that this war was thrust upon us.

This election cycle in November will answer those questions and will hopefully motivate the White House and the General staff to do what is right instead of what is politically convenient or internationally palatable. Our Warriors deserve that little bit and our Constitution requires it!

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

Mosques are the “Trojan Horses” of the Global Caliphate

The Greek siege of Troy had lasted for ten years. The Greeks devised a new ruse - a giant hollow wooden horse. It was built by Epeius and filled with Greek warriors led by Odysseus. The rest of the Greek army appeared to leave whilst actually hiding behind Tenedos and the Trojans accepted the horse as a peace offering. A Greek spy, Sinon, convinced the Trojans the horse was a gift despite the warnings of Laocoon and Cassandra. Helen and Deiphobus even investigated the horse. The Trojans celebrated the raising of the siege hugely, and when the Greeks emerged from the horse the city was in a drunken stupor. The Greek warriors opened the city gates to allow the rest of the army access and the city was ruthlessly pillaged — all the men were killed and all the women and children taken into slavery.

The creator and purveyor of the new radical Muslim Global Caliphate is the Muslim Brotherhood based out of Medina and Mecca in Saudi. Their Troy is the Western World. Their ‘Trojan Horses” are the Mosques funded by front organizations and Saudi money. It is now what many of us call “Stealth Jihad”. Muslims have been dreaming about a Caliphate that can unite the entire Muslim world and rule with strict Islamic code ever since the death of Muhammed. There have been coups, countercoups and civil wars because of disagreements over whether or not to install the Caliph. The dream of a caliphate is what is responsible for the Shia-Sunni split. Several Caliphates existed over time until 1924 when Mustafa Kamal Ataturk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate and established the secular Turkish Republic.

Al-Qaeda has clearly stated that the re-establishing the Caliphate is one of its primary objectives. Although Al-Qaeda has taken the violent path to realize their dream of the massive Islamic empire, there are many Islamic groups all across the world that use politics to gain influence; Tanzeem-al-Islami and Hizb ut-Tahrir to name a few.

What exactly is a Caliphate?

A caliphate is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state (Caliph) has a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad’s political authority. It is a dream that has never been realized by Muslims and it will never be. There will always be Muslims who dream about this empire and on the other hand the power-hungry leaders will prevent any movement that could dissolve their nation-state. Therefore, Muslims are stuck in an eternal conflict between Islamists and nationalists.

What are the goals of this Caliphate?

Besides uniting the Muslims, the goal is to arrange a massive army and call for Jihad against infidel states for the expansion of the Caliphate. Various caliphates have used this strategy to expand their states. The rapid Islamic expansion during the reign of the Caliphs is nothing but staggering.

The reason behind that is millions of eager men willingly joining the fight with the Infidels because they believe that Allah will reward them heftily if they die. There has never been a shortage of recruits in the army. This is the same reason there is no shortage of suicide bombers today. The ultimate goal of the Caliphate would be to bring every square inch of this planet under Islam and convert/subdue all remaining Infidels.

Who are behind this movement?

Various groups around the world are actively advocating the creation of the Caliphate. The growing support for this empire all over the world is evident. In order to spread Wahhabi. Wahhabi Islam is a term commonly given to a strict Sunni sect of Islam. Followers of Wahhabi Islam do not refer to their religion as “Wahhabi” (Anon., Justifying; Bijlefeld; Hardy). Many merely call themselves “Muslim,” for according to their beliefs they are only true Muslims. Some Wahhabists refer to themselves and their religion as “al-Muwahhidun,” “Salafi,” “Salafi Da’wa,” or “Ahlul Sunna wall Jama’a” (Anon., Justifying; Bijlefeld; Hardy). Depending on the region and dialect in use, other names also exist. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to this religion as “Wahhabi Islam” and its followers as “Wahhabists.” By “Wahhabi Islam”, I am referring to the forms of Islam that share the strict revivalist vision and beliefs that were preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the late 1700’s.

Wahhabi Islam counts among its adherents such names as Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Prince Nayef (Cline; Haykel; Smith; Hardy). Various groups such as Al-Qaeda, Pakistan’s Jamaat-I Islami, The Islamic Salvation Front, and al-Jihad have also adopted Wahhabism as their official religion (Ahmed; Cline; Haykel; Smith; Hardy). The extremist religion offers many a theological justification and mandate to kill those they deem to be infidels. One should note that according to Wahhabism, the vast majority of Muslims (over 99%) are also to be considered “infidels, heathens, and enemies” (Haykel; Smith; Lopez).

Wahhabists have made their presence known worldwide. From the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan to the beheading of countless Russian soldiers in Chechnya, from the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq to the beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia Wahhabists have shown a willingness to use television and the internet to display their gruesome acts of barbarism. To truly understand those that we must fight in this battle against terrorism, one must learn more about Wahhabi Islam and its extremist teachings.

The Origin and History of Wahhabi Islam

Wahhabism started as a movement within Islam founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). To fully understand the militancy of Wahhabi Islam, it is important that one learns of the warlike nature of Wahhabi Islam’s founder and the brutal times of war in which he lived. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Having been born in a small oasis town in central Arabia, al-Wahhab grew up studying Hanbali Law, one of Sunni Islam’s strictest and most conservative schools. He lived and studied with his grandfather until he was in his early teens, at which time he left his home to move to the holy city of Medina, where he continued his Islamic studies.

After completing his studies in Medina several years later and now a young man, al-Wahhab traveled to a city in what is modern day Basra, Iraq. There, he taught Islamic law for approximately four years. Al-Wahhab then traveled to Baghdad where he continued teaching Islamic law. There, he met and later married an affluent woman. She later died and left al-Wahhab a large inheritance, which he used to travel the region. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

The early 1730’s found al-Wahhab residing in Iran. It was here that he first started to preach his new and radical thoughts on Islam. Al-Wahhab virulently attacked the customs and beliefs of the tribes in the region, many of whom were Sufi Muslim. He also extended his criticisms to the practices of the Twelver Shia, such as paying respect at the tombs of holy men. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

With the growing unpopularity of his criticisms against Sufi Islam in Iran, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab moved back to his native town of Uyaynah in the late 1730’s. Upon his return to his birthplace, al-Wahhab began writing the Kitab at-Tawhid, which would later become the main text of Wahhabi Islam’s doctrines. It was about this time that al-Wahhab begun to gather a larger amount of followers. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s extremist views and doctrines led to controversy in Uyaynah. Many of the town’s leaders were not fond of his fundamentalist approach to Islam. After all, merely invoking the name of the Muslim prophet Muhammad was, by al-Wahhab’s standards, a grave sin. In 1744, he was expelled from Uyaynah. Al-Wahhab then settled in Ad-Dir'iyah, which was under the control of a powerful tribal leader named Ibn Sa'ud. Ibn Sa’ud became a believer of Wahhab’s doctrines and the two formed a strong alliance. Al-Wahhab and Ibn Sa’ud swore a Muslim pledge with each other in which they vowed to establish a new state that would operate under al-Wahhab’s strict interpretation of Islamic Law. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

And thus began a military campaign that would shake the Arabian Peninsula to its core. The Wahhabi faith provided Ibn Sa’ud with the justification he needed to raid and conquer nearby settlements. Though these settlements were Islamic (and traditional Islamic law prohibits Islamic states from attacking each other), the Wahhabi doctrine viewed all non-Wahhabists as infidels and not true Muslims. It was thus that Ibn Sa’ud found a legitimate purpose to bring the nearby settlements under his control, to spread “true Islam” to the infidels. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

The Wahhabists are indiscriminate in their killings of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They soon garnered a reputation as brutal and fanatical warriors. These Wahhabist warriors were described as being so fanatical that they had little regard for their own lives … their sole purpose, it seemed, was to kill the enemy. By the time of his death in 1765, Ibn Sa’ud had managed to gain control over most of the region and had spread Wahhabism to those conquered lands. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab died in 1792 but the spread of Wahhabism continued under the leadership of Ibn Sa’ud’s son, Abd al Aziz. Abd al Aziz continued the Wahhabi campaign and managed to sack the Shia holy city of Karbala and Sunni towns in Hijaz. The Wahhabists were brutal in their treatment of captured lands and brought destruction upon those who had opposed them. In the early 1800’s, the Wahhabi army even managed to gain control of Mecca and Medina. Viewing the acts of commemorating dead holy men and praying to saints as unholy acts, the Wahhabists destroyed monuments and gravesites in the holy cities. By doing this, they sought to imitate the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s smashing of pagan symbols when he returned to Mecca in 628. Access to the holy sites in Medina and Mecca were severely limited to outsiders. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Much of the new recruitment of young radicals in the United States, Europe and the Muslim world is done through the local Mosques and is very well documented. Then the radical Islamic cells are developed to carry out the missions of jihad.

Hopefully, many of you will now understand what is happening and how the Global Caliphate is very well planned out and funded. Let us not be na├»ve ……..just look around the world and keep your eyes on Iran and its proxies. The Mosques are the new ‘Trojan Horses”. No 9/11 Mosque!

Paul E. Vallely

Chairman – Stand Up America