SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
October 2, 2009
The Only Real Strategy for Afghanistan
There has been quite a bit of criticism directed at President Obama for his handling – or mishandling – of the Afghan theater in the global conflict with radical Islamists. To be certain, it should be the number one or, at the very least, number two item on his list of priorities. That it is not is deserving of criticism. But the catalyst for this dysfunctional thinking emanates from the reality that we, as a nation, don't have a proper understanding of the conflict at hand and, therefore, have very different opinions – some based in fact but most influenced by ideology – as to the consequences of implementing the wrong strategy.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then candidate Barack Obama identified the Afghan theater as the only “legitimate” military theater in which the US military was engaged. He did so in a politicized attempt to paint the Iraqi theater as illegitimate; an optional battle theater championed by his opponent. Whether or not you agree with that belief is irrelevant to the fact that Mr. Obama identified the Afghan theater as being “the good war.” This declaration, along with his promise to support the generals on the ground, intimated that he was going to respect the judgments and opinions of the field commanders with regard to strategy and assessment. That understood, it really shouldn't be too much for the American people to expect their president to follow through on his campaign promises.
The Enemy
Ongoing military campaign aside, we have never really accurately profiled the enemy and therefore have never really been about to honestly contemplate a successful strategy for achieving victory in not only the Afghan theater but in the overall global conflict with radical Islamists.
One of the main reasons this has come to be is that the politically correct – the Progressive movement – have thwarted any real discussion on and examination of the origins, history and purveyors of radical Islam. For all practical purposes, the politically correct have contributed very little to the world but to ideologically blur reality so as to force society into kow-towing to a shadow set of Marxist-based societal limitations. These limitations are not only counter-productive in combating radical Islamists but they infringe and encroach upon national sovereignty, constitutionally recognized natural rights and individualism. To honestly contemplate a strategy to potently engage radical Islamists in Afghanistan and around the world we, as a nation, must be courageous enough to exorcise the politically correct ideology and its limitations from our societal norm.
Facts are stubborn things and no matter how politically or ideologically partisan or disengaged we choose to be, our survival depends exclusively on being honest about the facts. As a culture, we Americans – for the most part – have been either oblivious to or in denial of the facts about fundamentalist or radical Islam. This intellectual apathy has allowed not only the politically correct but the politically opportune to define radical Islam to fit their political and ideological agendas. But these special interest definitions ignore or manipulate the true nature of radical Islam and, perhaps, even Islam as a religion.
In the days after September 11, 2001, we heard our nation's leaders extolling the virtues of “mainstream Islam” and declaring Islam a “religion of peace” in an attempt to stave off any retaliation against the Muslim community here in the United States. Many have come to believe this declaration even though they have never obliged themselves to actually reading the Islamic holy text. The fact of the matter is that even a layman's examination of the Quran, the Hadith (the oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad) and the history of Islam under Muhammad reveals a violent and intolerant dogma based on subservience.
Then there are the Progressive apologists who insist that American policy and/or economic disenfranchisement in the Arab world are the causes for radical Islamists' hatred of the West. This stance fails to explain radical Islamists' violent aggression toward Indians, Africans, Asians and those of the South Pacific in places like Mumbai, Mogadishu and Bali. Further, it fails to address why some of the richest oil-producing states exist within the Arab world while many in the Middle East continue to live in squalor; why even as hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars flow into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates – to name but three of the many oil producing states within the Middle East, the Arab World – many throughout the Middle East live on a weekly budget that is less than the cost of a meal at McDonald's.
In addition to the unanswered questions about radical Islamist aggression against those other than Westerners and the rampant poverty throughout the oil-rich Middle East, Progressive apologists have yet to address the fact that during the Soviet-Afghan conflict, Afghan warlords, who would become Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and leaders, benefited from their alliance with the United States. As the world has come to accept their victory over the Soviets, one would have to ask why these radical Islamists – these fundamentalist Islamists – would turn on an ally; would object to a US policy that provided them the resources and training to defeat the Soviets.
A traditional Islamic saying is that, "A woman's heaven is beneath her husband's feet." In the Islamic culture, to show someone the bottom of one's shoes, to figuratively place them beneath one's feet, is an insult of the highest order.
Women in the Islamic world are treated as chattel. In the fundamentalist or radical Islamist world they are treated even worse. They are subjected to incredibly harsh and degrading cultural edicts where transgressions are punished – justified under Sharia Law – by whippings, beatings, amputations, stoning and death. Offenses that warrant a death sentence for women under Sharia Law range from un-Islamic dress to being in the presence of an unrelated male, never mind adultery. Honor killings are not unusual in the Middle East and the practice has been transplanted anywhere and everywhere fundamentalist, radical Islam exists.
In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, women were forbidden from going to school. Most couldn't read and those who taught women did so under the threat of violent retribution. Women's schools were burned to the ground. Young girls as young as 9 – some even younger – were sold into marriages to men sometimes five-times their age.
These are just some of the facts about the radical Islamist culture. They are indisputable and verifiable. It is a matter of honesty that we accept these facts as reality when debating strategy centered on global conflict with radical Islam.
Our enemy in the radical Islamist is a narcissistic religious zealot. He is an ideologically brainwashed political opportunist, a race-baiter and a misogynist. He uses a violent dogma as validation for murdering innocents in cold blood as he quests to establish a global Caliphate existing under a totalitarian Sharia Law, elevating the Muslim above all others according to their belief.
And while the politically correct and the Progressives among us will insist that the majority of Muslims are “peace-loving” people who simply want to practice their religion without societal scrutiny, the fact is that they are complicit in their silence; in their not taking the lead in combating radical Islam wherever it exists. The “peace-loving” Muslim community, worldwide, is complicit in the efforts of radical Islamists because they are not engaged in purging their religion of these fanatics. In the end, it must be the Muslims themselves who expunge the violent tenets of Islam from their religion. Until then the violence will prevail.
Afghanistan
The nature of our enemy understood – at least to a better degree than before – we have to weigh the consequences of our actions when it comes to formulating a strategy for the Afghan theater.
The one thing that we do know – or that we need to understand – is that not winning is not an option. Should we choose to make the same mistakes in Afghanistan that we did in Vietnam in letting politicians snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the consequences will be much more devastating than they were in the aftermath of Vietnam.
Should the US implement a strategy of “peace with honor” it will cost much more than the re-oppression and slaughter of the innocent Afghanis, especially those who cooperated with NATO and US military forces. It would provide the Taliban and al Qaeda with two things:
- The Taliban and al Qaeda would be emboldened by the fact that they had not only defeated the Soviet Army during the Soviet-Afghan Conflict but that they defeated the world's only superpower in the United States, even after successfully striking the US on American soil. It would provide not only a potent recruitment propaganda platform but would bolster their fanaticism and reinvigorate their radical ideology.
- The Taliban and al Qaeda would now have a permanent base of operations in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. They would be able to re-equip, train and develop new and more lethal means with which to strike at the United States, Europe and the West, in general. With AQ Khan now free to move about Pakistan the threat of a concentrated effort to develop a nuclear arsenal would be paramount in their endeavors.
The Obama Administration must come to realize that we not only have to grant Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the US commanding general in the Afghan theater, his request for more troops, we must escalate the conflict on several levels.
Militarily
The US and NATO must be willing to escalate military operations to “take the fight to the enemy.” A good example of this was seen in the recent British operation executed by The Black Watch (3rd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland) that swiftly and decisively destroyed a Taliban stronghold in Kandahar. With respect to operations of this nature Gen. McChrystal is the best man for the job in that he understands the capabilities of Special Forces and the intricacies of Special Forces operations.
World leaders, with or without the backing of the corrupt and impotent United Nations, must agree to ferret-out radical Islamist cells and Taliban and al Qaeda operatives wherever they may exist. If radical Islamists engage in violence then the forces of the free world must strike back with superior strength and determination.
Diplomatically
One of the avenues that Pres. Obama would be wise to continue engaging would be in galvanizing the “Coalition of the Willing.” This coalition took an ideological beating from the politically correct, the Progressive movement and the politically opportune during the Bush Administration. But without a coalition of countries willing to pledge blood and treasure to achieving the security of all freedom-loving countries around the world radical Islamists and the nation states that facilitate their survival (read: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, etc.) will continue to exploit the corruption embedded at the United Nations to block sanctions and condemn action aimed at combating radical Islamist entities.
It is well past time that nations affected by radical Islamism – nations like Russia and China – realize that if we band together to defeat this violent ideology the expenditure of blood and treasure for all will be less than having to combat radical Islamist groups individually.
Ideologically
Perhaps the avenue least traveled in the conflict with radical Islamism has been that of the ideological; the war of ideas. The United States has placed no priority in the war of ideas.
The Washington Times’ Bill Gertz - in his Inside the Ring column circa September 21, 2009 - illustrates a perfect example of US apathy toward the war of ideas in the conflict with radical Islam in a report:
“Congress plans to cut millions of dollars from the fiscal 2010 defense budget that the Pentagon says are urgently needed for information operations to counter Iranian propaganda in Iraq and terrorist propaganda worldwide.
“Senate and House defense appropriations conferees currently are debating planned cuts by the Senate of $58.8 million requested by military commands for what is called IO (Information Operations), while the House version would cut some $500 million.
“The Senate bill would cut $20 million from US Central Command and $20 million from Special Operations Command IO budgets, significantly reducing their funds and operations. It also will further cut $10.9 million from the European Command and $7.9 million from Africa Command. That will effectively kill IO programs in those commands, according to a defense source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly...
“Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen; and military commanders including Central Command commander Gen. David H. Petraeus regard the funding as urgent and are pressing Congress to have it restored.
“'Information operations are an essential component of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world,' Mr. Morrell said. ‘We are dealing with a very savvy and sophisticated enemy and they know how to manipulated populations, to try to persuade populations through propaganda and we need to be able to counterbalance that.'”
If we are to win the battle in Afghanistan – and as we have established, a non-victory, loss or “peace with honor” will culminate in an eventual victory for radical Islamists and almost certain acts of violent jihad on American soil – we must escalate our efforts in the Afghan theater and we must do it now.
If President Obama can rationalize the hurried passage of a pork-laden stimulus bill and extol the need for urgent healthcare legislation, he can legitimize the immediate escalation of our military engagement with bloodthirsty radical Islamists.
Pray tell, what could be more important?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (1) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
Frank Salvato has done his homework on Islam. He's correct that it's a brutal, intolerant "religion". But few seem willing to take it a step further and ask why our government refuses to admit that Islam is incompatible with our way of life. Islam seeks to replace our Constitution with sharia law and makes no bones about it. Why then is Islam not labeled a seditious and subversive political strategy, and why is it not banned here? I think part of the problem is that our government and population can't come to terms with the fact that Islam is not simply a religion. It's a total way of life, and especially seeks political power in host countries so that sharia law can be gradually implemented and supplant local law. How can a religion that is also a political force, be dealt with? We separate "church and state", Islam does not. Bill Siegel of Family Security Matters points out in his article: The Real Threat Levels, that the Muslim Brotherhood (in captured documents) defines their strategy to defeat America as three levels: 1. Terrorism, 2. Civilizational Jihad, where the MB operates within America, to destroy America from within, and 3. International Institutional Jihad, where Islamic goals are furthered under the UN. They have extremely long-term goals; we must counter with our own. But first our goals must be defined, and so far no one has stepped up to do the defining. If I were to take part in the defining, I would: 1. Put drastic limits on Muslim immigration; 2. Outlaw any part of sharia law, including sharia finance (AIG has established it); and 3. Hire Arabic linguists from friendly countries, EVEN THE JEWS THAT THE ARABS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY KEPT OUT, so that we can learn what is really being preached in mosques; 4. Deport any cleric, imam or mullah who preaches jihad; 5. Replace any school textbooks that whitewash Islam, and include truths instead, so our population will learn how brutal and intolerant Islam is. As for Afghanistan, I don't understand how this war can be won by sending in more troops. As soon as they are (eventually) pulled out, the country will no doubt fall back into tribal disputes and anarchy. If Muslims in "free" countries can't escape from the clutches of Islam, how can we expect them to do so in Islamic countries?? Jihad is part of the culture and can't be discarded, the clerics and imams etc. won't allow it.
posted by: Evie from Mariposa
Saturday, August 28, 2010 at 01:27 AM
