Afghanistan Strategy?

I am more than likely not too popular with Leftists and centrists: I firmly believe there is only one way to win the theatre of war in Afghanistan. America needs a WWII mentality to do whatever it takes to win a war even if civilians (who more than likely support their leaders) are harmed in collateral damage. Now it is obvious that eight years of war fighting non-national entities that are transnational terrorists is a bit too long to go without a decisive crippling of the enemy.

Carpet bombing of training camps and terrorist managed opium fields used to generate narco-bucks needs to take place. Then one may ask: “What about the Tora Bora cave system that is used as an effective terrorist hideout for the Taliban and al Qaeda?” It is time to use surgical nuclear strikes equal to a little lesser than the Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s correct. I said the politically incorrect of nukes. Also I am not just speaking of the mountains of Afghanistan but also the mountains and training camps of Pakistan.

Will Pakistan protest? More than likely that would be the case. Will Pakistan use its nuke arsenal in retaliation against American in Afghanistan or Iraq? A Pakistani nuke reprisal would be a foolish strategy since America is capable of blowing our erstwhile ally off the map. The old Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is something the Pakistan military would comprehend (unlike the Mullah-Messianic dictatorship of Iran).

Anyway, here are some previous posts I have utilized concerning an Afghan strategy:

· “Comment: Can We Win in Afghanistan,” by Gary H. Johnson, Jr.

· “Resolve 9/11,” by John R. Houk

· “Is This Obama’s War?” by JudgeBob.

Now Ben of Ben’s Blog has a radical view on Afghanistan. Ben’s post is really a critique of a Col. Tom Snodgrass post at American Thinker. Ben has some agreement and disagreement which I feel is worth the read.

JRH 9/17/09

Comment on Mainlining Bill Roggio

In war civilian casualties should be expected when the civilians willingly support the combatants or the combatants hide among unwilling civilian human shields. An example of the flawed strategy to place civilian comfort above winning wars is the case when a group of Marines failed to receive air support for fear of hurting civilians. That became a disaster for the Marines.

Read this and more at The AfPak Reader.

JRH 9/13/09

Resolve 9/11

John R. Houk
© September 7, 2009

September 11, 2001 is the date that Islam became more than just another religion that was growing rapidly in the world. Islam became the religion in which some people took the literal past as the will of Allah for the world in the twenty-first century. Thus the proponents of what is commonly called “radical Islam” to differentiate from “moderate Islam” seemed to become the mouthpiece of Islam to the American public.

Al Qaeda became a household word in America soon after 9/11. The recognized leadership figure of Al Qaeda is Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s ideology of Islam is from the mold of Wahhabi (Salafist) Islam the dominant version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the wealthiest oil nations in the world. Saudi adherents of Wahhabi have been the recipients of that wealth and have used it to finance the Wahhabi Islamic version world wide including the United States of America.

Wahhabi Islam is very closely related to the same radical Islamic ideology birthed in Egypt known to the West mostly as the Muslim Brotherhood but also is known as Ikhwan.

The murdering Islamic Supremacist Palestinian-Arab organization known as Hamas is essentially an autonomous wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (Gazastan or Hamastan). As we know Hamas wishes to be the lead Muslim terrorist organization superseding Fatah and the Palestine Authority (PA) representing Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in the creation of a Palestinian State that would dismember Israel and provide the next Jewish Holocaust.

The Muslim Brotherhood is highly connected to many American-Muslim organizations of note who claim to represent some aspect or another of “Moderate Islam” in America. Consequently Islamic terrorists Hamas also extend a reach into America as the Holy Land Foundation convictions (along with unindicted co-conspirators) proved.

Despite this interconnected web of evil which is to this day extending its hand on American soil, the American Left is hyper-concerned that Freedom of Religion should prevent scrutiny of the same Islamic ideology that inspired the 9/11 attacks that killed more Americans in our homeland than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

President Roosevelt announced to America that December 7, 1941 would be a day that will live in infamy. That day of infamy led to a war strategy that the Nazis of Germany and Imperialist Japanese could only make peace by a total and absolute surrender to the Allies that were at war with this axis of evil.

Here we are today on the cusp of nearly eight years of continuous fighting in Afghanistan and there is no unconditional surrender. For that matter there is not a hint of peace overtures either from the Taliban or al Qaeda toward ending the conflict. Indeed the radical Islam of these groups has taken on the nature of suicide before surrender.

Unfortunately the times they have changed from a strategy of win at all costs to a strategy limited by Western International Political Correctness. I am thinking a general like George Patton would have taken the mountainous Bora Bora cave system between Afghanistan and Pakistan and would have immersed the area in carnage (including the collateral damage of Taliban sympathetic civilians) until there was surrender or nothing left to surrender.

Twenty-first century Political Correctness would look upon such a victory in horror because of the huge toll of human lives lost. And yet it was the strategy of forcing unconditional surrenders in World War II that led to the devastating bombing of Dresden, Germany as well as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. I am guessing more civilians died in those actions than Nazi or Japanese military personnel. Even so Germany and Japan provided the unconditional surrender to sue for peace.

I am also guessing if the WWII drive to win at all costs was executed today, the chasing of the Taliban and al Qaeda would have ended years ago.

Since the polls concerning the Iraq War theatre brought down Republican dominance in Congress and vilified President G. W. Bush, I am guessing President Barack Hussein Obama is watching the polls of American attitudes toward the Afghanistan War Theatre.

Since President BHO is the Prince of Appeasement and Political Correctness, I wonder what the Obama Administration strategy will be to end America’s military action in the Afghanistan War Theatre. Do you wonder as well?

JRH 9/7/09 (Hat Tip: MAF)
*****************************
What Constitutes Victory in Afghanistan

By Kyle W. Nevins and Joseph R. Nevins
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Washington Post

Polls show that public support for the war in Afghanistan is eroding. Noted conservative columnist George F. Will counsels that it is "time to get out of Afghanistan." Will and others question our purpose there and point to a lack of clear strategy for victory or even clear measures of success.

For some, the conflict in Afghanistan has elicited memories of Vietnam -- a war with no clear battlefront and no clear end. But while the threat in Vietnam was hypothetical, the threat in Afghanistan is real: The Taliban did provide haven for terrorists who attacked America on American soil. And that attack on American soil claimed more lives than were lost at Pearl Harbor.

We are not professionals in the business of influencing public opinion. We write as the brother and father of a Marine infantry officer serving on the front lines of Helmand province in Afghanistan. Patrick was only 16 years old on Sept. 11, 2001. Yet he knew then that he would join the effort to protect our nation from another attack. He is now exactly where he wants to be: protecting our country from further violence in a theater he absolutely believes enabled the events of Sept. 11.

To end the war in Afghanistan is, in a sense, to attempt to return us to a state preceding the Sept. 11 attacks. Do we know for sure that military action in Afghanistan has prevented another attack? Of course not. But we do know that the Taliban in Afghanistan did provide the means for the horrendous carnage of that day. The 2001 attacks changed our world. There is no turning back. Like it or not, Americans must be prepared for a long war if we mean to protect our peace and our way of life.

To use an analogy from medical practice, we are fighting a chronic disease -- one with little hope of eradication. Our goal must be to control the threat even if it cannot be eliminated. In many respects, our plight following Sept. 11 closely parallels the experience of Israel of the past 61 years, a continuing threat that is unlikely to go away.

So, how do we measure our success in Afghanistan? We measure success as the continuation of our American way of life, day by day, and as going one more day without an attack at home. It is incumbent upon our politicians, in particular the Obama administration, to articulate this clearly to the public. The president must provide leadership and not simply react to polls.

We know that many of the men and women serving in Afghanistan do so because of Sept. 11 -- a nearly universal personal response not unlike the national response to Pearl Harbor. While their role in this conflict is a source of great anxiety to their families, for whom a sniper's bullet, an improvised explosive device or a grenade could spell disaster at any moment, this anxiety is overwhelmed by the pride in individuals who sacrifice daily for a cause that most Americans take for granted. Each day that goes by quietly on American soil is our measure of their success in Afghanistan.
________________________

Resolve 9/11
John R. Houk
© September 7, 2009
__________________
What Constitutes Victory in Afghanistan
Kyle Nevins is director of floor operations for the House Republican whip. Joseph Nevins is the Barbara Levine professor of breast cancer genomics and director of the Center for Applied Genomics and Technology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
© Copyright 1996-2009 The Washington Post Company

US Envoy Holbrooke Walks Back Karzai Dust-up

For democracy to work in Afghanistan the heads of tribal families would have to unite and agree to binding decisions of the majority. Then the tribal heads would have to agree to cooperate with a U.S. supported Afghan government (that is wishfully lacking in corruption) to confront warlords that are not tribal leaders that fight to protect their drug business or are Islamic ideologues.

I suspect the problem that might crimp this thought would be some tribal families stretch across the Afghan/Pakistan border. Defeated or weakened warlords could simply find haven in the wild lands of Pakistan which the Pakistani government exerts little to no authority.

With these thoughts based on opinion more than on facts: read the Gary H. Johnson Jr. story on the corruption in the recent Afghan national election in which Karzai more than likely won a fraudulent election.

JRH 9/4/09

America is Only Partially the Blame

Below is a response to a Facebook buddy Scott Isaacs which I will also post below.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Scott I got to hand it to you. This article is indeed a great piece of writing. The information is extremely accurate.

However, I observe that your conclusions are slanted Left for placing the total blame on America for the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I do like the Nazi/Taliban metaphor though.

I have some thoughts as to a possible reason America did not step up to be a rebuilder of Afghanistan after the Soviet Communist departure.

Going back to the Nazi-Germany/Imperial-Japan scenario: Note that after those two lost WWII that the Soviet Union was officially one of the allies. The rebuilding of Germany really was only applicable to the Western portion occupied by the American and British forces. The "East Germany" occupied by the Soviet army did not receive comparable reconstruction. Also not at the end of WWII the Americans and Brits basically gave Eastern Europe over to Soviet hegemony as the spoil of war. Eastern Europe did not receive the same reconstruction as Western Europe.

The Soviet Union never declared war on Japan until defeat was imminent.
America looked the other way as the Soviets took control of Sakhalin Island; otherwise the Soviets showed little interest in a defeated Japan. America was free to reconstruct Japan into a democratic society.

I don’t believe there is an exact comparison of the reconstruction of the fallen axis powers to that of Soviet devastated Afghanistan.

Here is another thought.

America’s involvement in aiding Afghani tribal leaders eject the Soviets from Afghanistan probably gave a pretty good idea of the combination of greed from the petty (basically feudal) tribes and the Hanafi influenced Islam in the area. America had relatively left the Vietnam debacle that was the result of supporting a corrupt South Vietnamese government that alienated it citizens rather than inspire them to fight Communism. I would a good analysis of Afghanistan would be a risky political enterprise investing democratic principles in an area committed to either tribal/familial authority or Islam or both.

I agree that one huge failure was not protecting an asset like Massoud. Allowing his assassination was a grave mistake; however there was also no guarantee that Massoud would have developed into an Afghanistan unifier either. The best that could be hoped from Massoud would have been was a tool to keep the Taliban/Al Qaeda at bay. Investing in a full military-political support of Massoud could just as easily have been like supporting the corrupt South Vietnamese government.

My belief is that America made the correct decision in not getting directly involved in a post-Soviet reconstruction of Afghanistan and made a fatal error in not throwing covert military support to Massoud. If Massoud proved himself to be an able leader to offset the popularity that Taliban justice was perceived to be accomplishing.

One other thought about your reference about the Taliban not being corruptible to drug money from opium interests: If that is true it is more so because of the Taliban’s own opium production and less so because of the justice demanded by Hanafi Islamic teachings.

JRH 7/9/09

Missing Our Moment in Iran

Victor Davis Hanson analyzes President Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy. Basically Hanson senses that BHO is sending a wrong message to allies and enemies alike.

BHO’s lack of forthright condemnation of Mullah repression had all kinds of consequences. It may have emboldened the Mullahs to execute extreme prejudice on its own citizens. The lack of initial condemnation certainly will irritate and possibly extinguish continued backbone to Iranian protestors. Since no early condemnation proceeded, BHO failed to bank on serious real sanctions that might have been used against Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

Hanson goes on to excoriate BHO over inconsistencies with Israel’s Netanyahu, Afghanistan’s Karzai, Honduras’ expulsion of a Marxist President and so on.

Read Hanson’s essay:

JHR 7/3/09

Obama's Grand Strategy - Part 1

I just read a fascinating analysis of Dr. Richard M. Swier pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama’s global agenda. For a right winger Christian Right kind of guy as my self, Swier’s analysis is not a pretty one.

Dr. Swier believes BHO is leading America into dhimmitude by embracing elements of Sharia Compliant Finance and compartmentalizing global issues to obscure the international threat to Western society of Islam.

It is a good read. At SlantRight I will try to find definitions for difficult to understand terms in parentheses. This “Grand Strategy” could infect Western and/or American life via BHO’s agenda.

JRH 4/15/09 (Hat Tip Gary H. Johnson, Jr.)

The Brutal Reality about Islam

I almost hate to say the Theo-cult religion known to most as Islam (I often prefer Mohammedanism) is an inherently evil religion. The number one reason I hate to say this is because I know there are good and decent people who call themselves or identify on some level with Mohammedanism.

If there were not good people practicing Mohammedanism such websites as Muslims Against Sharia would not exist. I also realize there are Mohammedans that believe such notions that “Jihad” is all about the “Inner Struggle” more than make war on unbelievers to force them to be believers even if it means the Kafir’s death.

Nonetheless, even a brief cursory examination of writings considered holy to Mohammedans demonstrate this is not the case. Mohammed was an inherently violent man who liked his women (even if he had to force them) and encouraged his hoards of followers to war against the Kafir yet really the goal was to amass wealth and slaves (FIRST for Mohammed then for his followers).

Thus these “Inner Struggle” Mohammedans are not practicing the dominant tenets in their theo-political faith (Thank God!).

Places in the Middle East that PC Westerners might label practitioners of Mohammedanism as Radical Islam are actually closer to following the theo-political cult laid by Mohammed and carried by his Companions.

Saying that I came across a post on the social blogosphere known as VOX with the name Ben’s Blog. It is an awesome work of research that Politically Correct hide their eyes from and Mohammedan theologians DO NOT want readers to view. Hello CAIR and such American Muslim organizations that claim representation of American-Muslims yet support the radical Islamic terrorists and the theology of Saudi Wahhabis and Egyptian Ikhwan.

The peace is quite honest so I am certain some nitwit will call Ben a racist when in actuality he is a watchmen on the wall saying the enemy is at the gates. Check it out.

JRH 11/24/08
*************************

Why We Waste Blood & Treasure in Afganistan [sic]
Posted by Ben
Nov 24, 2008 at 2:11 AM
Ben’s Blog (Vox)

An important question was propounded in the Gathering Storm Newsletter. It happened in their Winston Churchill Golden Balls Award section from which I quote.

The Golden Balls Award goes each week to the most flagrant Appeaser or Apologist or those that outright lie that has done most to undermine our defense against Islamists. This weeks Golden Balls Award goes to: Hamid Karzai

Afghan leader pledges to protect Taliban from US

Mr Karzai said he would go "to any length" to protect Mullah Mohammad Omar, who has a $10 million price on his head from the US government.

He challenged his Western backers to leave the country or remove him if they disagreed.

"If I hear from him that he is willing to come to Afghanistan or to negotiate for peace... I, as the president of Afghanistan, will go to any length providing protection," Mr Karzai told a press conference.

"If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices - remove me or leave if they disagree," he said.

Tell me again why our troops are fighting and dying to keep this 'Mayor of Kabul' in power?

We are wasting blood & treasure in Afghanistan because our elected leaders are ignorant damned fools with neither knowledge, courage nor convictions. We sent an invasion force where we needed to send thermonuclear weapons.

The stated strategic objectives are absolute impossibilities; they can never be obtained by invasion.

Afghanistan; free & independent, democratic with:

· full human rights & liberties

· education

· prosperity

· not a haven for terrorists

· a state sponsor of terrorism.

Our elected leaders can not identify the enemy:

it ain't:

· Afghanistan

· Iraq

· Iran

· al-Qaeda.

it is:

· ISLAM

All worshipers of Allah; admirers & emulators of Muhammad, jointly and severally, wheresoever dispersed over the face of the earth, in all their Mosques, Madrassahs and Islamic Cultural Centers are the enemy.

The various wars ongoing in:

· Israel

· Lebanon

· Afghanistan

· Iraq

· Algeria

· Morocco

· Nigeria

· Kenya

· Somalia

· Sudan

· Indonesia

· Philippines

· Chechnia

are battlefronts in one war: Islam's global conquest of Kuffar. They are not separate, unrelated incidents. Our elected leaders are unaware of this fatal fact; unable to perceive the big picture because they have not read and comprehended Islam's canon of scripture, tradition and jurisprudence.

What our leaders don't know will cost us much treasure and, ultimately, our lives, liberties and culture. All will be lost because they are neglecting our defense. They don't know who the enemy is or why he is inimical. They don't know that this enemy can not be placated. It can not be appeased. It will not tire. It will not quit until it has conquered the entire world.

Muslims are not freemen; they are Allah's slaves, having sold their lives and their earthly prospects to Allah in return for admission to gardens flowing with rivers of wine & honey , with trees of low hanging fruit always in season and full breasted maidens who remain virgins no matter how often the Muslims sport with them. For that, the Muslims sold themselves, so that they fight, kill and are killed in Allah's cause. Our elected leaders are unaware of this fatal fact because they have not read Islam's canon of scripture. Go to 55:46 and 78:31 and read about the Paradise.

Al-Taubah 111 discusses the bargain between Allah and his slaves. Go now and read it. This is reinforced in As-Saff 10 -13, which explicitly sets Jihad as the price of admission to Paradise. Go read it. The gardens are mentioned often as a reward for those killed in Jihad. Why don't you believe me?

2:25

3:15

3:136

3:195

9:21

You think I'm a liar, taking things out of context, twisting, perverting, distorting or mis-interpreting? Then go to http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and search for gardens. Search for rivers while you're at it.

Why the war? Because Moe was a pirate, deriving his revenue from ghazwat. I must be a liar and a damned fool; Moe was a Prophet. Yeah, right. Which one of us has read the Qur'an & Hadith? Somebody does not know his subject, and it ain't me. I have something you do not have: proof.

Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

That ahadith has been Bowdlerized from other on line texts but it is still in some hard copies. Moe got his living by his spear. For the abasement & humility part, see 3:112 . But you need confirmation, don't you. I have it.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4327 :The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

Allah gave Moe special dispensation to accrue spoils. One hadith lists five special qualities that set Moe apart from other Prophets. One of them is relevant to this matter.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 : 3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

In another hadith collected by Bukhari, Moe brags about victory through terrorism and claims all the world's wealth for himself.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 :

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

How did Moe become wealthy?

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 :

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs."

How are the spoils to be allocated?

8:1 . They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger." So fear Allah and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.

8:41 . And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allah is Able to do all things.

In one ayeh, Allah specifies genocide as a prerequisite for ransoming captives and tells us explicitly what motivated Moe. Read it and curse Islam.

8:67 . It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Of course, as always, you require confirmation. I have it for you.

33:26 . And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27 . And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allah is Able to do all things.

What did Allah do to that Jewish settlement? What did Moe receive as a result?

Now you know the why, and you have a hint of what. I will now provide more explicit detail: Allah's open ended, outcome oriented, unlimited Jihad imperatives. Read them and curse Islam.

8:39 . And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29 . Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Al-Anfal 39 specifically refers to the pagans at Mekkah. But, unfortunately, it contains more general language. One of the compound terminal conditions is that only Allah be worshiped. Note the expression in brackets The translators got that from a tafsir. I have quoted the Hilali & Khan translation. Click the link I provided and read Abdullah Yusufali's translation.

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do

Al-Taubah 29 declares war upon anyone having a scriptural religion who does not convert to Islam. They are to be fought until they are subjugated and pay extortion. Click the link I provided and read Rodwell's translation.

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

But of course those are anachronisms, not applicable to modern times and conditions. Yeah, right. Moe had something to say about that, why won't you listen? I made the crucial clause bold red so you can spot it.

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad continues from 610 to Judgement Day! What is Jihad? Hilali & Khan define it in a footnote to 2:190 .

V. 2:190) Al-Jihad (holy fighting) ln Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbersand weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (onwhich it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, (HisWord belng La Haha illallah which means none has the right to be worshiped butAllah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allahprotect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferiorposition; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.

Jihad is an obligatory duty In Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escapefrom this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies withone of the qualities of a hypocrite.

Narrated Abdullah bin Masud I asked Allah's Messenger, 'O Allah's Messenger!
what is the best deed?' He replied, "To offer the Salat (prayers) at their early fixed stated times.' I asked, 'What is next ln goodness?" He replied, 'To be good and dutlful to your parents." I further asked, 'What is next in goodness?' He replied,'To participate in Jihad in Allaha's Cause.' I did not ask AIIAh's Messenger anymore and if l had asked him more. he would have told me more. (Sahi Al-Bukhari VoI.4. Hadith N¤.41).

Holy fighting in Allah's cause. With full force . Shariah: Islamic law, also defines Jihad. Refer to Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller . I have added links in the text to facilitate your research. .

Chapter O9.0: Jihad

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216 );
-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89 );
-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36 );

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it. ''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

How frequently must Jihad be performed? Paragraph one provides this detail for us, as regards fighting Kuffar in their home countries.

As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

In case that is not entirely clear, another quote from al-Shafi'i should clear it up for you, if not, you are too stupid to breathe, let alone read.

Al-Shafi'i (God have mercy on him) said: "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse." He said: "If he did not undertake the sending of enough troops to fight, those who are absent (must) go out, and consider as an obligation that which God (who is praised) said."

So, the Muslims are legally obligated by Allah's command & Moe's example, to make war on somebody every year. Who, exactly are they to do it to? For this, we turn to Book O9.8 & 9.9. Read it and curse Islam!

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshipers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshipers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya Shariah Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Why does the Caliph make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians? Because of Allah's divine command in Al-Taubah 29. Got a clue yet? Shariah is explicit; read O9.8 again! Why does the Caliph fight all other peoples? Could it be Al-Anfal 39?. Could it be Moe's declaration that he was ordered to fight the people?


Whoopee!! We're home free! Attaturk dissolved the Caliphate so they can't make war any more. Yeah, right.

O9.6

It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

The fools have one last refuge: mis-translation, mis-interpretation, out of context and ignoring peaceful verses. I have one resource which trumps those moronic assertions. Ibn Kathir spent his adult life studying the Qur'an & hadith. His tafsir is the most widely accepted exegeses of the Qur'an. In 3:7, Allah tells us that his book contains commands in clear verses.

3:7 . It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabarî).

Ibn Kathir tells us that those commands are to be believed and implemented.

The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented.

The titles which Ibn Kathir gave to some of his tafsir topics should give us pause. These tafsirs present the Arabic text, English translation, related ayat and hadith. Read them and comprehend the fact that Allah's damn book means exactly what it says in plain language.

· The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them

· The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

· The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah

· Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group

· Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad

· The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas

· The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr

· The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah


· The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites

· The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World

· The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book

· The Good News that Islam shall prevail

Remember the reference in Reliance to Moe's activities? His recitation & works are freely available for you to read at USC-MSA's Compendium of Islamic Texts. There are links to the Qur'an & Sunnah in the left side bar. Bukhari:

.Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)

.One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)

.Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)

Muslim:

.The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)

Abu Dawud:

.Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)

Malik's Muwatta:

.Jihad

Violent, hateful & antisemitic verses are scattered throughout the Qur'an, which is about one third of the Bible's length. Both the Qur'an and hadith contain considerable redundancy. These Surahs

8 AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)

9 AT-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION)

33 AL-AHZAB (THE CLANS, THE COALITION,THE COMBINED FORCES)

48 AL-FATH (VICTORY, CONQUEST)

61 AS-SAFF (THE RANKS, BATTLE ARRAY)

are required to develop a full comprehension of the Jihad imperative.

President Bush talks about the war of ideas, but he never identifies the ideas.

. Supremacism

. triumphalism

. tribalism

. literalism

. absolutism

and, most important, the mandate to conquer the entire world; those are the ideas we must fight. We must show the Ummah al-Islamiyya exactly who Moe was and what he did. They believe him to be the best and greatest of men, worthy of emulation. Most of them have not read the hadith. Reading and comprehending the Qur'an & hadith causes many Muslims to apostasize.

Read the Qur'an and understand that Muslims are required to obey Allah's commands and emulate Moe's example. Read the Hadith and understand that Moe committed genocide & terrorism. They can't get to Paradise and claim their Houris & wine until they convert or kill us. Do you comprehend what that means? Islam is eternal war. We must rid the earth of it.

The unlearned lessons of Vietnam:

· territory

· seize

· hold

· secure

· sanctuaries must be denied.

The unlearned lesson of Afghanistan & Iraq:

· break Allah's yoke of slavery

· induce mass apostasy

· kill the recidivists.

The unlearned lesson of Israel:

· allow no Muslims within rocket range.

Over simplified & brutal. Yes, it is, and vital. Anything less is a complete waste of blood and treasure; treason against the human race. See my recent blog post:
Victory: the Path to Peace .

This blog post is placed in the public domain for non-commercial use. Please copy, cross post and distribute it by email' send a link to your Congressman and Senators.

Political Tea Leaves in Afghanistan

America’s 2008 election for the Office of President may go down in American history as one of the dirtiest Democrats v. Republicans campaigns ever.

Did you know that one of the closest thing to a Mohammedan democracy is about to have a Presidential election as well. Afghanistan will be preparing for a 2009 Presidential election. Current President Hamid Karzai has indicated he will run for a second five year term.

It will be interesting if America will allow a free election that allows all that qualify to run in Afghanistan. The interest is that there is a strong Islamist influence from those that admire the Taliban.

The terrorist organization Hamas of the Palestine Authority government and their fiefdom in Gaza has proven that democratic elections do not mean democratic people are elected to Office. Hamas is a Jew/American hating murdering group that has the hearts and minds of the voters of Gaza.

That would indicate Gazan voters are in harmony with the death-cult version of radical Islamic terrorism.

If Afghanistan elects a person other than Karzai in Afghanistan and that person is an Islamist, it could be a big wrench in America’s effort in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Will the successes of Karzai in bettering the quality of life economically be enough to defeat a rival or an Islamist?

JRH 9/12/08
**********************************
Political Tea Leaves in Afghanistan

By Greg Bruno
Updated: September 11, 2008
Council on Foreign Relations

On most matters of social development, from health care to literacy, the United States and Afghanistan are worlds apart. But on presidential politics, the disparate democracies both find themselves enmeshed in prolonged electoral contests with potentially transformative results. A year before Afghans cast ballots for their president, voters, politicians, and analysts already are dissecting President Hamid Karzai's political record. And like the American contest, the race for Afghanistan's top office often is cast as a referendum on the country's future.

In five years as Afghanistan's first democratically elected president, analysts view Karzai's record as decidedly mixed. Afghan officials point to progress expanding citizens' access to health care, education, and a healthy growth in tax revenue. According to the International Monetary Fund's most recent figures, Afghanistan's gross domestic product (GDP) increased 8.2 percent between 2006 and 2007, to $7.7 billion (PDF). And in a new 2008 survey of the opium trade, the United Nations credited strong leadership (as well as bad weather) for a 19 percent decline in opium poppy cultivation from 2007. The majority of the heroin-derived crop is now confined to the country's southwestern provinces (PDF), where permanent Taliban settlements and organized crime rings remain active.

Karzai has vowed to build on these gains. In an interview with the Associated Press on August 19, Karzai confirmed he would seek reelection. Afghanistan's constitution allows for presidential candidates to run for two consecutive five-year terms (PDF); Karzai was elected to his first term in 2004 with 55 percent of the vote [*SlantRight: This is a cache link of the original]. But Karzai's mandate has not translated into unwavering support. An October 2007 opinion poll (PDF) by the Asia Foundation found that despite generally positive feelings about the direction of their country, the vast majority of Afghans felt the government cared little about the public's problems. Of late, Karzai has appeared intent on challenging those opinions by highlighting popular nationalist themes. Reacting to continued anger over errant U.S. air strikes, including an August 22 strike in Herat that may have killed dozens of children (Reuters)—the Pentagon disputes the death toll—Karzai fired two senior Afghan army officers for "negligence" (al-Jazeera). Karzai's government has also called for a status of forces agreement to govern the presence of U.S. and NATO troops (Guardian).

Some aspects of Afghanistan's troubles are beyond Karzai's control. Resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda elements have regrouped in neighboring Pakistan, and the lawless border region has become a staging ground for the planning and execution of attacks in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials are unwilling or unable to reign in the militants, according to an investigation by the New York Times' Dexter Filkins. To fill the void President Bush has said he will increase the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in coming months, and has called for a massive increase in the size of the Afghan National Army. U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, meanwhile, told House lawmakers on September 10 that he is commissioning a strategy overhaul for the Afghan war effort, one that covers both sides of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. "I'm not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan; I am convinced we can" (Stars and Stripes), he said.

But the help can't arrive soon enough for critics and potential challengers, who see many reasons to dump Karzai. They cite a surge in insurgent violence (CDI), drug-related corruption (NYT), and high poverty rates among them. Former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik with roots in the Soviet-era insurgency whose 1996 ouster cleared the way for the Taliban's rise, called Karzai's tenure "a great tragedy" (Bloomberg). Rabbani says Afghans are "looking for a change," and opposition candidates are already stepping forward to offer it.

One announced candidate is former Attorney General Abdul Jabbar Sabit, an anti-corruption crusader, whom Karzai tossed from office a day after announcing plans to run (Pajhwok). (Karzai claimed Sabit's presidential bid was illegal). A host of other current and former Afghan politicians have also announced or appear poised to do so, according to a list of "contenders" compiled by the Afghan news website Quqnoos. Other names cited among Afghan political analysts as possible contenders include former Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad (though neither man has announced plans to run).

Whether Afghanistan will see a strong opposition ticket, or even hold free and fair elections, is another matter. But as some U.S.-based Afghan experts see it, elections won't solve Afghanistan's problems. Seth G. Jones of the RAND Corporation says Karzai remains the most popular politician in a war-ravaged country, is Pashtun, and owns broad multiethnic support. "In other words," Jones writes in Foreign Policy, "Karzai is still the best game in town."
_______________________________________________

Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.

Is Pakistan Shifting to Radical Islam?

I just this headline from the Long War Journal: Pakistan signs peace accord in Orakzai tribal agency.

What is in a name? Well when you read Orakzai tribal agency, you might as well be reading Mohammedan tribes in Pakistan that support or are part of the Taliban. Yep, that is the same Taliban that hosted Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Yep, that is the same al Qaeda responsible for a radical Islamic attack on American soil that killed and injured thousands of American citizens.

I don’t know the appearance you view in this peace accord; however I see Pakistan creating a wider gulf for al Qaeda and the Taliban to cross the Afghan/Pakistan border to shoot at American troops, terrorize anti-Taliban Sheiks and propagandize Afghan citizens to join the Taliban/al Qaeda cause. Add to this that Pakistan has let America know that it will not allow military strikes within Pakistan boarders targeting the enemy responsible for the murder of thousands of non-military American citizens.

I see this as the Pakistan government either caving in to the designs of the theo-political radical Islam of the Taliban and al Qaeda or covertly (i.e. unofficially) beginning to side with the radical Islamic agenda.

Either way Americans have to understand a Mohammedan nation with nuclear WMD is in one way or another allowing or joining the Taliban/al Qaeda murdering transnational terrorist circle.

This makes handling Iran’s arrogant hubris vital to deal with. An American supported Israeli strike on Iran should occur. See how Iran responds: If Iran truly does what it has claimed it would; then bomb the military infrastructure out of existence. If Iran backs down, then pursue with great clarity the dismantling of Iran’s nuke program.

This will signal the Pakistan government the seriousness of America’s commitment to terminate terrorists in foreign lands thus swaying the anti-radical Islamic elements in their government to overshadow the pro-radical Islamic elements.

JRH 7/21/08

Pakistan says US not hunting bin Laden on its turf

Hmm … Does this sound like Pakistan is protecting al Qaeda and the Taliban – very enemies of America in the Global War on Terrorism?

JRH 7/13/08

Patraeus to Command CentCom

General David Patraeus is being promoted from Baghdad Command to Central Command in the Middle East.

This is happening after Admiral Fallon abruptly resigned the CentCom position in March over strategy disagreement with the Bush Administration. Fallon opposed “The Surge” while Bush and Patraeus agreed it was a need. Patraeus obviously won out and it looks like he is taking the old bosses job.

With “The Surge” being way more successful than its opponents could ever have imagined; speculation must begin to arise as to the position of CentCom Commander for Patraeus. This is so particularly because of all the saber rattling from Iran and the promise of retaliation even from Democratic candidate Hillary.

Iran is supplying terrorist enemies of America and America’s ally Israel. Is the Bush Administration planning some kind of strike on Iran? It is just something to think about.

JRH 4/23/08

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be Added to America’s Terrorist List

The publicity of Iran’s nuclear ambitions seem to fade in the American press as the November 2008 elections creep slowly nearer; yet the repercussions of a nuclear armed Iran is increasingly growing as a global threat. The global threat is NOT because America is in Iraq attempting to create a stable government. Nay good friends, the global threat is because Iran’s government is under a leadership that looks for global chaos due to the religious expectations of Radical Shi’ites belief that the Twelfth (Lost) Imam will be the Mahdi. These radical Shi’ites expect this Mahdi to make the Earth Mohammedan in its entirety.

All the politics of a U.S. occupation of Iraq is the propaganda that these Shi’ite Twelvers revel in with this Mahdi expectation. (The Wahhabi Sunnis have their own reasons of American hatred that are similar yet very different.)

This radical Shi’ite mindset is why it is so globally dangerous for Iran to become a nation in possession of nuclear weapons. There would be no geo-political restraint of the old Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory preventing nuclear powers from engaging in a nuclear war. Iran would push the warhead launch buttons merely to enable chaos in a deluded realization of the Mahdi.

International diplomacy crawls at a snails pace. The Ayatollahs of Iran are using the political management of Twelver disciple President Ahmadinejad to surge Iran into the possession of nuke WMD’s. Ahmadinejad has taken full advantage of Western style diplomacy to move their program along without interruption. The West talks while Iran walks toward the WMD dream.

Iran has successfully tied up America in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) in Afghanistan by being a weapons supplier and terrorist trainer. The vehicle Iran has utilized for tying the American military (essentially killing our military boys clandestinely) is the Revolutionary Guard. The Revolutionary Guard is essentially Iran’s extra-military force outside its regular Military that is at the trusted bidding of the Ayatollahs. The Revolutionary Guard has its origins in the lack of trust in a U.S. trained Iranian Military under the rule of deposed Shah, an extremely loyal ally of America dumped for his repression of Iranians by screw-up President Carter. Thus Iran exchanged the repression of the Shah for the repression of the Khomeini Revolution. The exchange of repression for repression did not help the plight of Iranians and this is why Carter is a screw-up, especially in the realm of Middle Eastern diplomacy.

U.N. Sanctions have been highly ineffective in slowing down Iran’s nuclear process because Russia and China’s support of Iran. Russia’s distaste for America probably arises from jealously from taken down a notch by America’s overwhelming the former Communist Soviet Union. China’s support of Iran is due to a National Interest connection due to the obvious – oil.

The EU has attempted talks with Iran but that is part of the stall agenda of Ahmadinejad, in other words a failure.

America has ratcheted its own sanctions to a much higher degree than the U.N. on Iran yet having little effect on Iran’s nuclear expansion. President Bush has upped the ante on sanctions by preparing to place the Revolutionary Guard on America’s Terrorist list. This will make it tougher for American Corporations or foreign Corporations that come under the jurisdiction of American law to deal with Iran. It will allow Iranian assets related to the Revolutionary Guards to be frozen as well.

Do I think this will slow down Iran’s nuclear program? Nope. However I do think it will annoy Iran that they may make a move that may expose publicly what Western governments already know clandestinely; viz. that Iran is way more dangerous to global peace than the official Appeasement line of the West is willing to admit to their constituent public or the Left dominated deluded pro-Arab and pro-oil-Iran loving media are willing to admit.