The Rapidly Changing Middle East:
Implications for Israel in the New Year
with featured speaker
Major Elliot Chodoff
Political and Military Analyst;
Major (Res) - Israeli Defense Forces
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM
Agudath Achim Synagogue
9 Lee Boulevard
Savannah, GA 31405
Kindly respond by Tuesday, January 24th
For additional information, please contact:
Kate Sommers, AIPAC's Southern States Area Director
at (770) 541-7610 or ksommers@aipac.org
The state of Israel faces many serious challenges in 2012. The Iranian regime continues its quest for nuclear weapons, Hezbollah has taken control of Lebanon and has tripled its arsenal of missiles and Hamas continues its attempts to target Israeli soldiers and civilians. Moreover the consequences of the regime changes in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and other nations may impact the region for generations. Please join us to learn more about the recent developments in the Middle East, the state of the U.S. - Israel relationship, a discussion of the dangers to stability and peace in the Middle East as well as what the pro-Israel community is doing to face these challenges.
About our speaker
Major Elliot Chodoff
Elliot Chodoff is a political and military analyst specializing in the Middle East conflict and the global war on terrorists.
He has presented and published papers on the subjects of Deterrence and US Military Manpower Policy, Cultural Relativism and Nuclear Deterrence Policy in the Middle East, Israel's Changing Defense Posture Following the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, and Terrorists’ Use of Modern Information Technology. His paper on Combat Motivation and Effectiveness in Infantry Units has been on the recommended reading list at the US Army War College. Elliot is the founding and senior editor of MidEast: On Target, an e-journal and newsletter.
Elliot is a major in the IDF reserves and is a graduate of the Home Front Command Senior Commanders Course. He presently serves as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Population for the Northern Region of Israel in Home Front Command. In that capacity, he served on active duty in the North for five weeks during the Lebanon War of 2006. He also served in Gush Katif during the Gaza Disengagement in the summer of 2005 and in 2004 he was a member of the rescue team in the aftermath of the bombing of the Taba Hilton. In addition, he is an expert in infantry weapons and tactics, and teaches courses in field craft and small unit tactics to infantry and paratroop officers. He was selected for the IDF Home Front Command Outstanding Officer Award in 2006.
An educator for over 25 years, Elliot has lectured to a wide range of audiences and programs in Israel and abroad. He teaches and lectures on the topics of the Middle East Conflict; Terrorism and Responses; Military
Thought and Strategy; The Military Aspects of International Conflict; Arab-Israeli Relations; the Sociology of Modern Israel and the History of Zionism.
---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The press, media and Romney (See 1,1a and 1b below.)
---Iran and The Straits of Hormuz. Does Iran actually have both a tactical and strategic advantage?(See 2 below.)
---
Do not doubt The Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Romney-Obama: No Popularity Contest
QUACK LOGIC?
Marriage changes passion.Suddenly you're in bed with a relative.
Now that food has replaced sex in my life, I can't even get into my own pants.
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and over fifty for Miss America ?
Why do I have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed outside?
By NATE SILVERIf Mitt Romney becomes the Republican presidential nominee, he will begin the general-election campaign with middling favorability ratings as compared with other recent standard-bearers.The saving graces for Mr. Romney: the incumbent in the White House is not very popular, either. And Mr. Romney’s favorability ratings, while mediocre, are better than those of his Republican opponents.A CNN poll released Friday found that 43 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Mr. Romney and 42 percent an unfavorable view. Both ratings are higher than in most other recent polls as Mr. Romney has become a more familiar figure to Americans and as they have come to take firmer opinions of him. However, the pattern of Mr. Romney’s favorability rating roughly equaling his unfavorability rating is typical for him.Mr. Obama’s ratings in the poll were 49 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable. These numbers are also common for him. In most surveys, Mr. Obama’s favorability ratings are slightly stronger than his approval ratings — Americans take a somewhat more sympathetic view of Mr. Obama personally than of his policies. But they are still no better than evenly divided.In contrast to Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, other recent nominees had clearly net-positive favorability ratings at this stage of the campaign.In 2008, for instance, Mr. Obama’s favorability rating averaged 57 percent and his unfavorability rating 31 percent, according to an average of surveys in the PollingReport.com database in the month after the New Hampshire primary. The ratings for Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain, were similar, averaging 54 percent favorable and 31 percent unfavorable.George W. Bush, in 2000, and John Kerry, in 2004, also had positive ratings at this stage of the campaign. Mr. Bush’s unfavorables had climbed by the time he ran for re-election in 2004, and Al Gore’s were not terrific in 2000, but they were still in positive territory over all, unlike what we now see for Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney.In a perfect world, of course, Republicans might prefer to nominate someone of whom the American public had a clearly positive view. But it is not apparent just who that might be. Some of Mr. Romney’s opponents have highly negative favorability ratings. Newt Gingrich, for instance, had a favorability rating of 28 percent against an unfavorability rating of 56 percent in the CNN poll, while views of Rick Perry were 27 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable.There is little academic research on favorability ratings for presidential candidates and how meaningful they might be in predicting election outcomes. To some extent, the middling ratings for Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney probably reflect the difficult environment for politicians of all kinds.Still, it is probably worth watching how Mr. Romney’s favorably ratings evolve as he undergoes a torrent of attacks from his Republican opponents. The attacks could presage what is likely to be one of the nastiest and most negative general election campaigns ever.
1a)Let Romney be RomneyThis week the pundits rightly observed for the umpteenth time that Mitt Romney doesn’t have much of that charisma many think is an essential part of politics. He will never be emotionally bonded to voters in the way presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were. He’s smart. He’s polite. But small talk with average voters isn’t his strong suit. If he were your neighbor you might have trouble keeping up a conversation about trivial matters, but he’d be there if your power went out. And he’d have a neatly typed (maybe laminated) list of the best plumber, electrician, etc., in the area. That said, he is also the guy who gives money out of his pocketto a stranger in need.But so what if he is sort of stiff and very 1950s in vocabulary and manner? These are not the greatest personal shortcomings in modern society. What’s more, look at who he’s running against now and who he’d face in the general election. Newt Gingrich has distinguished himself by his recklessness and obnoxiousness. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is not exactly trying to win voters over by charm. And Rick Santorum is, along with Romney, a candidate who thrives on the power of his argument and policies. (In fact, his challenge in debates has been in reigning in his intense personality so as not to appear angry.) Where is the great people person who is going to win over voters by being more likeable than he?In the general election it sure won’t be President Obama. It took a while for the press to get over its infatuation with the president. But soon mainstream journalists started using terms such as “robotic,” “reserved,” and “emotionally remote” to describe the fellow with two Ivy League degrees and a 37 bowling average. He is not Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. He’s not the average American.To relate to ordinary Americans, Obama of late has taken to fiery rhetoric and yelling. He hopped on his jumbo, taxpayer-financed bus and went out to meet ordinary voters. He started these campaign — oops! — entirely government-related trips to critical electoral states by calling everyone “folks” (Is that what he and the missus called their Hyde Park neighbors?). And pretty soon you’re hearin’ a lot of droppin’ of g’s to make him sound like he’s relatin’ to us, ya know? But then he gets mad.No more “superior temperament” (meaning cool and calm, eerily rational). Soon he’s yelling at Wall Street, bashing the rich, and clubbing the Washington establishment (which I find hilarious coming from the U.S. president.).This is connecting with the American people? Whatever star quality voters saw in him in 2008 has plainly vanished. What is left is someone alternately impatient (with Congress and the unappreciative public), thin-skinned and hugely egotistical (the fourth best president?!). If voters must swoon and fall under your spell to win the White House, Obama is every bit as challenged as Romney. If warmth is a requirement for the Oval Office, he better start on the Obama presidential library plans. (Good grief, will it be a replica of the Temple of Zeus?)Moreover, maybe voters aren’t in the mood for the phony intimacy of politicians. They’ve gotten more cynical, not so touched by biting-the-lower-lip politicians who tout their humble origins. They want answers. They want competence. They want a feasible game plan for diverting the country from the path to fiscal ruin. They want someone who is going to do more and talk less. (In this regard Santorum is very smart to emphasize what he has done so as to assure voters he can deliver in the future.)
1a)Rivals Warn Romney Would Be a Weak GOP NomineeBy Beth Fouhy
Mitt Romney's record at a private equity firm and his advocacy of a health insurance mandate while Massachusetts governor would hobble him as the GOP presidential nominee, several rivals said Sunday, hoping to slow the front-runner's momentum before the South Carolina primary.
But Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich all said Romney continued to benefit from the fractured GOP field and the failure of social conservatives to fully coalesce around a single alternative.
Gingrich acknowledged that if Romney won Saturday's contest, it would give him an "enormous advantage" going forward after back-to-back victories in New Hampshire and Iowa. Gingrich said he would "certainly have to reassess" his own candidacy unless he captured South Carolina.
The state's senior senator said a Romney victory probably would wrap up the nomination. "I think it should be over," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "I'd hope the party would rally around him," he told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Romney took a rare day off from campaigning while his opponents focused on the South Carolina coast. They also attended church services and prayer breakfasts in a state with a large population of evangelicals and other conservative Christians.
At the Cathedral of Praise in North Charleston, Gingrich was cheered by church members as he criticized activist judges who he said had made "anti-American" rulings to keep God out of schools. Santorum spoke at the same church Saturday.
At a prayer breakfast in Myrtle Beach, Perry appealed to religious conservatives to back his candidacy.
"Who will see the job of president as that of faithful servant to the American people, and the God who created us?" Perry said. "I hope each of you will peer into your heart and look for that individual with the record and the values that represent your heart."
The candidates faced a packed week of campaign events and nationally televised debates Monday and Thursday before the first-in-the-South primary. No Republican has won the party's presidential nomination without carrying South Carolina, and polls show Romney leading in the state.
Santorum, who won the endorsement of an influential group of social conservatives and evangelical leaders Saturday in Texas, said it was imperative for the field to shrink if conservatives had any chance of slowing Romney.
"We feel like once this field narrows and we get it down to a two-person race, we have an excellent opportunity to win this race," the former Pennsylvania senator told "Fox News Sunday,"
Santorum battled Romney to a virtual tie in Iowa before falling to fifth place in New Hampshire.
Added Gingrich: "I think the only way that a Massachusetts moderate can get through South Carolina is if the vote is split."
Gingrich, a former House speaker, and Perry, the Texas governor, fared poorly in both states but are continuing to compete with Santorum for the support of social and religious conservatives.
All three have the backing of well-financed independent groups known as super political action committee that can help keep their candidacies afloat.
Santorum refused to suggest anyone should drop out of the race as a way to consolidate conservative support behind an anti-Romney candidate. But he said Republicans would have a hard time beating President Barack Obama in November if Romney were the nominee. Santorum cited Romney's push for mandatory insurance coverage in Massachusetts.
1b) I don’t think Romney’s problem is that he isn’t warm or tuned in to ordinary Americans. He’s going to have much bigger issues first fending off an invigorated Santorum and, if he becomes the nominee, combating the nonstop attacks warning that he will “end Medicare,” starve the poor and cut government “to the bone” (if only). Frankly, being stiff and a polite 1950s TV dad type might help work against the effort to paint him as a heartless businessman or a dastardly Republican determined to force grandma to choose between food and medicine. The left makes the mistake of painting him as personally uncaring and the right underestimates the degree to which voters are fed up with cloying politicians.
"Romney's plan, as much as he'd like to say it's not, was the basis of Obamacare," Santorum said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"For us to give away that issue with Gov. Romney would be a case, in my opinion, of malpractice on the part of the primary voters in the states to come."
Gingrich and Perry used television interviews to focus on Romney's former leadership of the Bain Capital venture firm. Both defended raising questions about Bain's business practices, saying Romney's tenure would come under relentless assault from Democrats in the general election.
Romney's campaign claims he helped create more than 100,000 jobs while heading up Bain. But the campaign cites success stories without laying out the other side — jobs lost at Bain-acquired or Bain-supported firms that closed, trimmed their workforce or shifted employment overseas.
Gingrich said questions about Bain were fair game since Romney has made his experience in the business world the chief selling point for his candidacy.
"It's fair to raise the questions now, get them out of the way now to make sure that whoever we nominate is clear enough, public enough, accountable enough that they can withstand the Obama onslaught," Gingrich said.
Gingrich was pressed to defend a film highly critical of Bain that is being aired by super PAC backing his candidacy. Gingrich said he wanted any inaccuracies edited out but refused to call on the film to be taken down.
Gingrich also said he planned to release his tax returns this week and called on Romney, who had refused to do so, to follow suit.
"He'll never get through the fall without releasing his records," Gingrich said, insisting the country "deserves accountability and ... transparency."
Perry suggested Obama's team was eager to attack Romney over his Bain tenure. That was a point Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod confirmed.
"If this is a fatal flaw we need to be talking about it now, not talking about it in September and October," Perry said.
"The issue is not going to go away and it's not like we've cracked an egg open here for the first time," Perry said.
Axelrod portrayed a campaign against Romney as a debate over values and the needs of the middle class.
"Is that the economic vision for this country — outsourcing, off-shoring, stripping down companies, lowering wages, lowering benefits? I don't think that's the future for this country," Axelrod told CNN.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman picked up the endorsement of The State, one of South Carolina's leading newspaper. Huntsman came in a weak third in New Hampshire after skipping Iowa, but the paper described him as a "realist" able to appeal to the centrist voters who will decide the general election.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul was returning to campaigning for the first time since Wednesday. He has spent several days at home in Texas after his second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary last week. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Could Iran Close the Strait?
By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen
During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the United States "reflagged" a number of Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the narrow and dangerous Strait of Hormuz. The confidence inspired by that action encouraged other tankers to make the trip, and the U.S. Navy was the guarantor of millions of barrels of oil. Today the question of security for tankers in the Strait arises again, with Iran threatening to block the waterway. How might Iran accomplish this, and what resources could the U.S. bring to counter what would be understood internationally as an act of war? (The Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran in May 1967 was the act of war to which Israel responded in June -- the Six-Day War.)Iran-watchers lean heavily on the argument that Iran will not mine or otherwise damage the Strait because then Iranian oil won't be able to pass through either. They posit that the Iranians are unlikely to take an approach that costs them oil revenue, particularly now. But there is another possibility -- Iran can pose a threat notto the physical passageway, but to passing tankers and their crews. And the United States Navy is not in a position to protect them. Under that circumstance, Iranian ships could pass, but the ships of other Gulf countries could be deterred/dissuaded from trying. The result would make Iranian oil more valuable as others withheld their supplies.Iran could be in the catbird seat while Western navies, including the U.S. Navy, are at a considerable disadvantage even with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.Over the past decade Iran has built up a naval capability that, while not "heavy" in terms of firepower, is nonetheless stealthy and dangerous. The stealthy part comes from Iran's submarine fleet, divided into two classes -- Kilo-class diesel electric submarines from Russia, and home-built mini submarines based on a North Korean/former-Yugoslavian design.The U.S. Navy is one of the few submarine-equipped navies in the world that does not have diesel electric subs; all U.S. submarines are nuclear-powered. Nuclear-powered submarines are larger than conventional diesel electrics and can go farther, which is normally a plus for American forces. But the Persian Gulf is not that big, and nuclear submarines don't have any natural advantage over diesels in this case. Diesels can be, and are, pretty quiet when operating only on batteries, so tracking them is a challenge.Iran has four Kilo submarines and seventeen mini-submarines known as the Ghadir. Ghadirs are said to be equipped with a super-cavitation torpedo called the Hoot (or Whale), based on or a copy of the Russian Shkval (VA-111) torpedo. These torpedoes are at least three times faster than conventional ones. No oil tanker could evade them, and this type of torpedo also poses a threat to military ships. Ghadirs, especially if all of them are deployed, may not be easy to find. Until the threat is eliminated, oil tankers will stay away.
Adding to the problem is a large number of smaller, fast ships such as the ten Houdong-class patrol boats, or the 12 Sina class missile boats. These ships carry C-802 sea-launched anti-ship missiles and 30mm canons. They are fast-moving, and many of them can be used together in a fight against a larger ship. This is a phenomenon known to naval experts as "swarming boats."
For some time now experts have been worried about the possibility of light, fast "swarming boats" stuffed with explosives in suicide attacks, overwhelming an adversary and attacking from multiple angles. A suicide attack would be nearly impossible to stop because the firepower on most NATO ships is insufficient to knock the swarming boats out of the water. But a swarming attack that combined light fast boats stuffed with high explosives with fast missile boats is a threat to even large American and NATO warships, including aircraft carriers.
And, while there has been a lot of talk on the subject, not much has been done either tactically or technologically to offset the threat. In fact, the lack of firepower on U.S. ships is a very real concern in the context of protecting critical shipping lanes, especially the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite intelligence and warnings, the latest U.S. naval vessel, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), is equipped to do just about anything except combat. Equipped with an undersized, unproven short-range gun and a few missiles, the LCS is outclassed by its Iranian adversary. It is a good thing that the LCS is not ready for prime time and won't play any role in the current crisis.
For the U.S. to respond under current conditions and protect shipping lanes, it needs a lot of help from the allies in Europe, who -- despite a generally lagging ability to contribute military capabilities to a situation -- have firepower appropriate for this problem in the form of modern frigates, corvettes, and missile boats; mine-hunting ships; and plenty of good helicopters. The allies have good submarine assets (Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy) and have long played a role in protecting sea lines of communication in the Mediterranean.
If the Iranian threat materializes, it is extremely important to assure full cooperation from NATO in order to keep the Strait open. This requires pre-planning and coordination, but in light of the fact that our European friends are more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than is the United States, there is reason to believe that cooperation will be forthcoming.
If, in the end, Iran does try to prevent oil tankers from transiting the Strait, and if in the end the U.S. is unable to offer direct protection to ships that desire transit, there are other ways to force Iran to desist.It would likely be ugly, and it is not to be desired, but Iran and Iran-watchers would be foolish indeed to doubt America's retaliatory capability after an act of war.
Dr. Stephen Bryen, president of SDB Partners, LLC, was deputy undersecretary of defense and the first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration.Shoshana Bryen is senior director of the Jewish Policy Center and has more than 30 years experience as a defense policy analyst.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of World' as Ultimate Goal
By Raymond Ibrahim
Share
Although many Muslim leaders openly articulate their efforts as part of a larger picture—one that culminates in the resurrection of a caliphate adversarial by nature to all things non-Muslim—many Western leaders see only the moment, either out of context or, worse, in a false context built atop wishful thinking.
Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose long-term purpose is reflected in the word "prepare" appearing in their motto.
Among other things, this myopia causes virtually all Western politicians to overlook long-term threats and focus exclusively on violence and terror, the tangible and temporal—those things that may coincide with their tenure.
This narrow-sighted approach sometimes leads to absurdities, such as when Homeland Defense's Paul Stockton, being questioned by Dan Lungren at a recent hearing, refused to agree that al-Qaeda "is acting out violent Islamist extremism," insisting instead that the group merely consists of "murderers." In doing so, he divorced reality from any meaningful context, thereby living up to the Obama doctrine of not knowing your enemy.
Of course, all Islamists have the same goal: the establishment of a sharia-enforcing caliphate. The only difference is that most are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion—step by step, phase by phase, decade after decade—are much more effective for securing their goals than outright violence. Then, once in power, "they will become much more savage."
Accordingly, thanks to the so-called "Arab spring" and its Western supporters, more and more clerics feel they are nearing their ultimate goal of resurrecting the caliphate, the capital of which is to be Jerusalem. This sheikh, for instance, recently boasted that the caliphate will soon be restored and the West will pay jizya—tribute and submission, via Koran 9:29—"or else we will bring the sword to your necks!" So too this sheikh, citing infidel Germany as an example. And of course calls for jizya from Egypt's Christian Copts are growing by the day.
Now, consider the clear, unequivocal words of Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Al Masry Al Youm (as translated by Coptic Solidarity):
Dr. Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: "The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system [based on Islamic sharia], with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world." Badi added in his weekly message yesterday [12/29/11]: "When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life." The leader of the Brotherhood continued: "The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world" [emphasis added].
Even so, it matters not how often and openly Islamic leaders like Badi articulate their grand agenda for the world to hear. Western leaders have their intellectual blinders shut so tight, frozen before the word "democracy"—even if "Arab spring" people-power leads to fascism (which, after all, will be someone else's problem after they leave office).
Thus, here is former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, who not only is "very pleased" with Egyptian elections—despite widespread allegations of voter-fraud against the Muslim Brotherhood—but, when asked if the U.S. should be concerned about the Islamist victory, said "I don't have any problem with that,and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."
Accordingly, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its offshoots can rest assured that, so long as they do not engage in direct terrorism, they can continue unfettered on their decades-long march to resurrecting the caliphate, which—if history and doctrine are any indicators—will, in its attempt to claim "mastership of the world," be a global menace.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The press, media and Romney (See 1,1a and 1b below.)
---
Iran and The Straits of Hormuz. Does Iran actually have both a tactical and strategic advantage?(See 2 below.)
---
Do not doubt The Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)
---
Do not doubt The Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)
Romney-Obama: No Popularity Contest
QUACK LOGIC?Marriage changes passion.
Suddenly you're in bed with a relative.
Now that food has replaced sex in my life, I can't even get into my own pants.
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and over fifty for Miss America ?
Why do I have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed outside?
By NATE SILVER
If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican presidential nominee, he will begin the general-election campaign with middling favorability ratings as compared with other recent standard-bearers.
The saving graces for Mr. Romney: the incumbent in the White House is not very popular, either. And Mr. Romney’s favorability ratings, while mediocre, are better than those of his Republican opponents.
A CNN poll released Friday found that 43 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Mr. Romney and 42 percent an unfavorable view. Both ratings are higher than in most other recent polls as Mr. Romney has become a more familiar figure to Americans and as they have come to take firmer opinions of him. However, the pattern of Mr. Romney’s favorability rating roughly equaling his unfavorability rating is typical for him.
Mr. Obama’s ratings in the poll were 49 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable. These numbers are also common for him. In most surveys, Mr. Obama’s favorability ratings are slightly stronger than his approval ratings — Americans take a somewhat more sympathetic view of Mr. Obama personally than of his policies. But they are still no better than evenly divided.
In contrast to Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, other recent nominees had clearly net-positive favorability ratings at this stage of the campaign.
In 2008, for instance, Mr. Obama’s favorability rating averaged 57 percent and his unfavorability rating 31 percent, according to an average of surveys in the PollingReport.com database in the month after the New Hampshire primary. The ratings for Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain, were similar, averaging 54 percent favorable and 31 percent unfavorable.
George W. Bush, in 2000, and John Kerry, in 2004, also had positive ratings at this stage of the campaign. Mr. Bush’s unfavorables had climbed by the time he ran for re-election in 2004, and Al Gore’s were not terrific in 2000, but they were still in positive territory over all, unlike what we now see for Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney.
In a perfect world, of course, Republicans might prefer to nominate someone of whom the American public had a clearly positive view. But it is not apparent just who that might be. Some of Mr. Romney’s opponents have highly negative favorability ratings. Newt Gingrich, for instance, had a favorability rating of 28 percent against an unfavorability rating of 56 percent in the CNN poll, while views of Rick Perry were 27 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable.
There is little academic research on favorability ratings for presidential candidates and how meaningful they might be in predicting election outcomes. To some extent, the middling ratings for Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney probably reflect the difficult environment for politicians of all kinds.
Still, it is probably worth watching how Mr. Romney’s favorably ratings evolve as he undergoes a torrent of attacks from his Republican opponents. The attacks could presage what is likely to be one of the nastiest and most negative general election campaigns ever.
1a)Let Romney be Romney
This week the pundits rightly observed for the umpteenth time that Mitt Romney doesn’t have much of that charisma many think is an essential part of politics. He will never be emotionally bonded to voters in the way presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were. He’s smart. He’s polite. But small talk with average voters isn’t his strong suit. If he were your neighbor you might have trouble keeping up a conversation about trivial matters, but he’d be there if your power went out. And he’d have a neatly typed (maybe laminated) list of the best plumber, electrician, etc., in the area. That said, he is also the guy who gives money out of his pocketto a stranger in need.
But so what if he is sort of stiff and very 1950s in vocabulary and manner? These are not the greatest personal shortcomings in modern society. What’s more, look at who he’s running against now and who he’d face in the general election. Newt Gingrich has distinguished himself by his recklessness and obnoxiousness. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is not exactly trying to win voters over by charm. And Rick Santorum is, along with Romney, a candidate who thrives on the power of his argument and policies. (In fact, his challenge in debates has been in reigning in his intense personality so as not to appear angry.) Where is the great people person who is going to win over voters by being more likeable than he?
In the general election it sure won’t be President Obama. It took a while for the press to get over its infatuation with the president. But soon mainstream journalists started using terms such as “robotic,” “reserved,” and “emotionally remote” to describe the fellow with two Ivy League degrees and a 37 bowling average. He is not Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. He’s not the average American.
To relate to ordinary Americans, Obama of late has taken to fiery rhetoric and yelling. He hopped on his jumbo, taxpayer-financed bus and went out to meet ordinary voters. He started these campaign — oops! — entirely government-related trips to critical electoral states by calling everyone “folks” (Is that what he and the missus called their Hyde Park neighbors?). And pretty soon you’re hearin’ a lot of droppin’ of g’s to make him sound like he’s relatin’ to us, ya know? But then he gets mad.
No more “superior temperament” (meaning cool and calm, eerily rational). Soon he’s yelling at Wall Street, bashing the rich, and clubbing the Washington establishment (which I find hilarious coming from the U.S. president.).
This is connecting with the American people? Whatever star quality voters saw in him in 2008 has plainly vanished. What is left is someone alternately impatient (with Congress and the unappreciative public), thin-skinned and hugely egotistical (the fourth best president?!). If voters must swoon and fall under your spell to win the White House, Obama is every bit as challenged as Romney. If warmth is a requirement for the Oval Office, he better start on the Obama presidential library plans. (Good grief, will it be a replica of the Temple of Zeus?)
Moreover, maybe voters aren’t in the mood for the phony intimacy of politicians. They’ve gotten more cynical, not so touched by biting-the-lower-lip politicians who tout their humble origins. They want answers. They want competence. They want a feasible game plan for diverting the country from the path to fiscal ruin. They want someone who is going to do more and talk less. (In this regard Santorum is very smart to emphasize what he has done so as to assure voters he can deliver in the future.)
1a)Rivals Warn Romney Would Be a Weak GOP Nominee
By Beth Fouhy
Mitt Romney's record at a private equity firm and his advocacy of a health insurance mandate while Massachusetts governor would hobble him as the GOP presidential nominee, several rivals said Sunday, hoping to slow the front-runner's momentum before the South Carolina primary.
But Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich all said Romney continued to benefit from the fractured GOP field and the failure of social conservatives to fully coalesce around a single alternative.
Gingrich acknowledged that if Romney won Saturday's contest, it would give him an "enormous advantage" going forward after back-to-back victories in New Hampshire and Iowa. Gingrich said he would "certainly have to reassess" his own candidacy unless he captured South Carolina.
The state's senior senator said a Romney victory probably would wrap up the nomination. "I think it should be over," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "I'd hope the party would rally around him," he told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Romney took a rare day off from campaigning while his opponents focused on the South Carolina coast. They also attended church services and prayer breakfasts in a state with a large population of evangelicals and other conservative Christians.
At the Cathedral of Praise in North Charleston, Gingrich was cheered by church members as he criticized activist judges who he said had made "anti-American" rulings to keep God out of schools. Santorum spoke at the same church Saturday.
At a prayer breakfast in Myrtle Beach, Perry appealed to religious conservatives to back his candidacy.
"Who will see the job of president as that of faithful servant to the American people, and the God who created us?" Perry said. "I hope each of you will peer into your heart and look for that individual with the record and the values that represent your heart."
The candidates faced a packed week of campaign events and nationally televised debates Monday and Thursday before the first-in-the-South primary. No Republican has won the party's presidential nomination without carrying South Carolina, and polls show Romney leading in the state.
Santorum, who won the endorsement of an influential group of social conservatives and evangelical leaders Saturday in Texas, said it was imperative for the field to shrink if conservatives had any chance of slowing Romney.
"We feel like once this field narrows and we get it down to a two-person race, we have an excellent opportunity to win this race," the former Pennsylvania senator told "Fox News Sunday,"
Santorum battled Romney to a virtual tie in Iowa before falling to fifth place in New Hampshire.
Added Gingrich: "I think the only way that a Massachusetts moderate can get through South Carolina is if the vote is split."
Gingrich, a former House speaker, and Perry, the Texas governor, fared poorly in both states but are continuing to compete with Santorum for the support of social and religious conservatives.
All three have the backing of well-financed independent groups known as super political action committee that can help keep their candidacies afloat.
Santorum refused to suggest anyone should drop out of the race as a way to consolidate conservative support behind an anti-Romney candidate. But he said Republicans would have a hard time beating President Barack Obama in November if Romney were the nominee. Santorum cited Romney's push for mandatory insurance coverage in Massachusetts.
1b) I don’t think Romney’s problem is that he isn’t warm or tuned in to ordinary Americans. He’s going to have much bigger issues first fending off an invigorated Santorum and, if he becomes the nominee, combating the nonstop attacks warning that he will “end Medicare,” starve the poor and cut government “to the bone” (if only). Frankly, being stiff and a polite 1950s TV dad type might help work against the effort to paint him as a heartless businessman or a dastardly Republican determined to force grandma to choose between food and medicine. The left makes the mistake of painting him as personally uncaring and the right underestimates the degree to which voters are fed up with cloying politicians.
"Romney's plan, as much as he'd like to say it's not, was the basis of Obamacare," Santorum said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"For us to give away that issue with Gov. Romney would be a case, in my opinion, of malpractice on the part of the primary voters in the states to come."
Gingrich and Perry used television interviews to focus on Romney's former leadership of the Bain Capital venture firm. Both defended raising questions about Bain's business practices, saying Romney's tenure would come under relentless assault from Democrats in the general election.
Romney's campaign claims he helped create more than 100,000 jobs while heading up Bain. But the campaign cites success stories without laying out the other side — jobs lost at Bain-acquired or Bain-supported firms that closed, trimmed their workforce or shifted employment overseas.
Gingrich said questions about Bain were fair game since Romney has made his experience in the business world the chief selling point for his candidacy.
"It's fair to raise the questions now, get them out of the way now to make sure that whoever we nominate is clear enough, public enough, accountable enough that they can withstand the Obama onslaught," Gingrich said.
Gingrich was pressed to defend a film highly critical of Bain that is being aired by super PAC backing his candidacy. Gingrich said he wanted any inaccuracies edited out but refused to call on the film to be taken down.
Gingrich also said he planned to release his tax returns this week and called on Romney, who had refused to do so, to follow suit.
"He'll never get through the fall without releasing his records," Gingrich said, insisting the country "deserves accountability and ... transparency."
Perry suggested Obama's team was eager to attack Romney over his Bain tenure. That was a point Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod confirmed.
"If this is a fatal flaw we need to be talking about it now, not talking about it in September and October," Perry said.
"The issue is not going to go away and it's not like we've cracked an egg open here for the first time," Perry said.
Axelrod portrayed a campaign against Romney as a debate over values and the needs of the middle class.
"Is that the economic vision for this country — outsourcing, off-shoring, stripping down companies, lowering wages, lowering benefits? I don't think that's the future for this country," Axelrod told CNN.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman picked up the endorsement of The State, one of South Carolina's leading newspaper. Huntsman came in a weak third in New Hampshire after skipping Iowa, but the paper described him as a "realist" able to appeal to the centrist voters who will decide the general election.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul was returning to campaigning for the first time since Wednesday. He has spent several days at home in Texas after his second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary last week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Could Iran Close the Strait?
By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen
2) Could Iran Close the Strait?
By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen
During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the United States "reflagged" a number of Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the narrow and dangerous Strait of Hormuz. The confidence inspired by that action encouraged other tankers to make the trip, and the U.S. Navy was the guarantor of millions of barrels of oil. Today the question of security for tankers in the Strait arises again, with Iran threatening to block the waterway.
How might Iran accomplish this, and what resources could the U.S. bring to counter what would be understood internationally as an act of war? (The Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran in May 1967 was the act of war to which Israel responded in June -- the Six-Day War.)
Iran-watchers lean heavily on the argument that Iran will not mine or otherwise damage the Strait because then Iranian oil won't be able to pass through either. They posit that the Iranians are unlikely to take an approach that costs them oil revenue, particularly now. But there is another possibility -- Iran can pose a threat notto the physical passageway, but to passing tankers and their crews. And the United States Navy is not in a position to protect them. Under that circumstance, Iranian ships could pass, but the ships of other Gulf countries could be deterred/dissuaded from trying. The result would make Iranian oil more valuable as others withheld their supplies.
Iran could be in the catbird seat while Western navies, including the U.S. Navy, are at a considerable disadvantage even with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
Over the past decade Iran has built up a naval capability that, while not "heavy" in terms of firepower, is nonetheless stealthy and dangerous. The stealthy part comes from Iran's submarine fleet, divided into two classes -- Kilo-class diesel electric submarines from Russia, and home-built mini submarines based on a North Korean/former-Yugoslavian design.
The U.S. Navy is one of the few submarine-equipped navies in the world that does not have diesel electric subs; all U.S. submarines are nuclear-powered. Nuclear-powered submarines are larger than conventional diesel electrics and can go farther, which is normally a plus for American forces. But the Persian Gulf is not that big, and nuclear submarines don't have any natural advantage over diesels in this case. Diesels can be, and are, pretty quiet when operating only on batteries, so tracking them is a challenge.
Iran has four Kilo submarines and seventeen mini-submarines known as the Ghadir. Ghadirs are said to be equipped with a super-cavitation torpedo called the Hoot (or Whale), based on or a copy of the Russian Shkval (VA-111) torpedo. These torpedoes are at least three times faster than conventional ones. No oil tanker could evade them, and this type of torpedo also poses a threat to military ships. Ghadirs, especially if all of them are deployed, may not be easy to find. Until the threat is eliminated, oil tankers will stay away.
Adding to the problem is a large number of smaller, fast ships such as the ten Houdong-class patrol boats, or the 12 Sina class missile boats. These ships carry C-802 sea-launched anti-ship missiles and 30mm canons. They are fast-moving, and many of them can be used together in a fight against a larger ship. This is a phenomenon known to naval experts as "swarming boats."
For some time now experts have been worried about the possibility of light, fast "swarming boats" stuffed with explosives in suicide attacks, overwhelming an adversary and attacking from multiple angles. A suicide attack would be nearly impossible to stop because the firepower on most NATO ships is insufficient to knock the swarming boats out of the water. But a swarming attack that combined light fast boats stuffed with high explosives with fast missile boats is a threat to even large American and NATO warships, including aircraft carriers.
And, while there has been a lot of talk on the subject, not much has been done either tactically or technologically to offset the threat. In fact, the lack of firepower on U.S. ships is a very real concern in the context of protecting critical shipping lanes, especially the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite intelligence and warnings, the latest U.S. naval vessel, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), is equipped to do just about anything except combat. Equipped with an undersized, unproven short-range gun and a few missiles, the LCS is outclassed by its Iranian adversary. It is a good thing that the LCS is not ready for prime time and won't play any role in the current crisis.
For the U.S. to respond under current conditions and protect shipping lanes, it needs a lot of help from the allies in Europe, who -- despite a generally lagging ability to contribute military capabilities to a situation -- have firepower appropriate for this problem in the form of modern frigates, corvettes, and missile boats; mine-hunting ships; and plenty of good helicopters. The allies have good submarine assets (Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy) and have long played a role in protecting sea lines of communication in the Mediterranean.
If the Iranian threat materializes, it is extremely important to assure full cooperation from NATO in order to keep the Strait open. This requires pre-planning and coordination, but in light of the fact that our European friends are more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than is the United States, there is reason to believe that cooperation will be forthcoming.
If, in the end, Iran does try to prevent oil tankers from transiting the Strait, and if in the end the U.S. is unable to offer direct protection to ships that desire transit, there are other ways to force Iran to desist.It would likely be ugly, and it is not to be desired, but Iran and Iran-watchers would be foolish indeed to doubt America's retaliatory capability after an act of war.
Dr. Stephen Bryen, president of SDB Partners, LLC, was deputy undersecretary of defense and the first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration.Shoshana Bryen is senior director of the Jewish Policy Center and has more than 30 years experience as a defense policy analyst.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of World' as Ultimate Goal
By Raymond Ibrahim
Share
Although many Muslim leaders openly articulate their efforts as part of a larger picture—one that culminates in the resurrection of a caliphate adversarial by nature to all things non-Muslim—many Western leaders see only the moment, either out of context or, worse, in a false context built atop wishful thinking.
Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose long-term purpose is reflected in the word "prepare" appearing in their motto.
Among other things, this myopia causes virtually all Western politicians to overlook long-term threats and focus exclusively on violence and terror, the tangible and temporal—those things that may coincide with their tenure.
This narrow-sighted approach sometimes leads to absurdities, such as when Homeland Defense's Paul Stockton, being questioned by Dan Lungren at a recent hearing, refused to agree that al-Qaeda "is acting out violent Islamist extremism," insisting instead that the group merely consists of "murderers." In doing so, he divorced reality from any meaningful context, thereby living up to the Obama doctrine of not knowing your enemy.
Of course, all Islamists have the same goal: the establishment of a sharia-enforcing caliphate. The only difference is that most are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion—step by step, phase by phase, decade after decade—are much more effective for securing their goals than outright violence. Then, once in power, "they will become much more savage."
Accordingly, thanks to the so-called "Arab spring" and its Western supporters, more and more clerics feel they are nearing their ultimate goal of resurrecting the caliphate, the capital of which is to be Jerusalem. This sheikh, for instance, recently boasted that the caliphate will soon be restored and the West will pay jizya—tribute and submission, via Koran 9:29—"or else we will bring the sword to your necks!" So too this sheikh, citing infidel Germany as an example. And of course calls for jizya from Egypt's Christian Copts are growing by the day.
Now, consider the clear, unequivocal words of Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Al Masry Al Youm (as translated by Coptic Solidarity):
Dr. Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: "The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system [based on Islamic sharia], with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world." Badi added in his weekly message yesterday [12/29/11]: "When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life." The leader of the Brotherhood continued: "The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world" [emphasis added].
Even so, it matters not how often and openly Islamic leaders like Badi articulate their grand agenda for the world to hear. Western leaders have their intellectual blinders shut so tight, frozen before the word "democracy"—even if "Arab spring" people-power leads to fascism (which, after all, will be someone else's problem after they leave office).
Thus, here is former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, who not only is "very pleased" with Egyptian elections—despite widespread allegations of voter-fraud against the Muslim Brotherhood—but, when asked if the U.S. should be concerned about the Islamist victory, said "I don't have any problem with that,and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."
Accordingly, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its offshoots can rest assured that, so long as they do not engage in direct terrorism, they can continue unfettered on their decades-long march to resurrecting the caliphate, which—if history and doctrine are any indicators—will, in its attempt to claim "mastership of the world," be a global menace.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding to the problem is a large number of smaller, fast ships such as the ten Houdong-class patrol boats, or the 12 Sina class missile boats. These ships carry C-802 sea-launched anti-ship missiles and 30mm canons. They are fast-moving, and many of them can be used together in a fight against a larger ship. This is a phenomenon known to naval experts as "swarming boats."
For some time now experts have been worried about the possibility of light, fast "swarming boats" stuffed with explosives in suicide attacks, overwhelming an adversary and attacking from multiple angles. A suicide attack would be nearly impossible to stop because the firepower on most NATO ships is insufficient to knock the swarming boats out of the water. But a swarming attack that combined light fast boats stuffed with high explosives with fast missile boats is a threat to even large American and NATO warships, including aircraft carriers.
And, while there has been a lot of talk on the subject, not much has been done either tactically or technologically to offset the threat. In fact, the lack of firepower on U.S. ships is a very real concern in the context of protecting critical shipping lanes, especially the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite intelligence and warnings, the latest U.S. naval vessel, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), is equipped to do just about anything except combat. Equipped with an undersized, unproven short-range gun and a few missiles, the LCS is outclassed by its Iranian adversary. It is a good thing that the LCS is not ready for prime time and won't play any role in the current crisis.
For the U.S. to respond under current conditions and protect shipping lanes, it needs a lot of help from the allies in Europe, who -- despite a generally lagging ability to contribute military capabilities to a situation -- have firepower appropriate for this problem in the form of modern frigates, corvettes, and missile boats; mine-hunting ships; and plenty of good helicopters. The allies have good submarine assets (Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy) and have long played a role in protecting sea lines of communication in the Mediterranean.
If the Iranian threat materializes, it is extremely important to assure full cooperation from NATO in order to keep the Strait open. This requires pre-planning and coordination, but in light of the fact that our European friends are more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than is the United States, there is reason to believe that cooperation will be forthcoming.
If, in the end, Iran does try to prevent oil tankers from transiting the Strait, and if in the end the U.S. is unable to offer direct protection to ships that desire transit, there are other ways to force Iran to desist.It would likely be ugly, and it is not to be desired, but Iran and Iran-watchers would be foolish indeed to doubt America's retaliatory capability after an act of war.
Dr. Stephen Bryen, president of SDB Partners, LLC, was deputy undersecretary of defense and the first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration.Shoshana Bryen is senior director of the Jewish Policy Center and has more than 30 years experience as a defense policy analyst.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of World' as Ultimate Goal
By Raymond Ibrahim
Share
Although many Muslim leaders openly articulate their efforts as part of a larger picture—one that culminates in the resurrection of a caliphate adversarial by nature to all things non-Muslim—many Western leaders see only the moment, either out of context or, worse, in a false context built atop wishful thinking.
Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose long-term purpose is reflected in the word "prepare" appearing in their motto.
Among other things, this myopia causes virtually all Western politicians to overlook long-term threats and focus exclusively on violence and terror, the tangible and temporal—those things that may coincide with their tenure.
This narrow-sighted approach sometimes leads to absurdities, such as when Homeland Defense's Paul Stockton, being questioned by Dan Lungren at a recent hearing, refused to agree that al-Qaeda "is acting out violent Islamist extremism," insisting instead that the group merely consists of "murderers." In doing so, he divorced reality from any meaningful context, thereby living up to the Obama doctrine of not knowing your enemy.
Of course, all Islamists have the same goal: the establishment of a sharia-enforcing caliphate. The only difference is that most are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion—step by step, phase by phase, decade after decade—are much more effective for securing their goals than outright violence. Then, once in power, "they will become much more savage."
Accordingly, thanks to the so-called "Arab spring" and its Western supporters, more and more clerics feel they are nearing their ultimate goal of resurrecting the caliphate, the capital of which is to be Jerusalem. This sheikh, for instance, recently boasted that the caliphate will soon be restored and the West will pay jizya—tribute and submission, via Koran 9:29—"or else we will bring the sword to your necks!" So too this sheikh, citing infidel Germany as an example. And of course calls for jizya from Egypt's Christian Copts are growing by the day.
Now, consider the clear, unequivocal words of Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Al Masry Al Youm (as translated by Coptic Solidarity):
Dr. Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: "The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system [based on Islamic sharia], with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world." Badi added in his weekly message yesterday [12/29/11]: "When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life." The leader of the Brotherhood continued: "The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world" [emphasis added].
Even so, it matters not how often and openly Islamic leaders like Badi articulate their grand agenda for the world to hear. Western leaders have their intellectual blinders shut so tight, frozen before the word "democracy"—even if "Arab spring" people-power leads to fascism (which, after all, will be someone else's problem after they leave office).
Thus, here is former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, who not only is "very pleased" with Egyptian elections—despite widespread allegations of voter-fraud against the Muslim Brotherhood—but, when asked if the U.S. should be concerned about the Islamist victory, said "I don't have any problem with that,and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."
Accordingly, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its offshoots can rest assured that, so long as they do not engage in direct terrorism, they can continue unfettered on their decades-long march to resurrecting the caliphate, which—if history and doctrine are any indicators—will, in its attempt to claim "mastership of the world," be a global menace.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment