.jpg)
.jpg)
===
For those who like action. The targets are aimed at people engaged in "work place activities." (See 1 below.)
===
This from one of our family's dearest friends and an obvious memo reader. I am posting but have edited some of what she wrote so as not to reveal her identity.
"Thoroughly enjoyed your blog from Feb 19. I always do enjoy what you
write but this one had so many topics I'm particularly interested in
that I probably spent several hours reading, thinking, clicking links
and thinking today when I was supposed to be co-writing a booklet with
the temporary title of ---The link to the Admiral was a real eye-opener--- and I
played it twice.
I was floored by the link about Bill Clinton. Remember he
propositioned my college sorority sister when he was governor and she
was married to a prominent doctor. But he has certainly advanced far
beyond that. I have always been amazed that voters don't seem to think
morality and a moral compass are important in their leaders."
Warm regards,
M----
===
Just returned from another wonderful Kevin Costner movie that is based on a true story and is an absolute must see - "McFarland."
You will not regret it. As good as "Black or White."
===
In a few days Prime Minister Netanyahu will make a speech in Congress. The substance of his address will not sit well with Obama because Netanyahu is going to challenge Obama's commitment to prevent Iran gaining nuclear status.
It all began when sanctions were placed upon Iran. These sanctions were not as tough as they could have been but they were effective and probably were the reason Iran agreed to negotiate.As the negotiations continued, Obama, as is his style, basically gave away all leverage and allowed Iran to receive large sums of money. Obama also began to recant on his initial demands and now Iran will be allowed to retain nuclear capability and be within a few months of developing a nuclear bomb if they have not already passed that threshold.
Netanyahu believes the actions of Obama are not in keeping with his commitment of 'having Israel's back' and furthermore, puts Israel in a very threatening position of being annihilated. One nuclear bomb will eliminate this nation from the face of the earth and/or make its entire land uninhabitable.
This is what is meant by an existential threat. More importantly, Iran has stated: ' it's goal is to wipe Israel off the map' and, unlike other Arab and Muslim nations which have voiced similar goals, Iran is developing the ability to carry out its threat.
It is as if Obama has told Israel trust the promise of those who wish to destroy you and if you do not wish to do so you are on your own.
The manner in which Netanyahu's speech was announced and orchestrated was inelegant but, putting that aside, Netanyahu comes delivering a last 'wake up call.' to a world that is asleep and in total denial and withdrawal because Obama has allowed America to retreat and this has created a vacuum. This vacuum is not one European leaders can or will fill. (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
Furthermore, we have the resurgence of Russia. Putin has been granted a "pass go" card by Obama and Putin sees an opportunity to challenge NATO's 'paper tiger status' and bring about its demise.
Finally, as a result of the Netanyahu brush up, have Democrats written off their historical Jewish support and campaign contributions? I have no doubt, far too many Jewish voters still overlook the stance Democrats have taken towards the only democracy in The Middle East. They are too emotionally committed to their so called liberal views and blind inexplicable allegiance to Democrats and they successfully continue resisting any courting by Republicans and/or conservatives. Hysterical allegiance is just part of their DNA.
That said, their ranks are declining as younger Jews begin to think for themselves and realize progressive policies have mostly failed and have led to where America finds itself today - the laughing stock of our adversaries and our friends shaking their heads and in their boots!. (See 2c and 2d below.)
This is where we are today in my opinion and most Americans seem asleep at the switch as our president continues to turn out the lights.
If you think I am over stating the situation or am being an alarmist I invite your response.
===
I have just begun reading my friend, Bret Stephen's book; "America In Retreat." After I bought it I sent it to Bret and asked him to inscribe it to me and he wrote: "In friendship and many memories of Savannah."
I am now reading it and it parallels my own concerns. Even in the first few pages, it is evident Bret is as, if not more, hawkish than I. He is convinced Obama has no interest in an America that continues standing up against tyranny, an America willing to continue casting a light in a world bent on darkness. In Bret's view, Obama is, as many in the world have concluded, not even half of a leader, not a leader but a follower. I would add not even a good one at that.
Bret begins his book with a quote from Churchill as follows: " The price of greatness is responsibility. If the people of the United States had continued in a mediocre station, struggling with the wilderness,absorbed in their own affairs, and a factor of no consequence in the movement of the world, they might have remained forgotten and undisturbed beyond their protecting oceans; but one cannot rise to be in many ways the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes."
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) What you are about to look at is a A/H1-G D model Longbow Apache Gunship.They are working in concert with Special Forces, not SEALS,using laser designators to designate where the primary targets are.The buzz saw sound is the 20mm minigun , and the hack-hack sound is the 30mm chain guns. Of course you can see the hydra 2.75 rockets as well as the large explosions being the Hellfire Missiles.
If you have never seen anything like this before, this is The Army in Action. We don't get a lot of publicity, of course it is not sought, what we do is covertly done without a lot of fanfare. We just do it, we don't brag about it. It is a great light show, but know you are looking through an infrared night vision device so it can all be captured digitally. Here's a great clip of the "Night Stalkers" in their birds rolling in hot on ISIS with chain guns and penetrators, guided of course - by Special Forces (SF) with laser target designators.The SF guys definitely have their boots on the ground.
In a few days Prime Minister Netanyahu will make a speech in Congress. The substance of his address will not sit well with Obama because Netanyahu is going to challenge Obama's commitment to prevent Iran gaining nuclear status.
It all began when sanctions were placed upon Iran. These sanctions were not as tough as they could have been but they were effective and probably were the reason Iran agreed to negotiate.As the negotiations continued, Obama, as is his style, basically gave away all leverage and allowed Iran to receive large sums of money. Obama also began to recant on his initial demands and now Iran will be allowed to retain nuclear capability and be within a few months of developing a nuclear bomb if they have not already passed that threshold.
Netanyahu believes the actions of Obama are not in keeping with his commitment of 'having Israel's back' and furthermore, puts Israel in a very threatening position of being annihilated. One nuclear bomb will eliminate this nation from the face of the earth and/or make its entire land uninhabitable.
This is what is meant by an existential threat. More importantly, Iran has stated: ' it's goal is to wipe Israel off the map' and, unlike other Arab and Muslim nations which have voiced similar goals, Iran is developing the ability to carry out its threat.
It is as if Obama has told Israel trust the promise of those who wish to destroy you and if you do not wish to do so you are on your own.
The manner in which Netanyahu's speech was announced and orchestrated was inelegant but, putting that aside, Netanyahu comes delivering a last 'wake up call.' to a world that is asleep and in total denial and withdrawal because Obama has allowed America to retreat and this has created a vacuum. This vacuum is not one European leaders can or will fill. (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
Furthermore, we have the resurgence of Russia. Putin has been granted a "pass go" card by Obama and Putin sees an opportunity to challenge NATO's 'paper tiger status' and bring about its demise.
Finally, as a result of the Netanyahu brush up, have Democrats written off their historical Jewish support and campaign contributions? I have no doubt, far too many Jewish voters still overlook the stance Democrats have taken towards the only democracy in The Middle East. They are too emotionally committed to their so called liberal views and blind inexplicable allegiance to Democrats and they successfully continue resisting any courting by Republicans and/or conservatives. Hysterical allegiance is just part of their DNA.
That said, their ranks are declining as younger Jews begin to think for themselves and realize progressive policies have mostly failed and have led to where America finds itself today - the laughing stock of our adversaries and our friends shaking their heads and in their boots!. (See 2c and 2d below.)
This is where we are today in my opinion and most Americans seem asleep at the switch as our president continues to turn out the lights.
If you think I am over stating the situation or am being an alarmist I invite your response.
===
I have just begun reading my friend, Bret Stephen's book; "America In Retreat." After I bought it I sent it to Bret and asked him to inscribe it to me and he wrote: "In friendship and many memories of Savannah."
I am now reading it and it parallels my own concerns. Even in the first few pages, it is evident Bret is as, if not more, hawkish than I. He is convinced Obama has no interest in an America that continues standing up against tyranny, an America willing to continue casting a light in a world bent on darkness. In Bret's view, Obama is, as many in the world have concluded, not even half of a leader, not a leader but a follower. I would add not even a good one at that.
Bret begins his book with a quote from Churchill as follows: " The price of greatness is responsibility. If the people of the United States had continued in a mediocre station, struggling with the wilderness,absorbed in their own affairs, and a factor of no consequence in the movement of the world, they might have remained forgotten and undisturbed beyond their protecting oceans; but one cannot rise to be in many ways the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes."
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) What you are about to look at is a A/H1-G D model Longbow Apache Gunship.They are working in concert with Special Forces, not SEALS,using laser designators to designate where the primary targets are.The buzz saw sound is the 20mm minigun , and the hack-hack sound is the 30mm chain guns. Of course you can see the hydra 2.75 rockets as well as the large explosions being the Hellfire Missiles.
If you have never seen anything like this before, this is The Army in Action. We don't get a lot of publicity, of course it is not sought, what we do is covertly done without a lot of fanfare. We just do it, we don't brag about it. It is a great light show, but know you are looking through an infrared night vision device so it can all be captured digitally. Here's a great clip of the "Night Stalkers" in their birds rolling in hot on ISIS with chain guns and penetrators, guided of course - by Special Forces (SF) with laser target designators.The SF guys definitely have their boots on the ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Netanyahu's Speech Before Congress
Let’s concede that the fact that the coalition of Iraqi, Kurdish, and pro-Iranian forces fighting ISIS were going to try to retake Mosul sometime this year is about as much of a secret as the Allied plans to invade France were in 1944. But there is a difference between what is inevitable and a press conference bragging about an event that hasn’t happened yet and whose success is by no means assured.
The official said that the offensive against ISIS in Mosul would begin in April and May and would require somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 troops from the various forces aligned against the Islamist terrorists. As the New York Times reported:
The administration’s credibility gap on ISIS is enormous. Months after the president announced that he was authorizing strikes on the Islamist group, there has been little progress toward the announced goal of degrading and then destroying the terrorists. To the contrary, ISIS has not only not lost any of the enormous territories it overran in 2014, it has also shown itself capable of conducting operations on different fronts simultaneously, while also demonstrating its ferocious resolve to kill Westerners and non-Muslims via the media of its horrific murder videos showing captives being beheaded or burned alive. The recent atrocity in Libya, in which Egyptian Christians were beheaded, also illustrated the fact that it is expanding its reach throughout the region.
The administration has not had much good news to offer on its efforts to fight ISIS. The low volume of air strikes, especially when compared to other recent U.S. conflicts, provided more evidence of the president’s signature lead-from-behind style in which allies were expected to do the heavy lifting. But though this minimal commitment is in President Obama’s comfort zone, it’s also sending a message to ISIS that they needn’t fear the U.S. Thus, the temptation to broadcast plans for an offensive against ISIS this spring proved too much to resist for a White House desperate to win the news cycle even if that doesn’t do much to hurt ISIS.
But though no one doubts that the coalition of Iraqi, Kurdish, and pro-Iranian forces fighting ISIS will try to take Mosul, the administration is gambling with the lives of its allies when it makes such announcements. It’s true that there’s not much point worrying about the element of surprise in a battle where no surprise is possible. But given the trouble these elements have had in coordinating their efforts, the Iraqi army’s poor performance, the Kurds’ lack of up-to-date weaponry, and the troublesome role of Iran in the fighting, there are no sure things in this war even if we are told that ISIS only has a couple thousand fighters in Mosul at the moment.
The point is governments that are successful in prosecuting wars don’t consider press conferences about battles that haven’t yet been fought a substitute for a war-winning strategy. To date, the U.S. has been fighting a phony war against ISIS that has been more talk than action. This week’s White House extravaganza only reinforced that image.
When President Obama authorizes briefings by Pentagon officials about battles that have already been fought and won, we’ll know he knows what he’s doing. Until then, neither ISIS nor the American public should be too impressed by what we’re hearing from the White House
In Egypt, the president is Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a pious Muslim. Having grown up in the world’s center of sharia scholarship and closely studied the subject, he has courageously proclaimed that Islam desperately needs a “religious revolution.”
2) Netanyahu's Speech Before Congress
By Yisrael Ne'eman
Next week Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu is scheduled to speak to a joint session of the US Congress. Never has there been such a tense political atmosphere between the White House and the Israeli government over such an appearance. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House invited Netanyahu but neither he nor Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer informed the Obama Administration beforehand. The content of the PM's speech is well known – he will be warning against the impending agreement between Iran and the US administration as concerns Tehran's nuclear program. There appears to be little doubt the Americans and European negotiators will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state, the implication being that the Iranians will attain nuclear weapons at their time and choosing several years after an agreement. The term "nuclear threshold" means the Iranians will be allowed to develop their project to a point of two to three months from the actual assembly of a nuclear device.
The PM and Israel have every reason to be worried and it is Netanyahu's responsibility to make Israel's position clear, making all the best moves to ensure the country's security. But by playing politics and so totaling alienating the Obama Administration even the most legitimate of policy initiatives can back-fire. Besides certain Democratic members of congress declaring themselves "no shows" the latest news includes a possible boycott by the White House of the largest pro-Israel lobbying organization, AIPAC. And lest we all forget, the president and his team make foreign policy, not Congress.
The solution was a very simple one. Netanyahu could have coordinated with Boehner to speak to a joint session of the House and Senate several days after the Israeli elections (scheduled for March 17). Boehner would have informed the White House and Obama would have been extremely hard pressed to object. To show true statesmanship in a spirit of national unity Netanyahu would take the Israeli opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog with him in a show of Israeli resolve in the face of what appears to be an American administration capitulation to Iranian nuclear demands with the resulting policy objective of Israel's destruction. The Democrats would have seen the merit in such an approach especially since many are pro-Israel and do not trust the Iranians any more than most Israelis. A nuclear Iran is an existential issue to much of the Middle East and in particular Israel, not one to use for political gain.
Unfortunately Netanyahu is not a statesman, but an overly successful politician. By butting heads with the Obama Administration he is strengthening his political base at home in the hope of gaining more Knesset seats. This is at the expense of Israel's relationship with an administration widely viewed as much less pro-Israel than the previous two presidents. From the outset in 2009 Obama initiated outreach to the Muslim World, most notably to Erdogan's Turkey and later to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi (2012-13).
An accommodation with Iran is perceived as more important than full American-Israeli strategic cooperation. This is not to say the agreement with Iran will be at any price, but the cost may be prohibitively high for Israel.
An accommodation with Iran is perceived as more important than full American-Israeli strategic cooperation. This is not to say the agreement with Iran will be at any price, but the cost may be prohibitively high for Israel.
Netanyahu is too much of a politician for his and Israel's own good. Where there could have been a grand coalition demanding a prudent foreign policy protecting Israel's and by extension western and moderate Arab interests (the Gulf States in particular) there quite possibly is now even more of a determination to reach an accord with Tehran. Sec. of State John Kerry continues to insist America will not accept a bad accord and that the negotiations will not be extended indefinitely. Most believe America will cut a deal even should it be detrimental to the West, Israel and the moderate Arab states.
Finally Netanyahu forgets that Israel needs good relations with the Democrats no less than the Republicans. Outwardly hoping for a Republican presidential and congressional victory in 2016 is zero statesmanship. It is viewed as serious intervention in American politics and in the end undermines Israel's standing throughout the US. The Americans are still Israel's #1 ally. For all the complaining about US policy and the Obama White House there are no options for a replacement ally anytime in the foreseeable future nor a new president in the White House for the next two years.
It is doubtful whether Israel can win a head on collision with the US when other options were available. Secondly, Netanyahu's playing partisan politics over such a crucial issue will have long lasting ramifications both in Israel and in Washington.
2a) Netanyahu: 'Astonishing' that talks continue with Iran despite it hiding info from IAEA
| By HERB KEINON |
| Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the international community on Sunday for continuing its talks with Iran without being troubled by that country's support for global terrorism. At Sunday's cabinet meeting just a week before he is scheduled to travel to Washington for his controversial address to Congress, Netanyahu said that the fact that Iran “continues it's murderous terror activities around the region and it does not, unfortunately, bother the international community which is continuing to talk with Iran about a nuclear accord that will enable it to to build industrial capabilities to develop nuclear arms.” Netanyahu's comments came as US Secretary of State John Kerry was set to begin talks Sunday in Geneva with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Netanyahu said that it was “astonishing” that after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report last week that said Iran was continuing to hide military elements of its nuclear program, that the talks will continue as regular. “Not only are they continuing,” Netanyahu said of the talks, “but there is an intensive effort to reach a nuclear agreement in the coming days and weeks.” The prime minister, still coming under intense criticism for his decision to address Congress on March 3, said that the coming month is critical since a “framework agreement” may be signed in March that would allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities “that will threaten our existence.” “The emerging agreement between Iran and the world powers is a danger to Israel, and therefore I will go next week to the US to explain in the US Congress, which might by a body that can influence the fate of the agreement, why this agreement is dangerous to Israel, the region and the entire world,” he said. Netanyahu's comments came before the cabinet was to be briefed on the country's current security challenges. The foremost challenge, Netanyahu said, is Iran's attempts to strengthen its foothold on Israel's borders, even as it tries to arm itself with nuclear weapons. In addition to Iran's direct involvement with Hezbollah in the North, and Hamas in the South, it is now trying to open a third front against Israel on the Golan Heights under its direct command, he said 2b) |
Navigating the Iran endgame
During the two days of the White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism there was little evidence to prove that the administration is serious about defeating the ISIS terrorists. Not only is President Obama unwilling to call Islamist terrorists what they are and admit the religious roots of this conflict (hence the euphemism about generic violent extremism), his speeches seemed to give the impression that he thinks jobs programs and better community relations can defeat the group. And while the press briefing conducted at the end of the event by the person described by the press as “an official from the United States Central Command” finally did address what is primarily a military problem, the announcement that there would be an offensive aimed at retaking the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS didn’t lend much credibility to the counter-terrorism theme of the conference. The telegraphing of what might otherwise be considered a military secret only confirmed the impression that the U.S. is fighting a phony war against ISIS.
Let’s concede that the fact that the coalition of Iraqi, Kurdish, and pro-Iranian forces fighting ISIS were going to try to retake Mosul sometime this year is about as much of a secret as the Allied plans to invade France were in 1944. But there is a difference between what is inevitable and a press conference bragging about an event that hasn’t happened yet and whose success is by no means assured.
The official said that the offensive against ISIS in Mosul would begin in April and May and would require somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 troops from the various forces aligned against the Islamist terrorists. As the New York Times reported:
It is unusual for American officials to discuss the details and timing of a military operation before it occurs. But the official said his intent was to describe the Iraqis’ “level of commitment” in regaining control of Mosul, which he said was held by as many as 2,000 fighters from the Islamic State.“There are a lot of pieces that have to come together, and we want to make sure the conditions are right,” the official said. “But this is their plan. They are bought into it. They are moving forward.”
The Times is right about this being unusual. In war, broadcasting even the most obvious moves is generally considered dumb, if not a breach of security, especially in an administration that has conducted more prosecutions of leaks of secret information than any of its predecessors. But the official from the Central Command need not fear that he will suffer the fate of others who have fed information to the press. He was there at the direction of the White House specifically to provide some proof that, despite all the pointless politically correct rhetoric spouted by the president, the war against ISIS was not merely a theoretical exercise.
The administration’s credibility gap on ISIS is enormous. Months after the president announced that he was authorizing strikes on the Islamist group, there has been little progress toward the announced goal of degrading and then destroying the terrorists. To the contrary, ISIS has not only not lost any of the enormous territories it overran in 2014, it has also shown itself capable of conducting operations on different fronts simultaneously, while also demonstrating its ferocious resolve to kill Westerners and non-Muslims via the media of its horrific murder videos showing captives being beheaded or burned alive. The recent atrocity in Libya, in which Egyptian Christians were beheaded, also illustrated the fact that it is expanding its reach throughout the region.
The administration has not had much good news to offer on its efforts to fight ISIS. The low volume of air strikes, especially when compared to other recent U.S. conflicts, provided more evidence of the president’s signature lead-from-behind style in which allies were expected to do the heavy lifting. But though this minimal commitment is in President Obama’s comfort zone, it’s also sending a message to ISIS that they needn’t fear the U.S. Thus, the temptation to broadcast plans for an offensive against ISIS this spring proved too much to resist for a White House desperate to win the news cycle even if that doesn’t do much to hurt ISIS.
But though no one doubts that the coalition of Iraqi, Kurdish, and pro-Iranian forces fighting ISIS will try to take Mosul, the administration is gambling with the lives of its allies when it makes such announcements. It’s true that there’s not much point worrying about the element of surprise in a battle where no surprise is possible. But given the trouble these elements have had in coordinating their efforts, the Iraqi army’s poor performance, the Kurds’ lack of up-to-date weaponry, and the troublesome role of Iran in the fighting, there are no sure things in this war even if we are told that ISIS only has a couple thousand fighters in Mosul at the moment.
The point is governments that are successful in prosecuting wars don’t consider press conferences about battles that haven’t yet been fought a substitute for a war-winning strategy. To date, the U.S. has been fighting a phony war against ISIS that has been more talk than action. This week’s White House extravaganza only reinforced that image.
When President Obama authorizes briefings by Pentagon officials about battles that have already been fought and won, we’ll know he knows what he’s doing. Until then, neither ISIS nor the American public should be too impressed by what we’re hearing from the White House
2d)
It Doesn’t Matter One Bit What Obama Thinks ‘True Islam’ Is
There may well be a civil war going on within Islam, but it will be Muslims, not American politicians, who settle it.In Egypt, the president is Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a pious Muslim. Having grown up in the world’s center of sharia scholarship and closely studied the subject, he has courageously proclaimed that Islam desperately needs a “religious revolution.”
In the United States, the president is Barack Obama, a non-Muslim. His childhood experience of Islam, which ended when he was just ten, occurred in Indonesia — the world’s most populous Muslim country, but a non-Arabic one where the teaching and practice of Islam is very different from what it is in the Middle East.
While Sisi sees a dangerous flaw in Islam, Obama believes America needs to be “fundamentally transformed” but Islam is fine as is. You see the problem, no?
Said problem was very much on display this week at the president’s “summit” on “countering violent extremism,” the administration’s euphemism for confronting violent jihad. The latter phrase is verboten because Obama will not concede the close nexus between Islam and modern terrorism.
In reality, the summit had so little to do with confronting terrorism that the president did not invite the FBI director — you know, the head of the agency to which federal law assigns primary responsibility for terrorism investigations.
The summit was really about advancing the “social justice” agenda of “progressive” politics. The president and his underlings somehow reason that the answer to the barbarity of ISIS and al-Qaeda is to “empower local communities” here and abroad. Apparently, if the community organizers rouse the rabble to demand that government address “injustice” and Muslim “grievances,” the alienation that purportedly drives young Muslims into the jihadists’ arms will abate. This is the strategic political aspect of the Left’s denial of terrorism’s ideological roots: If terrorism is not caused by Islamic supremacism, then it must be caused by something else . . . and that something somehow always manages to be a government policy opposed by the Left: insufficient income redistribution, running Gitmo, our alliance with Israel, surveillance of radical mosques, etc. Smearing your political opponents as the root cause of mass-murder attacks — it’s a very nice weapon to have in one’s demagogic arsenal.
To the extent the summit dealt with Islam, it was to play the counterproductive game of defining the “true” Islam in order to discredit the Islamic State and al-Qaeda as purveyors of a “false” or “perverted” Islam. To try to pull this off, Obama relied on the bag of tricks toted by his “moderate Islamist” allies (who also turn out to be reliable progressives).
In his summit speech, Obama made the concession — which was almost shocking coming from him — that ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists “do draw” from “Islamic texts.” He mocked them, however, for doing so “selectively.” The clear suggestion was that the terrorists deceive when they assert that Islamic scripture commands Muslims to, for example, “strike terror into the hearts” of non-believers, decapitate them (“smite their necks”), or enslave them. He intimated that there must be some balancing scriptures, some other side of the story nullifying these belligerent commands.
But then, almost in the next breath, the president engaged in the same bowdlerizing of Islamic teaching of which he had just accused our enemies. We should, he said, be listening to, instead of the terrorists, “Muslim clerics and scholars” who “push back on this twisted interpretation” and assure us “that the Koran says, ‘Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.’”
The Koran does indeed say that, in Sura 5:32. Yet, in the very next verse, conveniently omitted by Obama (5:33), it goes on to say:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land, is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: That is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the hereafter.
That puts a somewhat different cast on the whole “whoever kills an innocent” theme, wouldn’t you say?
Which leads us to Obama’s other rhetorical chicanery. When he speaks of Islam, Obama not only takes scripture out of context; he also renders it as if there were a universal understanding of words like “innocent.” Yet when we read the above two verses together, and put them in the broader context of Islamic doctrine, we see that Islam can convey a notion of who is an “innocent” that is very different from the one we Westerners are likely to have. To be “innocent,” in this context, one must accept Islam and submit to its law.
The same is true of “injustice,” another word the president often invokes when discussing Islam. The true Islam, we are to believe, is just like progressivism: a tireless quest for “justice.” But just as the Left’s idea of justice differs from the average person’s, so does Islam’s. For the Islamist, justice equals sharia, and injustice is the absence or transgression of sharia. So, while this could well have been inadvertent, Obama’s claim that injustice drives young Muslims to join terrorist groups is exactly what the terrorists themselves would say — for the imperative to impose sharia is their rationale for committing terrorism.
Obama’s seeming inability to grapple with the Islamic roots of terrorism may not be fully explained by his coziness with Islamists. In a 2005 essay, Cardinal George Pell, the former Australian archbishop (he now runs the Vatican’s secretariat for the economy), observed that in Indonesia, Islam has been has been tempered by indigenous animism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a pacific strain of Islamic Sufism. Cardinal Pell described the resulting brand as “syncretistic, moderate and with a strong mystical leaning.”
As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, that cannot be said for all of Indonesian Islam: There is also plenty of fundamentalism, sharia supremacism, and persecution of religious minorities, particularly of Ahmadi Muslims who reject violent jihad. Still, the practice of Islam in much of the country where the president spent some of his formative years is relatively moderate.
Things are different in the cradle of Islam, the Arab Middle East. That was the upshot of
President Sisi’s impassioned speech in January. In calling for a religious revolution, he admonished the scholars of al-Azhar — who seemed cool to the warning — that terrorists in the Middle East were relying on a “corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible” even though it “is antagonizing the entire world.”
Sisi is right, of course. How refreshing, how urgently necessary, for him to face the problem honestly. Nevertheless, our challenge is a different one from Sisi’s and Islam’s. It is preserving our own national security, not avoiding antagonism.
It is thus foolish for the Obama administration — as it was for the Bush and Clinton administrations, and as it is for Republican as well as Democratic leaders in Washington — to become enmeshed in the futile effort to define the “true” Islam. There probably is not one. Even though the scriptures are troublesome and unvarying, the practice of Islam — the interpretation of and degree of adherence to those scriptures — varies widely around the world.
There is also likely to be continuing upheaval as reformers square off with fundamentalists, so the “true” Islam could change. Moreover, our politicians are elected by an overwhelmingly (probably over 97 percent) non-Muslim country. Muslims by and large do not care what nonbelievers think the essence of Islam is. And if it were not for terrorism, most of us would neither give Islam a second thought nor care what Muslims thought about America and its Judeo-Christian roots. (How much time do you spend wondering what Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei believes is the “true” Christianity?)
We can sincerely hope that President Sisi and other reformers bring about a long-overdue Islamic Reformation. We can sincerely hope that they discredit and marginalize the sharia supremacism of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
But whether the Islam of the jihadists is “true” or “false” is irrelevant to us. What matters about sharia supremacism is that many millions of Muslims believe in it. It is a mainstream interpretation of Islam that has undeniable scriptural roots and inevitably breeds violent jihadists.
We must protect the United States regardless of whether they are right and regardless of how Islam’s internal strife is resolved – if it ever is.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment