Thoughts on the idiocy at the Obama Defense department:
It reflects the Obama philosophy that we cannot even hint that an interpretation of Islam — drawn literally from Islamic scriptures — is the force motivating our enemies. Even though this is unquestionably true, to say so, to acknowledge it in any way, would mean, according to administration thinking, that we are at war with Islam itself — with all 1.4 billion Muslims, including the hundreds of millions who do not subscribe to this interpretation. Unwilling to entertain the possibility that the enemy has a coherent, knowable doctrine — which is a powerful catalyst precisely because it draws credibly (not inarguably but credibly) on scripture — we have forfeited the natural right to defend ourselves and the troops who make it possible for us to live freely.
This is criminal recklessness. It is idiocy beyond description, so I should just stop trying to describe it. Watch it in all its jaw-dropping ignominy.
You can’t win a war when you pretend that you’re not in one.
“jaw-dropping ignominy”. That video is absolutely must-watch. It is here.
Question: “Is there a difference between Islam and violent Islamist extremism?”
Answer: [deer-in-headlights]
Question: “Is it a behavioral indicator to put on your card that you are a soldier of Allah.”
Answer: [deer-in-headlights]
Remember all those standard sitcom jokes in the 60s about Soviets visiting the US and making all kinds of non nonsensical dogmatic statements about how they were more free, better standard of living, no poor, yadda yadda.
Somehow that doesn’t seem so funny now.
“It reflects the Obama philosophy that we cannot even hint that an interpretation of Islam — drawn literally from Islamic scriptures — is the force motivating our enemies. Even though this is unquestionably true… ”
I see two problems with that statement. The author can only conjecture what the “Obama philosophy” is. Unless the author is Marvin the Mind Reader, he just doesn’t know. The idea that Islamic scripture is what motivates our enemies is also conjecture. I would be willing to say that for some enemies it is true but for others they have other motivations. What motivates our enemies doesn’t really matter. What matters is making the appropriate response to the specific threat posed by a specific enemy.
Some sense of scale is required when assessing any threat. The USA faces different types of threats: economic, military, moral; in different places. When you look at the totality of the danger that the USA faces across those different spheres, how severe is the threat of jihadists motivated by radical islam? Given the severity of the threat how much blood and honor should be spent on it?
“The idea that Islamic scripture is what motivates our enemies is also conjecture.”
I am sorry but that is not the case. The great thing about the internet is that you go go read these groups web sites and watch their videos. Lots of people do this which is a contributing factor to many of the terrorist attacks we have suffered here in the USA over the past several years.
Read up on some of the recent cases like Nidal Hisan, Anwar Al Awlaki, Times Square bomber, and the guy who threatened to kill the South Park creators just to name a few.
“What motivates our enemies doesn’t really matter.”
I can not even comprehend why you think that the motivation of the people who would like to see us all dead would not matter to you.
Motive is an important factor for determining guilt in a criminal prosecution. Not so important in prosecuting a war. I make a distinction between some and all. That seems to be lost on you. A single point or three is not a data set in any meaningful sense. Also, the stated motive for propaganda and recruitment purposes is not necessarily the real motive.
It’s tens of thousands of data points, if not millions, not just a few. The jihadists go to great length, and spend quite a bit of time and money, desperately trying to explain their motives to us and to their recruits. Indeed, they scream it from the rooftops every day, print it in papers, post it on the web, and blow up targets just to try to get our attention.
A great many on the left keep insisting that if we would only listen to our enemies we might understand what they want. Word to the leftists: They are screaming what they want in our ear, but you refuse to believe what they say.
It’s not a secret plan, known only to a select few, to corner the supply of frozen yogurt.
I only listed 4 events because I didn’t want to list all of them. It isn’t just a “few” data points.
As for motive, I think I will listen to the advice of Sun Tzu and Rage Against the Machine, “Know your enemy.”
Motive is an important factor for determining guilt in a criminal prosecution. Not so important in prosecuting a war.
I’d say it’s more important in war. Keep in mind that a usual goal of a war is to make through force or other inducement the enemy stop fighting. An understanding of the motives for why your foes fight is important, more so than merely being a piece of useful but nonessential evidence in a court trial.
I completely disagree with the notion that motivation isn’t important in war. That’s just an ignorant statement. Some think war is just killing your enemy. Once you realize that it isn’t, the very next successful thought is, “how do you get the enemy to quit fighting?” And that requires demotivating your enemy. You can do that with demonstration of superior fire power, you can do it by showing mercy, and you can do it by providing aid to your enemy’s honest non-combatants.
War is killing your enemy. You win a war you have harassed and killed enough of your enemy that he accepts defeat. The last time that the USA fought a war and achieved victory was when it fought it in that manner.
And if you don’t understand the motivations for your foe, you may find that your approach fails since you don’t harass and kill them in a way that is effective.
For example, the Iraqi invasion ran into this problem in 2003-2006. For example, creating a vast pool of unemployed Sunnis following the removal of Ba’athists from the bureaucracies and refusing to use local talent for construction projects.
Yes. You are right.
Just a couple of other examples.
Use of atomic bombs in Japan vs invasion. The point of the atomic bomb was to so demoralize the Japanese to avoid fighting them to the death via an invasion.
This same theory was used in Desert Storm, when the US dropped a daisy cutter bomb near an Iraqi Republican Guard unit. The drop was preceded by leaflets saying when and where the bomb would be dropped. Subsequently, the guard unit layed down their arms rather than fighting it out to the death.
Lundgren asks repeatedly, if “are we at war with violent, islamist extremism.” The noun in that statement is extremism, all the rest are adjectives. If you restate, without the adjectives, “are we at war with extremism” you can see the futility of the line of questioning and the impossibility of any reasoned response. You can’t be at war with a concept like extremism. You can only be at war with people or organized groups of people. If Lundgren was serious about dealing with groups of Islamists who are at war with us, he wouldn’t be wasting anyone’s time with non-sensical questions, just to score political points.
Newsflash: Congressman uses imprecise language, “what is the meaning of is” nitpicking ensues. Film at eleven!
Very well, then – rephrase it as “violent, extremist Islamists”. All better now?
We are, however at war with Jihadists.
The term is useful because the enemy self-identifies as being ‘at war with the US.’
That’s really all we should need right there. AQ announced well in advance that they were at war with us. There’s quite a few other places and organizations that have also openly declared the same thing.
So believe them. Or if it seems non-serious – demand an official retraction.