Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

**Airbornelawyer** · 03-22-2004, 20:51

One point I think I made earlier was that our war was not with Islam, but with the adherents of a political movement - call it fundamentalism, Islamism, political Islam, jihadism or Islamofascism (no term is entriely satisfactory) - which embraces terror as a means and subjugation or destruction of all non-Muslims as a end. I noted that from our perspective our war wasn't against Islam, but it was up to Muslims to decide whether from their perspective it was. Muslims had to choose sides, and it appeared that most were not.

While I think the points I made about the relative quiet of the "Arab street" and the points GH made about Southeast Asian Muslims remain valid, I am not as sanguine about where this stands as on rereading my posts it looks like I might have sounded.

In too many areas, too many influential Muslims have taken sides, and for all intents and purposes they have chosen the Islamofascists' side. At best, they have, by not taking sides, ceded the voice and face of Islam to the Islamofascists. At worst, they have actively given credence to the Islamofascist doctrine.

We have had a number of tactical victories in the GWOT - the liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the denegration of the al-Qa'ida infrastructure and Qadhafi's newfound love of the West, to name a few - but we may have suffered our biggest strategic setback all the way back in October 2001. This was Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow bases in the Kingdom to be used for OEF because, the Saudis said, they couldn't allow their bases to be used to bomb Muslims.

Now these very bases had been used for a decade to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq, and had been used in Desert Storm. And Saudi troops had themselves fought in Desert Storm. So the fact that the people who were killed happened to be Muslim couldn't have been the key obstacle for the Saudis. That leads to the conclusion that by bombing al-Qa'ida and Taliban bases in Afghanistan, the Saudis were concluding (and framing the debate for many other Muslims) that we wouldn't be bombing people who happened to be Muslim, but that we were bombing them for being Muslim. The Saudi government chose sides, and it chose the other side.

The Saudi government wouldn't be the Saudi government if it didn't try to play both sides, so they still quietly supported the coalition war effort, but the public face was one of "the Americans are targeting Muslims" rather than "civilized peoples (Muslim and non-Muslim) are targeting terrorists." But this playing both sides opens Saudis up to charges of being munafiqeen (hypocrites who act Muslim but are really kuffar, unbelievers). The ideal scenario would have been for the Muslim world to denounce bin Laden and the Islamofascists as munafiqeen themselves (some Muslim leaders did this, actually, but not enough). From a tactical standpoint this would have been advatageous, because it would have permitted observant Muslims to join with non-Muslims to fight these apostates. But it would have been more valuable from the strategic standpoint, because it would have been Muslims making the point that Western leaders were trying to make from the beginning, that the war was not against Muslims, but against murderers who had no right to call themselves men of God (even within the context of a religion that does countenance killing in the name of God).

But it didn't happen. Instead, in too many cases, Muslim countries have stayed out of the war because they couldn't join a war on Muslims. The exceptions have been few - Jordanian SOF in Afghanistan now, Afghan and Pakistani troops fighting the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, Yemeni counterterrorist ops, even Saudi Arabia's own counterterrorist ops - and have been characterized as pragmatism. Pakistani President Musharraf is one of the few leaders of a Muslim nation who has publicly and vehemently denounced his enemies as un-Islamic, and he is dismissed even in the West as a stooge for the Americans. Meanwhile, a group of so-called "men of God" in Islamabad proclaimed over the weekend that the Pakistani army jawans killed fighting against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces in the recent operations didn't deserve an Islamic burial.

I honestly don't know what it will take to rectify this state of affairs, or if it can be. Musharraf is effectively a lone wolf, and has had two near misses in assassination attempts. A few Iraqis have denounced other Arabs for shedding crocodile tears during the American-led invasion, but never having shown too much concernwhen Saddam was killing Iraqis by the thousands. But it may be too late. The civilizational war may be upon us, though we want it not.

03-22-2004, 20:51	#27
Airbornelawyer Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,952	One point I think I made earlier was that our war was not with Islam, but with the adherents of a political movement - call it fundamentalism, Islamism, political Islam, jihadism or Islamofascism (no term is entriely satisfactory) - which embraces terror as a means and subjugation or destruction of all non-Muslims as a end. I noted that from our perspective our war wasn't against Islam, but it was up to Muslims to decide whether from their perspective it was. Muslims had to choose sides, and it appeared that most were not. While I think the points I made about the relative quiet of the "Arab street" and the points GH made about Southeast Asian Muslims remain valid, I am not as sanguine about where this stands as on rereading my posts it looks like I might have sounded. In too many areas, too many influential Muslims have taken sides, and for all intents and purposes they have chosen the Islamofascists' side. At best, they have, by not taking sides, ceded the voice and face of Islam to the Islamofascists. At worst, they have actively given credence to the Islamofascist doctrine. We have had a number of tactical victories in the GWOT - the liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the denegration of the al-Qa'ida infrastructure and Qadhafi's newfound love of the West, to name a few - but we may have suffered our biggest strategic setback all the way back in October 2001. This was Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow bases in the Kingdom to be used for OEF because, the Saudis said, they couldn't allow their bases to be used to bomb Muslims. Now these very bases had been used for a decade to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq, and had been used in Desert Storm. And Saudi troops had themselves fought in Desert Storm. So the fact that the people who were killed happened to be Muslim couldn't have been the key obstacle for the Saudis. That leads to the conclusion that by bombing al-Qa'ida and Taliban bases in Afghanistan, the Saudis were concluding (and framing the debate for many other Muslims) that we wouldn't be bombing people who happened to be Muslim, but that we were bombing them for being Muslim. The Saudi government chose sides, and it chose the other side. The Saudi government wouldn't be the Saudi government if it didn't try to play both sides, so they still quietly supported the coalition war effort, but the public face was one of "the Americans are targeting Muslims" rather than "civilized peoples (Muslim and non-Muslim) are targeting terrorists." But this playing both sides opens Saudis up to charges of being munafiqeen (hypocrites who act Muslim but are really kuffar, unbelievers). The ideal scenario would have been for the Muslim world to denounce bin Laden and the Islamofascists as munafiqeen themselves (some Muslim leaders did this, actually, but not enough). From a tactical standpoint this would have been advatageous, because it would have permitted observant Muslims to join with non-Muslims to fight these apostates. But it would have been more valuable from the strategic standpoint, because it would have been Muslims making the point that Western leaders were trying to make from the beginning, that the war was not against Muslims, but against murderers who had no right to call themselves men of God (even within the context of a religion that does countenance killing in the name of God). But it didn't happen. Instead, in too many cases, Muslim countries have stayed out of the war because they couldn't join a war on Muslims. The exceptions have been few - Jordanian SOF in Afghanistan now, Afghan and Pakistani troops fighting the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, Yemeni counterterrorist ops, even Saudi Arabia's own counterterrorist ops - and have been characterized as pragmatism. Pakistani President Musharraf is one of the few leaders of a Muslim nation who has publicly and vehemently denounced his enemies as un-Islamic, and he is dismissed even in the West as a stooge for the Americans. Meanwhile, a group of so-called "men of God" in Islamabad proclaimed over the weekend that the Pakistani army jawans killed fighting against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces in the recent operations didn't deserve an Islamic burial. I honestly don't know what it will take to rectify this state of affairs, or if it can be. Musharraf is effectively a lone wolf, and has had two near misses in assassination attempts. A few Iraqis have denounced other Arabs for shedding crocodile tears during the American-led invasion, but never having shown too much concernwhen Saddam was killing Iraqis by the thousands. But it may be too late. The civilizational war may be upon us, though we want it not.
Airbornelawyer is offline