18th century, 19th century, and today of course. The big difference is that in the old days, they told the truth, and today that’s unacceptable among the establishment. As we said the other day, however, things are changing perhaps when the left and right start saying very similar things about the Islamic State, which cleverly chose its name to maximize brand equity (though some people refuse to admit the obvious).
Archive for the 'Religion' Category
Today’s important reads are VDH and James Lewis. In many ways, this ISIS jihad is transitioning from being simply a left-right issue. Left wing broadcaster on Pacifica Radio of all things, Ian Masters, had Robert Baer and Robert Pelton on his program yesterday, and their analyses were not all that different from Hanson and Lewis. The West has gone flaky and soft (since 1973′s OPEC oil boycott), many DC insiders have gotten wealth and continued access by choosing to look the other way, and young men who take seriously what they’ve been taught in school are the Jets and Sharks of today, on steroids partly due to social media. Oh yes, Jets and Sharks who aren’t content merely to kill each other, but the entire rest of the world, which they ardently believe has victimized them and failed to recognize their inherent superiority. Hard to be optimistic in any way about this, except that the right and the hard left are coming closer to common cause, which would be fantastic. Added bonus: these hard left leaning folks are not saying the problems are because of poverty and the like, which BOTW noted many years ago. They now acknowledge that the problem is religious beliefs — that indeed is progress.
Roger Simon lets loose. Wow. We think back a decade to George Bush holding hands with Saudi royals. 15 of the 19 9/11ers were Saudis. Where did they get their ideas? How about the textbooks they studied in school. Duh.
Update: a week has passed. PJ points it all out again. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
Update 2: Geert Wilders states obvious things, but few want to listen, even now, guaranteeing that the ultimate price paid for willful blindness will be very high indeed.
A little talk:
if you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart. Now, let me say this: We are living through some extraordinarily challenging times. A lot of it has to do with changes that are taking place in the Middle East in which an old order that had been in place for 50 years, 60 years, 100 years was unsustainable, and was going to break up at some point. And now, what we are seeing is the old order not working, but the new order not being born yet — and it is a rocky road through that process, and a dangerous time through that process.
So we’ve seen the barbarity of an organization like ISIL that is building off what happened with al Qaeda and 9/11 — an extension of that same mentality that doesn’t reflect Islam, but rather just reflects savagery, and extremism, and intolerance. We’ve seen divisions within the Muslim community between the Shia and Sunni. We continue to see an unwillingness to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist and its ability to defend itself. And we have seen, frankly, in this region, economies that don’t work. So you’ve got tons of young people who see no prospect and no hope for the future and are attracted to some of these ideologies.
All of that makes things pretty frightening. And then, you turn your eyes to Europe and you see the President of Russia making a decision to look backwards instead of forward, and encroaching on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their neighbors, and reasserting the notion that might means right. And I can see why a lot of folks are troubled.
But — and here’s the main message I have for you — the truth of the matter is, is that American military superiority has never been greater compared to other countries. Our men and women in uniform are more effective, better trained, better equipped than they have ever been. We have, since 9/11, built up the capacity to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks. It doesn’t mean the threat isn’t there and we can’t be — we don’t have to be vigilant, but it means that we are much less vulnerable than we were 10 or 12 or 15 years ago.
And the truth of the matter is, is that the world has always been messy. In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through. The good news is that American leadership has never been more necessary, and there’s really no competition out there for the ideas and the values that can create the sort of order that we need in this world.
I hear people sometimes saying, well, I don’t know, China is advancing. But I tell you what, if you look at our cards and you look at China’s cards, I promise you you’d rather have ours. People say that, I don’t know, Russia looks pretty aggressive right now — but Russia’s economy is going nowhere. Here’s a quick test for you: Are there long lines of people trying to emigrate into Russia? I don’t think so.
Yes, the Middle East is challenging, but the truth is it’s been challenging for quite a while. And our values, our leadership, our military power but also our diplomatic power, the power of our culture is one that means we will get through these challenging times just like we have in the past. And I promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. This is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War. This is not comparable to the challenges that we faced when we had an entire block of Communist countries that were trying to do us in.
What’s Russia got going for it? Bad demographics but it is currently the largest oil producer in the world. Russia certainly knows how to act in its own interests, or those of Mr. Putin. Was it a surprise that Putin decided to strongly control the area around its only warm water naval base in moves that seemed to come out of nowhere? Similarly would it be a surprise to find some Russian money in ISIS, another thing that seemed to come out of nowhere? Iran and Qatar versus Saudi Arabia et al should be a good thing for the world’s largest oil producer. (Of course we understand that things cut all kinds of ways in the region; Russia relies on Syria for a large naval maintenance facility, for example.) In any event lowering the power of OPEC and being more of a global lynchpin in oil prices would seem to be an obvious Russian goal.
Hugh Hewitt regularly asks journalists a series of questions to see if they know anything at all. One of the questions is about Alger Hiss, and many times the reporters don’t know much about hisstory. We started wondering the other day: who are the current Russian spies in the US government? You’d be a fool to think that there aren’t quite a few. Along the same line, does Russia even have to funnel money to the nutty environmental groups that oppose vastly increasing US oil production? Many of these come by their anti-Americanism naturally, and think they are intellectually and morally superior to boot. How Putin must laugh at us!
About that “Allahu Akbar” — The fact that Hassan reportedly shouted the above is meant, I suppose, to imply that he was an extremist fanatic. I’m not sure that it does. My understanding is that it’s something Arab people often shout before doing something or other. It’s used in many different situations.
Update: “I formally and humbly request to be made a citizen of the Islamic State, ”Hasan says in the handwritten document addressed to “Ameer, Mujahid Dr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” “It would be an honor for any believer to be an obedient citizen soldier to a people and its leader who don’t compromise the religion of All-Mighty Allah to get along with the disbelievers.” The two-page letter includes Hasan’s signature and the abbreviation SoA for Soldier of Allah.
Back in ancient times, eight years ago, some generalizations were observed among a number of the young men who yearned to become warriors, and sometimes, mass killers. (Testosterone plus either primogeniture or polygamy figured into the mix fueling jihadis and conquistadors.) Cause and effect to some extent, or at least correlation. In the current iteration of this phenomenon, which has become worse by an order of magnitude, we see an extra element: barbarity as aggressive, celebratory advertising via the internet. Far more effective than placing a dozen heads on pikes for the occasional passers-by to encounter. We have mixed views about this. On the one hand, there’s a good case for censorship of these snuff films; oddly, we don’t hear very much about that. On the other hand, it would be great if these guys are able via their snuff ads to bring vast numbers of these 7th century barbarians together for an IS Woodstock. Perhaps we could introduce them to Fat Man and Little Boy. Are you saying that the world would not be a better place?
The average person is both ill-informed and not too bright, at least if you poll the right campuses and industries where they prattle on about micro-aggressions and so forth. Add that to the college professor class, and oops! the high school history curriculum, and you have a formula for continued degeneration into a fantasy world until things get up close and personal. It’s all so obvious. Appeasement does not work. Unbelievably sad and pathetic and to no avail.
Update: if figures like this are true, this conflict could be a kind of an internecine hundred years’ war, except that with the armaments available today, there seems a pretty high probability that someone will choose to go out with a bang.
On July 31, 2014, a group of left-leaning historians called “Historians Against the War” posted an open letter to President Obama denouncing Israel’s actions in the Gaza War and calling for a cut-off of American military assistance to Israel. On August 13, the letter was posted on the website of the History News Network. On August 31, the signers reported that “in less than twenty-four hours over two hundred US, based [sic] historians had signed the letter.” This remarkable turnout depended on the mobilization of an already existing network of an academic Left that emerged in opposition to the war in Iraq and that stays in touch via a website called “The Hawblog.” On August 14, the blog announced that more than a thousand historians had signed the statement, including a large number from Mexico and Brazil.
With a brief and unconvincing effort to sound balanced, the statement deplored “the ongoing attacks against civilians in Gaza and in Israel” but then turned its fire on Israel for what it called “the disproportionate harm that the Israeli military, which the United States has armed and supported for decades, is inflicting on the population of Gaza.” The signers were “profoundly disturbed that Israeli forces are killing and wounding so many Palestinian children.” They found “unacceptable the failure of United States elected officials to hold Israel accountable for such an act” and demanded “a cease-fire, the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and a permanent end to the blockade so that its people can resume some semblance of normal life.” Further, they urged the President to suspend U.S. military aid to Israel until there is assurance that it will no longer be used for the commission of “war crimes.” “As historians,” they concluded, “we recognize this as a moment of acute moral crisis in which it is vitally important that United States policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict change direction.”
It is old news that an academic tenured Left has a foothold in departments of history in the United States, as well as in Latin America. Also familiar is the deception involved in presenting oneself as “against war,” as if those who disagree are “for” war, and as if the issue were one of war or peace rather than anything that has to do with the substance of the conflict. Nor is it surprising that left-of-center academics are largely hostile to Israel. Hostility to Israel became a defining element of what it means to be left-wing since the early 1950s in the Communist states, and since the late 1960s for the Left in Western Europe, the United States, and the Third World as well. Nor is it even surprising that the signers conclude, before they can possibly have access to the evidence needed to reach this judgment, that Israel has engaged in “war crimes.”
I find it more than a little appalling to be lectured to about the evils of calling ISIS evil, particularly from a person who specializes in the issue of “human rights.” I understand that in our culture saying that “some people can’t be reasoned with” is seen as closed-minded. But sometimes you can be so open-minded your brain falls out. If the view of the human rights community is that it is simply useless to describe ISIS as evil, then what good is the human rights community?
Maybe I’m the fool here, but it just seems obvious to me that a group that crucifies its theological enemies, buries children alive, forces young girls into sexual slavery, and seeks global dominion isn’t a great candidate for reasonable conversation and compromise. Moreover understanding the “whys” behind their behavior strikes me as a moral dead end.
Let us recall once again the story of British general Charles James Napier. When assigned to British-run India, he was informed that he just didn’t understand Indian customs. He couldn’t ban the practice of wife-burning, he was told, because it was an ancient and valued tradition in India. He said he understood and appreciated that. “This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
Really, this is so simple that even a college professor ought to be able to understand it.
Khalid Mahmood, a member of Parliament from an area with a high proportion of Muslim residents, said government estimates of the number of British Islamic State fighters currently in the Mideast is far too conservative. He told Newsweek magazine this week that at least 1,500 extremists are likely to have been recruited to fight in Iraq and Syria over the last three years. “There are an unacceptable number of Britons fighting for jihadist forces,” he said. Experts say the number of Americans fighting for the Islamic State is much lower. Joseph Young, a criminology professor at American University and expert on political violence, said simple geography and the complex cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe are primary reasons why. Young, who said common estimates put the number of American fighters for IS at 100 to 150, said just getting to Syria or Iraq is extremely complicated from North America. However, the Islamic State’s home region is practically next door for Europeans.
Eight years ago we took a look at some periods of relative calm, peace and prosperity, and how they often end with a bang, not a whimper. Wretchard has a nice list of today’s bangs. JOM too. Steyn notes nastiness on all sides in Missouri. IHTM has a joke about a massacre which is actually amusing, if such a thing is possible. KW has sober reflections on urban governance, which if anything seem out of place because of their, um, rationality. This isn’t a rational time, L&G, and the thing is, virtually all of the horrible situations referenced in the linked material can get far worse.
General William Tecumseh Sherman burned the city of Atlanta in 1864. He warned: “I fear the world will jump to the wrong conclusion that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill three hundred thousand I have told you of so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them.” Add a zero to calibrate the problem in the Levant today. War in the Middle East is less a strategic than a demographic phenomenon, whose resolution will come with the exhaustion of the pool of potential fighters.
The Middle East has plunged into a new Thirty Years War, allows Richard Haass, the president of the Council of Foreign Relations. “It is a region wracked by religious struggle between competing traditions of the faith. But the conflict is also between militants and moderates, fueled by neighboring rulers seeking to defend their interests and increase their influence. Conflicts take place within and between states; civil wars and proxy wars become impossible to distinguish. Governments often forfeit control to smaller groups – militias and the like – operating within and across borders. The loss of life is devastating, and millions are rendered homeless,” he wrote on July 21.
Well and good: I predicted in 2006 that the George W Bush administration’s blunder would provoke another Thirty Years War in the region, and repeated the diagnosis many times since. But I doubt that Mr Haass (or Walter Russell Mead, who cited the Haass article) has given sufficient thought to the implications.
How does one handle wars of this sort? In 2008 I argued for a “Richelovian” foreign policy, that is, emulation of the evil genius who guided France to victory at the conclusion of the Thirty Years War in 1648. Wars of this sort end when two generations of fighters are killed. They last for decades (as did the Peloponnesian War, the Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars of the 20th century) because one kills off the fathers die in the first half of the war, and the sons in the second.
This new Thirty Years War has its origins in a demographic peak and an economic trough. There are nearly 30 million young men aged 15 to 24 in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, a bulge generation produced by pre-modern fertility rates that prevailed a generation ago. But the region’s economies cannot support them. Syria does not have enough water to support an agricultural population, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of farmers into tent cities preceded its civil war. The West mistook the death spasms of a civilization for an “Arab Spring,” and its blunders channeled the youth bulge into a regional war.
The way to win such a war is by attrition, that is, by feeding into the meat-grinder a quarter to a third of the enemy’s available manpower. Once a sufficient number of who wish to fight to the death have had the opportunity to do so, the war stops because there are insufficient recruits to fill the ranks. That is how Generals Grant and Sherman fought the American Civil War, and that is the indicated strategy in the Middle East today…
The Bush Administration was too timid to take on Iran; the Obama administration views Iran as a prospective ally. Even Neville Chamberlain did not regard Hitler as prospective partner in European security. But that is what Barack Obama said in March to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg: “What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.” Bush may have been feckless, but Obama is mad…
ISIS is a distraction. The problem is Iran. Without Iran, Hamas would have no capacity to strike Israel beyond a few dozen kilometers past the Gaza border. Iran now has GPS-guided missiles which are much harder to shoot down than ordinary ballistic missiles (an unguided missile has a trajectory that is easy to calculate after launch; guided missiles squirrel about seeking their targets). If Hamas acquires such rockets-and it will eventually if left to its own devices-Israel will have to strike further, harder and deeper to eliminate the threat. That confrontation will not come within a year, and possibly not within five years, but it looms over the present hostilities. The region’s security will hinge on the ultimate reckoning with Iran…
Three million men will have to die before the butchery comes to an end. That is roughly the number of men who have nothing to go back to, and will fight to the death rather than surrender.
From DOD, Congress and CIA via WSJ:
2004 and 2008 reports by the congressional EMP Commission…warn that “terrorists or state actors that possess relatively unsophisticated missiles armed with nuclear weapons may well calculate that, instead of destroying a city or a military base, they may gain the greatest political-military utility from one or a few such weapons by using them—or threatening their use—in an EMP attack”…The EMP Commission, in 2008, estimated that within 12 months of a nationwide blackout, up to 90% of the U.S. population could possibly perish from starvation, disease and societal breakdown…Surge arrestors, faraday cages and other devices that prevent EMP from damaging electronics, as well micro-grids that are inherently less susceptible to EMP, have been used by the Defense Department for more than 50 years to protect crucial military installations and strategic forces. These can be adapted to protect civilian infrastructure as well. The cost of protecting the national electric grid, according to a 2008 EMP Commission estimate, would be about $2 billion
Way too much money when US policy is that adversaries “must agree to a politics of ‘no victor, no vanquish’.”
What’s Gunga Din you ask? A poem by Bombay born Rudyard Kipling that we read in school 50 years ago (“flayed you” — “made you”) that is probably illegal or at the very least terribly un-PC today? Or an RKO movie from 1939 that is strange and without accessible context? That’s so two years ago dude. Snooze material back then when we watched it occasionally and were bored to tears, but it’s suddenly fascinating now.
Gunga Din was just on TCM. (We comment only on the movie, not on whatever the underlying history might be.) Story: in India, a revolutionary religious/military movement is violently opposed not only to the dreaded British imperialists, but also to the Indian authoritarian establishment. They have a special religion which is superior to all others. They have no fear of death, but have an eschatological goal. The radical religious movement is both smart and merciless. After a long narrative, at times highlighting British battles with insurgents, they lure the western army into a battle deathtrap devised by clever military strategy, and their leader’s command is to cut off the heads of their captured British imperialists. (Sounds like ISIS? — hey, ISIS is in India now!)
One of the more remarkable aspects of the film is the inner peace of the ISIS, er, radical leader. He knows they will defeat the idolaters of Britain and the Indian establishment because his religion is supreme. His tactical advantage is that his troops will fight in new ways that the established military does not anticipate, and that even his own death, should it occur, is but a call to the faithful to heed his lessons with greater fury and abandon. His strategic advantage is the he has truth and destiny on his side.
Unfortunately for him, events don’t work out so well. Here things become a little complicated. Gunga Din, a bhisti regarded as a nonentity by most of the British officers (racists!), is well respected by the Cary Grant character (note Sergeants 3 parallel). He wants to be a bugler, but that’s a far off dream, not going to happen in the English army. Still he perseveres and at the critical moment in the movie saves the day. He’s not an establishment Indian, but he is certainly a death-deserving apostate in the way the ISIS guys see the world.
In the end, the religious maniacs are defeated by the combining of old and new. A mortally wounded Gunga Din blows a bugle call to alert the British troops that there’s a trap ahead, and the British respond by radically altering their march into the valley of death, and all-of-a-sudden unleash heretofore unknown superior technology using gatling guns to blow the enemy away. So technology plus apostasy plus superior military tactics plus opposing inhumane radicalism turn out to be a winning strategy. (Better keep that tech edge lest IS stumbles into nukes, EMP, etc.)
We had regarded the film Gunga Din as strictly a period piece with not much relevance to today. Suddenly it’s not, reminding us that human nature does not change and that death-worshipping head-chopping religious cults will be with us from time to time, and must be systematically, and if necessary, ruthlessly eliminated from the face of the earth.
Final fun point: Gunga Din was played by Dr. Zorba! Do not underestimate God’s sense of humor…