Skip to comments.America asked to get tougher with Muslims
Posted on 07/12/2004 7:22:46 AM PDT by veronica
WASHINGTON: Imperial Hubris, an anonymously written book by a serving CIA official is the subject of much comment here since it came out a couple of weeks ago. It is most unusual for the CIA to permit a serving official to publish a book, even if it is anonymous. This is making many conclude that the book may be geared at improving the agencys much-soiled image.
The writer, who has served the agency for 23 years, spent 17 of them focusing exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam and the affairs of South Asia. This would mean that he must have visited Pakistan very many times and his identity should be known to his Pakistani counterparts.
The anonymous author would like US policy towards Muslims to get tougher. According to him, Unchanged US policies toward the Muslim world leave America only a military option for defending itself. And it is not the option of daintily applying military power as we have since 1991. Killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. With killing must come a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. Such actions will yield large civilian casualties, displaced populations, and refugee flows. Again, this sort of bloody-mindedness is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain Americas only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world As practiced by the United States, counterterrorism is appeasement; it lets the enemy attack and survive, keeps allies sweet by staying the hand of the US military forces they hate, and ignores the true terrorist states in the Sunni Persian Gulf because they own much of the worlds oil. He maintains that while US leaders will not say America is at war with Islam, some of Islam is waging war on the United States, and more is edging closer to that status
The author rejects the view that Muslims hate us and attack us for what we are and what we think, rather than for what we do. He argues that the Islamic world is not so much offended by the American democratic system of politics as Washingtons actions and policies. He calls any view to the contrary errant and potentially fatal nonsense. He writes that the US is wrong in the belief that Muslims misunderstand its policies because Muslims believe they know precisely what the United States is doing in the Islamic world. They know partly because of Osama bin Ladens words, partly because of satellite television, but mostly because of the tangible reality of US policies. He maintains that Muslims are offended by the following policies: support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis thrall; US and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula;US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; US support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants; US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low; and US support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments.
He writes, Defeat for America, I fear, lies in the military and foreign status quo and the belief that our Islamic foes will be talked out of hating us and disappear if only we teach them voting procedures, political pluralism, feminism, and the separation of church and state. He calls Osama bin Laden a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon. He also believes that while the war in Afghanistan was necessary, but is being lost because of American hubris. Those who failed to bring peace to Afghanistan after 1992 are now repeating their failure by scripting government affairs and constitution-making in Kabul to portray the birth of Western-style democracy, religious tolerance, and womens rights - all anathema to Afghan political and tribal culture and none of which has more than a small, unarmed constituency, he writes.
The author writes that based on documents recovered from Afghan camps, the intelligence gained from prisoners of war, and, especially, the superb combat performance of al Qaeda and al Qaeda-trained units against US-led forces show that the West has been wrong about the camps main purpose for more than a decade. Al Qaedas camps were staffed by veteran fighters who trained insurgents who fought, and trained others to fight, not only against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, but also against national armies in Indian Kashmir, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tajikistan, Egypt, Bosnia, western China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and the Philippines. This is not to say the camps did not train terrorists; quite the contrary, given the 11 September attacks, they obviously trained the worlds most talented terrorists. It is to say, however, that terrorist or urban warfare training was a small sub-set of the camps primary training regimen. Thus, al Qaeda had large numbers of fighters to disperse and protect after the US invasion, he states.
The page isn't formatted properly, but it's at the end of the page.
I haven't read the book, but distinctly recall that in all the recent news discussions and book reviews, only one mentioned the central thesis of Imperial Hubris: that Islam is the foe and that it must be defeated without mercy.
Virtually every other news reference focused entirely "Iraq as a diversion", while ignoring the author's apparant point that Iraq is a diversion from ther business of crushing Islam entirely.
Obviously the Pak reviewer above didn't have too much trouble grasping that point.
I agree we should get toughre with Islam, but that doesn't appear to be the message of this article.
We ARE at war with Islam. We should do something about Muslims in the United States, stop all future immigration from Islamic Countriesm and deport all Muslims here in America who are non-citizens.
Those Muslims living here who ARE American citizens should be carefully scrutinized by national and lcoal security agencies and Islamic places of worship and Islamic schools and charities should be closely watched and any which express any Anti-American sentiments should be put out of business and their leaders arrested.
Using our present methods of fighting, we would never have won WW2.
[ BILL COSBY ] Riiigggghhht. [ /BILL COSBY ]
Er, which is it? Do they hate us for supporting democracy, or for supporting tyranny?
I just don't buy the notion that the hatred of the Wahabiwackjobs is driven by anything other than a realization (whether they can articulate it clearly or not) that Western culture is eroding the institutions that support their power and wealth.
What are we supposed to do? Pick the strongest warlord and give him absolute power? We are trying to build institutions that withstand, transcend and transform the Afghan political and tribal culture. Yes, it's hard, but other alternatives would just end up bringing the Taliban back, and stronger than ever.
Afghan political and tribal culture provided a refuge for Osama & Co. As a result, the place received a cultural and political enema.
Moral: if you want to keep your "political and tribal culture", kill any terrorists who try to use your land as a safe harbor. Bonus points for pickling the heads and mailing them to the White House.
bump for later reading!
I read in our local paper (The Chicago Sun-Times) that Marine Cpl. Hassoun's family said he was "forced" to join the Marines and was "forced" to serve in Iraq, and that he is not an American nor has any American allegiance. In their own words, his family said he is a Muslim, Lebanese Arab. After reading that, I concluded that we had better not allow any mohammedans into our armed forces. It would be nice if we could get them out of our universities, as well, as those venues seem to be breeding grounds and hotbeds of fanatical anti-American mohammedanism.
Muslims consider themselves Muslims first and formost. All non-Muslims are placed in another category.
In the past, other religious groups like Quakers, Catholics, Mormons, etc., have been discriminated against, in many instances for truly bigoted reasons. Hence Americans tend to transfer their repugnance at such behavior towards any aversion to Islam, think it just another religion.
What other religion condones, indeed demands, the death of any of its followers who convert to another fait? What religion calls for the death of anyone trying to convert its followers to another faith? What relgion calls for conversion or relegation to second class citizenship, or even eviction from the country (Saudi Arabia) for not belonging to its belief system?
In any country in the western world, Muslims are permitted to build their mosques and madrassehs, practise their religion openly, seek converts, and hold positions of trust and responsibility in government.
WHERE in the Islamic world are such considerations extended to non-Muslims???
NOWHERE. On the contrary, in most or all Islamic countries non-Muslims are persecuted, killed, prevented from openly practising their religion, or building houses of worship.
The same treatment should be extended to Muslims in the west until Islamic states reciprocate tolerant behavior in their countries.
Not only do we have the current crop of terrorists to deal with, but the enemy rapidly trains the next generation. There's so many of them, and so few of us.
Unless we teach them we absolutely can't be messed with, we're through. No diplomacy, no correctness, just wipe them out and start with a clean slate. For too long they've terrorized the world, and it's more than time to put a stop to it.
With killing must come a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.