Posted on 06/15/2015 5:31:06 AM PDT by RightSideNews
Assumptions Determine War Strategy
By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.), Right Side News
Assumptions that determine government war strategy formulation can be categorized into three genres:
1) Historical-Cultural Assumptions are derived from national and international traditions and practices that comprise “strategic culture”;
2) Politically-Imposed Assumptions are derived from political restrictions that are mandated as “off-limits”;
3) Consensus-Derived Assumptions are agreed upon in governmental deliberation processes.
Examining President Barack Obama’s strategy-determining assumptions for the purposes of this article will be restricted to those assumptions only associated with countering the Islamic jihadist war being waged against the United States. This is not to say that Obama’s assumptions regarding his strategies toward Russia, China, and climate change aren’t in dire need of immediate critical examination, but those examinations are topics for another day.
In order to isolate Obama’s assumptions that underlie his misbegotten conduct of the war to stop the Islamic jihad attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad, the primary sources of the 2015 National Security Strategy and Obama’s May 2013 speech to the National Defense University were used as the basis from which to cull the derivative assumptions.
The first foundational assumption is not one formulated by Obama, rather is Historical-Cultural in origin.
The president is qualified and dedicated to carrying out his constitutional oath to defend the Constitution and the American people as Commander-in-Chief.
The second assumption is again Historical-Cultural in origin.
Islam is an Abrahamic religion with the same peaceful objective as Christianity and Judaism.
The third assumption is of the Politically-Imposed variety.
Islam is basically peaceful, but has been “hijacked” by fanatics that are not Muslims, and that “Islamic jihad” is not really Islamic jihad, rather it is “violent extremism.”
The fourth assumption is also in the Politically-Imposed category.
The Israeli-Palestinian two-state dispute is a major issue causing the environment of hate and hostility in the Middle East and that the issue is resolvable, but it is the Israelis who are the sole obstacle to the solution.
The fifth assumption is again of the Politically-Imposed genre.
Islamic jihad (violent extremism) can be prevented in the U.S. by working with the American Muslim community, that is, Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and at least 28 other front groups.
The sixth assumption is once more in the Politically-Imposed grouping.
Peace and stability can be established in the Middle East by promoting the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Government as the regional hegemon that will function in cooperative alliance with the U.S.
Some might make the argument that one or more of assumptions 3-6 above could be Consensus-Derived Assumptions rather than Politically-Imposed Assumptions; however, assumptions 3-6 are so integral to Obama’s overall timid and apologetic approach to Islam that it is impossible not to see Obama’s dominant personal policy imprint. The essence of assumptions 3-6 is that the violent extremism by “purported” Muslims actually has nothing to do with the religion of Islam! A review of unclassified national security documents makes clear that these four assumptions are politically off-limits because they are constantly pronounced as valid, in spite of the contradicting facts.
Turning to the first assumption, that the president is qualified and dedicated to carrying out his constitutional oath, is the foundational assumption of the republic, although Obama’s frighteningly inept foreign policy performance has raised the question whether the failures are the results of his incredible incompetence or by design. Nevertheless, given the depth of the Historical-Cultural nature of the assumption, it will undoubtedly remain unchallenged for the remainder of Obama’s term in office.
Likewise, the second assumption, that Islam is a peaceful Abrahamic religion is Historical-Cultural and thus erroneously accepted, makes Islam all but unassailable with the protection afforded it by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Islam’s privileged protection as an Abrahamic religion is totally discredited when research and common sense are applied. To assert that the same Abrahamic God made the following three different instructional pronouncements to followers is illogical and unbelievable, thus totally disproving that the god of the Muslims and the God of the Christians and Jews can be the same supreme being.
Islamic god, Allah: Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Islamic Sharia law), nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (extortion blood money) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Christian God, Yahweh: Matthew 5:7-12 – “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Jewish G-d, YHVH: Proverbs 11:17 – “The merciful man does good for his own soul, But he who is cruel troubles his own flesh.” Proverbs 16:19 - “It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoil with the proud”. Psalms 37:11 – “The meek will inherit the land, and will delight themselves in abundant prosperity”. Isaiah 41:7 - “When the oppressed and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongues are parched with thirst, I YHVH will hear them, I the God of Israel will not abandon them”.
The third assumption, that is, Islam is basically peaceful but has been “hijacked” by fanatics who are not Muslims is preposterous when Allah’s Quranic and Sharia instructions to carry out jihadist religious war to propagate the Sharia and through it the Islamic religion are considered.
Quran 2:216: “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not” (Allah has decreed that Jihad is the duty of every Muslim, regardless of personal desires, because Allah knows the value of things better than his followers do). Quran 5:48: “And We (Allah) have revealed to you, O Muhammad, the Book in truth (Quran), confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture (the Jewish and Christian Old & New testaments) and as a domination over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth (that is, reject Jewish and Christian theologies). To each of you We (Allah) prescribed a law (Islamic Sharia) and a method (Five Pillars of Islam).” Quran 8:39: "And fight disbelievers in Islam until there is no fitna (disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief) and until the religion, all of it, is for Allah.”
“SHARIA o9.0 JIHAD (Islamic Sharia: the code of law derived from the Quran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed; the body of doctrines that regulate all aspects of the lives of those who profess Islam.)
“O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Quranic verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you [Muslims]'' (Quran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them [non-Muslims] wherever you find them'' (Quran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators [non-Muslims] utterly'' (Quran 9:36);
“. . . the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat (which is charity only for fellow Muslims, and/or funding for jihad). If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.''
The fourth assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian two-state dispute is a major issue causing the environment of hostility and hate in the Middle East and that the issue is resolvable, but it is the Israelis that are the sole obstacle to the solution is contradicted by the Islamic concepts of “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb,” the JIHAD AND THE ISLAMIC LAW OF WAR, the Islamic Sharia Law, and the Hamas Charter.
But to properly understand the true situation of the Israeli territorial dispute with the Palestinians, it is necessary first to understand the concepts of “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb.” These concepts are succinctly explained in the :
“The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam (Sharia) prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the (Sharia) law.”
The JIHAD AND THE ISLAMIC LAW OF WAR (pdf book) elaborates further:
“The classical laws of jihad assumed—correctly—that the default position between states was a state of war, hence the name Dar al-Harb, or Abode of War, which is usually set in contrast to Dar al Islam or the Abode of Islam. . . The separation of the world into the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War reflects the reality, brutal and unavoidable . . . The terms Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are not terms from the Qur’an or from the teachings of the Prophet, but grew out of the work of jurists coming to terms with the new international profile of Islam.”
The concepts of “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb” also explain the important difference between the very divergent conceptions of the Christian and the Islamic “kingdoms.” While the Christian conception of the “Kingdom of God” is one of the spiritual and transcendental, the Islamic conception of the “kingdom of Allah,” or the “kingdom ruled by Islamic Sharia jurisprudence,” is actual territory on earth with physical boundaries. The Islamic kingdom of Allah is real estate governed by Islamic Sharia Law, which is otherwise known as Dar al Islam.
Consequently, the past primacy of the dominance of Islamic jurisprudence over physical areas like Israel and Spain, which is known in the Muslim world as “al Andalus” or Islamic Iberia, is fundamental to the spread of Islam. Jihadists believe that, because territories like Israel and Spain were once in the sphere of Dar al Islam (Israel was ruled by the Ottoman Caliphate, and Spain was ruled by the Umayyad Caliphate), they must be physically recaptured from the world of Dar al Harb and restored to Dar al Islam. Israel is on the top of the Islamic jihadists’ target list, with Spain a little farther down the list chronologically. This Islamic jurisprudence emphasizing the primacy of Dar al Harb & Dar al Islam in Islamic belief is completely ignored by Obama and those in the U.S. Government like him who hold to the assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian two-state controversy is soluble, and the Israelis are the only stumbling block.
The concepts of “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb” frame the Israeli vs. Palestinian two-state assumption in Islamic theological and jurisprudencial terms, but it is Islamic Sharia Law that renders the situation irresolvable because it gives religious legal force to the mandate that Dar al Islam land invaded and occupied by non-Muslims must be reclaimed by jihadist force of arms. Israel exactly fits this Islamic definition as stated in the Sharia:
THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD
In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year (that is, Islam requires Muslims to conduct a yearly jihad into non-Muslim lands in order to capture territory for Dar al Islam).
The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.
The final nail in the coffin of the fourth assumption that the Israelis are blocking a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian two-state dispute is the Hamas Charter. When Obama and his Secretary of State minion, John Kerry, constantly blame the Israelis for being intransigent and obstructionist in the negotiations process, they are being immensely dishonest because, in addition to all of the Islamic obstacles detailed above, Obama and Kerry obscure the undeniable fact that the Hamas Charter hostilely rejects all possibility of any compromise with the Israelis. Further, since negotiating a workable peace between the Israelis and Palestinians now necessarily involves both the Fatah and Hamas, which have formed a “unity government,” Hamas’ role becomes paramount. Just a few pertinent Hamas Charter extracts:
|
|
The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) |
|
|
|
This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.
Knowing the Movement
The Ideological Aspects
The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.The Link between Hamas and the Association of Muslim Brothers
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era.The Slogan of the Hamas
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.The Universality of Hamas
. . . Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!
The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (an inalienable religious endowment in Islamic Sharia Law)
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. . . . the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.
As can be readily seen from all of the evidence above, Obama’s Israeli vs. Palestinian two-state solution fourth assumption creates its own reality and, therefore, is inevitably doomed to fail.
The fifth assumption that Islamic jihad (violent extremism) can be prevented in the U.S. by working with the American Muslim community, that is, Muslim Brotherhood front groups, represents an unseen ominous danger to the American people because it opens U.S. society to creeping, stealth jihad. Whereas foreign jihadists seek to impose the Sharia (to clear the way for domination of the Islamic religion) through violence, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, in the guise of front groups, employs the protection of the First Amendment to disguise Islam’s true goal of subverting the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with Islamic Sharia Law.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s intent to subversively destroy the United States Government as founded is contained in an official document from a Muslim Brotherhood secret meeting outlining its strategic goals. The document was discovered by the FBI during investigation of Muslim Brotherhood fronts and was entered as evidence in the federal “2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.” The Muslim Brotherhood strategy document reads in part on Page 7:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”
“[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”
This jihadist strategic objective was further confirmed by Omar Ahmad, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood front, the Council on American-Islamic Relations-CAIR:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
A prime example of the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive danger to U.S. citizens occurred when the Muslim Brotherhood organized 57 Islamic organizations to send a letter to Obama protesting alleged “Islamophobia” in U.S. Government counterterror training. The following is an account of related events:
The letter demanded that Obama officials “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”—that is, materials that they claimed were biased against Islam—and “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training.”
The Obama Administration immediately complied. Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that same day that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything that Islamic supremacists deemed offensive: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
An enemy that can’t be named, can’t be defeated. This marks the first time in military history that the world’s reigning superpower has been at war for 35-years against an enemy it fears to identify. The people who have been in U.S. national political and military leadership since the Iranian Islamic Revolution declared war on the U.S. in 1979 will be remembered in history as self-deceiving fools for the blundering way they have ineptly responded during decade upon decade of repeated Islamic jihadist attacks.
The sixth issue assumption that peace and stability can be established in the Middle East by promoting Iran as the regional hegemon that will function in cooperative alliance with the U.S. poses the most immediate existential threat to the American people of all Obama’s fallacious assumptions. As of mid-June 2015, it appears that Obama will accept any agreement with the Mullahs of the Iranian Islamic Revolution in order to guarantee that they acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery capability, which will consolidate their regional hegemony, that they will exercise in conjunction with U.S. interests. Obviously the fundamental premises of this delusional assumption, that the Mullahs will cooperate with the U.S. and use its nuclear power for Middle East stability, are counter-historical, counter-factual, and illogical.
Contrary to Obama’s assumption of the Mullahs of the Iranian Islamic Revolution acting responsibly, the following observations are solidly based on actual history, demonstrated fact, and irrefutable logic.
“A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically.
“Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States and the West.
“While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran having a nuclear weapons capability can potentially directly threaten the United States and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of Defense reported in April 2012: "With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.” Many analysts are also concerned about the possibility of a nuclear weapon arriving in a cargo container at a major US port. Furthermore, a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks noted the vast damage that could be wrought by a single missile with a nuclear warhead, launched from a ship off the US coast, and detonated a couple of hundred miles in the air, high above America.
“A nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to America's closest allies in the Middle East. Israel is most at risk as Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should "be wiped from the map." America's moderate Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others are already alarmed at Iran's aggressive regional policy and would feel increasingly threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.”
The danger inherent in Obama’s sixth assumption alluded to immediately above that affects the entire world is the probability that it will spur nuclear weapons proliferation among one or more of Shia Iran’s neighboring Sunni adversary nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, U.A.E., Kuwait, and Turkey. Adding to the potential for a nuclear conflagration, Israel and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. This volatile situation has the potential to erupt into a nuclear holocaust that could result in a terrible human toll.
Conclusion
All of Obama’s assumptions are not based on reality and work against U.S. interests. Obama’s sixth assumption that would assure the Mullahs of the Iranian Islamic Revolution attain nuclear power status is very strange and contradictory for someone who stood before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2013 and apparently dishonestly declared:
“And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. . . we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global nonproliferation regime.”
Obama’s feckless assumptions are precursors of catastrophe.
---------------------------------------------------
See the Colonel's Archive
Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF(retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan, working with Pakistani military intelligence. During his year in Vietnam he daily scheduled 130 U.S. Army and Air Force intelligence collection aircraft. In his final overseas tour he was the U.S. Air Attaché behind the Iron Curtain in Warsaw, Poland.
In total, Col. Snodgrass was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving duty tours in seven foreign countries, as well as teaching military history and strategy at the Air War College, US Air Force Academy, and USAF Special Operations School during a thirty-year military career.
Additionally, he was awarded an Air Force scholarship to get a history master’s degree in revolutionary insurgent warfare at the University of Texas, as well as being granted a year's educational sabbatical to teach and to write about international relations as an Air Force Research Associate in the graduate school at the Center for Advanced International Studies,
University of Miami, Florida. Following the Air Force, Col. Snodgrass was an adjunct professor of military history for ten years at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Arizona.
If you liked this article, please subscribe to Right Side News Daily
bfl
All that stated, and digested, means that the U.S. military under Obama have deserted the proven writings of:
1. The proven doctrine of PAX CARTHAGE.
2. The proven doctrine of Clausewitz.
3. The proven doctrin of Sun Tzu.
None of which have anything near of comparison with a ‘kumbuya’ moment, but a moment where, “Once we hit the beach, anybody in front of us is the enemy and must be killed.”
So ling as there is a Muslim in the White House covering for terrorists muslims, these assumptions will never change.
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.