Unable to fundamentally transform Sun Tzu

telegraphI believed the Jihadists when they declared war on us in 1979, and again sporadically since, and fear we’re in Year 37 of our Hundred Years’ War.

Here’s Andrew McCarthy, in the wake of the all the terrible attacks this year around the world, arguing that “By failing to take the jihadists’ ideology seriously, we refuse to understand the breadth of the threat we face.”

(I)t should by now be perfectly obvious that that there is no “Islam,” at least not if we are talking about a monolithic belief system. There are sects of Islam, all vying for supremacy in what is, in the main, a conquest ideology — with the various splinters having very different ideas about what conquest entails, and with no papal analogue to impose order by decreeing orthodoxy and condemning heterodoxy.

Clearly, some of these sects are our enemy. And just as clearly, these sects also have a legitimate claim on the designation “Islam.” That does not mean they have a monopoly on the interpretation of Islam (there, again, being no such monopoly). But it does oblige government officials responsible for national security to deal with jihadists and other sharia supremacists on their own terms.

Why? Because the objective is to defeat our enemies, not redefine them. To defeat the enemy still requires knowing the enemy. Try as he might, Obama is unable to fundamentally transform Sun Tzu

Jihadists care neither about what Washington thinks “the true Islam” is, nor about the counterfactual “peace” and “tolerance” rhetoric in which this “true Islam” is swaddled. Our enemies’ Islamic legitimacy was not granted by us, and we are powerless to take it away from them…

(P)eople do not commit mass-murder attacks because of economic privation or over trifling slights. They commit it because they are seized by commands that they take to be divine injunctions rooted in scripture, their devotion to which will determine whether paradise or eternal damnation awaits…  You may roll your eyes over quaint notions like religious obligation, but not everybody is equally evolved. Not everybody is convinced that bloody sectarian conflict — the norm of history — is just as obsolete as the rule of law in the age of Obama…

If we don’t grasp that the goal of our enemies is the imposition of fundamentalist sharia, we will continue to miss the breadth of the threat — the fact that the jihadists are just the front-line militants. Slipstreaming behind them, exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation they create, are the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated faux moderates who pursue the same ends by infiltrating our councils of government policy and institutions of opinion.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Unable to fundamentally transform Sun Tzu

  1. Paul Marks says:

    Unlike the Bible (which was written by various people over centuries) the Koran claims to the words of one man (Mohammed – he claimed to get them from God) and written down soon after his death. Indeed Muslims claim the Koran actually existed since the start of the universe – as God knew what Mohamed would say [ask] before he, Mohammed, existed.

    Mohammed was also a political and military leader for ten years – if there was real doubt over what he said (and there is not – not really, the later verses of the Koran supersede the peaceful early versus which were said before Mohammed got his own army) one could simply look at what he DID. For example promise peace to various groups – and then launch surprise attacks, killing and enslaving. Mohammed was a political and military leader of genius – but he was also utterly ruthless and driven to use any means (any means at all) to expand the rule of the religion he had created.

    For example lying-deception (pretending to a friend – whilst really being an enemy) is fine in the teachings of Mohammed – as long as it is for the good of Islam (not personal profit). So a thousand oaths of friendship from a Muslim to an “infidel” will vanish in a twinkling of an eye – as soon as it is in the interests of Islam (again the interests of Islam – not personal profit) for these oaths of friendship to vanish.

    So it is just wrong to say that the Koran, the Hadiths and the life of Mohammed can really have a peaceful and tolerant interpretation. See, for example, the Youtube films of David Wood – exposing Western wishful thinking about this matter.

    Vast numbers of nominal Muslims may be peaceful and tolerant – but Mohammed taught what he taught and did what he did.

    13 centuries of conflict between Islam and the West is not a misunderstanding. And the half truths and absurd distortions, “the Christians and Jews were well treated…..”, of “Al Jazeera” and so on would be funny – if some Westerners were not foolish enough to believe them. Indeed such nonsense (and is is nonsense) is taught in Western schools and universities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s