This is not Islam Properly Understood
Jonathan Rowe on May 29th 2007
Not the Lockean version for which I argued here.
This figure, the American Al Qaeda propaganda chief, Adam Gadahn, sounds as comically maniacal as Fred Phelps. The frightening thing is whereas the Phelps family are hated and marginalized (honestly, I wonder if anyone outside of the fifty or so people in their church supports their message), Mr. Gadahn speaks the Al Qaeda party line. Some small but significant percentage of Muslims actually support this vile evil. Even if it’s only 5%, 5% of a billion people is still large enough that it constitutes an ongoing problem that won’t go away unless we destroy (hopefully) or otherwise contain them (which in the real world, we might have to settle for).
Listen to his list of demands. There is no way in Hell America or the West should or will make these concessions. And as long as Islamofascists demand them, and are willing to commit terror in furtherance thereof, there will be war. As he notes, Iraq is just one small piece. Even if all of our troops were out tomorrow, Islamofascists like this still abound. And unlike Iraq, they directly threaten freedoms, for which not just the military but ordinary citizens ought to be willing to die. (He says American citizens deserve death simply for criticizing Islam or sending out anti-Islamic messages from our shores. One demands is that the American government gag its citizens from disseminating these messages else we deserve terrorist attacks.)
The big mistake of Iraq, from my perspective, is that it will make the war against Al Qaeda/terrorism more difficult.
And I hate to say this, as much as I like Ron Paul’s libertarian message (I know he has no chance anyway) I don’t trust him against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike Rudy Guiliani’s authoritarianism and statism, I’d rather have him in charge to fight the terrorists like Gadahn and Bin Laden.
Filed in The Barracks, The Belfry, The Bureau
A Paul administration would likely have destroyed AQ by now. Reasonable use of the most effective method to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks would’ve been used, and it would cost the American people vastly less in blood, treasure, and obviously Liberty.
After the 9/11 attacks Rep. Paul recommended that the Congress resurrect the practice of granting letters of marque and reprisal. The key to understanding the superiority of this method versus the Bush/Giuliani method os that it uses two like organizations to battle.
Prior to the style of new warfare that made it’s debut against the US superpower in Vietnam, most battles around the world post WWII were practices in 3rd generation warfare. It was the style of fighting in the post Vietnam era that the absolute unquestioned master of 3rd generation warfare (The USA) had to contend with after the 9/11 attacks, this new warfare we call 4th generation warfare.
The new enemy is not like the Soviets, with a distinct capital in Moscow, with visible troop movements, and with diplomatic presence. The new enemy is a shadowy, decentralized, quasi-state sponsored, uniform-less menace. 3rd generation warfare tactics can only work so well on 4th generation warriors.
The letter of marque and reprisal funds private/semi-private groups and bounty hunters to match the style and ways of the private/semi-private terrorist groups. They’re like a crack team of spies and turncoats that can compete with one another for the prize. Had Bush followed the example of the founders in letters of marque and reprisal Osama bin Laden would likely be awaiting execution right now, rather than living out his days watching Americans die in Iraq.
Giuliani supporters are going to ask for more of the same of the last 7 years, imagining that with a glib NYC character at the helm (proposing to maintain or amplify all of the errors of that time) everything will be soo much better than today. The fools who follow Bush, and now Giuliani will follow them right off a cliff, and take all of America with them.