"Moses and the Golden Calf" by Domenico Beccafumi 1536-37, Duomo, Pisa
My reader Mac Brachman points me to an interesting essay from Daniel Pipes, "How war is perceived has as much importance as how it actually is fought".
If Hezbollah manage to get away with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reaching a deal allowing Hezbollah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public, it may still be their biggest PR coup yet. Kofi Annan for his part is simply laying down playing his usual lame anti-Israel self, with the now additional self imposed amnesia taking hold, claiming that "dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN." Israel may beg to differ.
Pipes says that Western Governments "need to see public relations as part of their strategy"; that Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood clearly do.
This is undoubtedly true. But the part that struck me is that it shouldn't be so.
Pipes tackles this issue indirectly by suggesting that "when West fights non-West, the outcome on the battlefield is a given. That settled in advance, the fighting is seen more like a police raid than traditional warfare. As in a police raid, modern wars are judged by their legality, the duration of hostilities, the proportionality of force, the severity of casualties, and the extent of economic and environmental damage." He cites Paul Kennedy's timeless essay "The Greates Superpower Ever", which portrays the US military as the "only one player on the field that counts."
We comprise slightly less than 5 percent of the world's population; but we imbibe 27 percent of the world's annual oil production, create and consume nearly 30 percent of its Gross World Product and spend a full 40 percent of ALL the world's defense expenditures. As I have noted, the Pentagon's budget is nowadays roughly equal to the defense expenditures of the next nine or 10 highest defense-spending nations-which has never before happened in history.
Again, undoubtedly true. But in order to understand why our leaders and those, who still know right from wrong, should not have to sell basic moral principals to large segments of the population, we need to dig deeper, past the symptoms to the cause.
The question we must ask: How is it possible that in a nation, where 'success' has been elevated to a quasi-religious status in virtually all parts of society and activities, almost half its population rejects, what throughout human history used to be not just any, but the number one source for individual pride and self-esteem, the economic and military might of that, their very own, nation.
When we begin to understand the answer to this question, will be also understand that public relations efforts are not the cure, but more often than not completely counterproductive. We are witnessing this every day, when genuine statements from the Administration are ripped apart and spun beyond recognition in support of increasingly shrill claims, alleging revelations of stark raving mad conspiracy plots - they are no longer mere theories but touted as 'facts'.
And if Government PR campaigns are not working, what will, and what does? Perceived human tragedy.
"Tragedy instantly creates spiritual sensitivity. Suffering is humbling, eye-opening. Prosperity creates the illusion that everything goes the way we want it to go, and makes many ask, "So who needs God?'
This can be the "curse" of success, warned Moses:
When God your Lord brings you into the land that He promised to your fathers... you will find great, flourishing cities that you did not build... you will eat and be satisfied, but be careful not to forget God. (Deuteronomy 6:10; see also 32:15)
Success leads to confidence, and confidence very often leads to over-confidence. Over-confidence, in the end, leads to a de-sensitization to the reality of God."
Kenny,
You really pointed out something here for me and I would like to add...
Does anyone ever think about the generation of kids right now in public schools and universities that are being taught to tolerate and embrace multiculturalism on a scale of the caliber 'that Islam is the religion of peace!' Clinton was part of selling out our kids along with the ACLU as the liberal academia just sucked it all up as progressive achievement for meshing Islam into the mainstream of public education. I sit here wondering if people ever realise that while this is taking place on the psyches and education of teh average American kids, that at the same time, on the other hand inside the Islamic schools they are taught something different! In time, these generations are going to meet at a crossroads here inside America both politically and socially, and the conflict is going to be tremendous, since the one set of kids are going to have their mouth's duct taped with political correctness and their minds are going to be hazed over with "accept Islam--it's really peaceful and will never do harm" and the other set of kids that have been raised in the wahabi schools here in America are going to be taught to not even befriend let alone trust the "infidel crowd" I won't even mention the anti American crap or having to wonder if or whom has spent their summer at a jihad camp!
Has anyone even thought about what it will be like in 15-20 years? What if a large group of youth decide to start their own gang like pro palestinian group with hamas or hezbollah fundamental ideas along with their converts and recruites and decided to wreak havock right here in the good old USA? I am not talking about just sporting an armband at graduation! But looking more and more at the complicated struggles and obstacles we deal with now, can we honestly say that we have been fair to our children and granchildren on educating them honestly with what radical islam is all about? Have we spent the time to teach them how to recognise it? I am not talking about teaching your kids to hate, by no means, I am talking about parents that feel too afraid to even discuss the issues out of fear of offending or being walled down with their child's adamant response, "But at school they taught us that Islam is peaceful and Mohammed never told a lie! Even the president says Islam is peaceful DAD! How am I suppose to know a moderate muslim from a radical one MOM?" (Since anyone can be a practicing muslim so it's not a racial thing so it comes down to anyone can accept this ideology and act upon it!) It's not just a male thing either, since we are learning that women are even willing to sacrifice their little babies for jihad!
Can we not look at these generations of material blessed kids with great concern--so many young minds that haven't really had much hardships in their teens, except for those that freak out when a storm comes through and they lose internet connection or maybe their Xbox processor is on the blink! I really wonder how we Americans have/or are arming our future when it comes to depending on these kids being prepared since over half I talk with say they believe Michael Moore's bull or the other half have fallen for the 911/govt conspiracy and sadly, I agree that it's quite true when Kenny mentions that so many don't even know their own history. I think there was also a survey done recently and many didn't even know what year 911 took place! *sigh*
I guess all I am venting here is that we should really put these generations coming up behind us that are being groomed for dimmitude, on our prayer list, because they are surely gonna need it!
Posted by: liquid | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Gringo,
In partial answer to your questions -- highly speculative, I hasten to emphasize, and very much off the top of my head:
1. Americans don't know history. They don't know their own history, much less that of Islam. And this tendency has been greatly accelerated by a full-scale attack on the teaching of accurate history in our government-dominated educational system...but I won't get started on a rant about how insane it is to have the government significantly involved in, much less outright in charge of, something as important to our future as the education of our children.
2. Americans (except for the politically extreme) prefer to like people (except for Americans who have the bad taste to be at the opposite extreme on the political spectrum) and hate to face up to evil in others (with the aforementioned exception, in which case they are eager to imagine evil in the Detestable Ones whether there's actually any there or not).
3. Americans on the religious Left don't like the idea of evil at all and are very reluctant indeed to face up to anything remotely resembling the doctrine of Original Sin -- which G. K. Chesterton called the one doctrine of Christianity that is incontravertible empirical fact.
4. The less hardship you are asked to bear when young, the less hardship you are willing to bear as an adult. Or, rather, the less hardship that you and your parents go through together with cheerfulness and success, the less hardship you are capable of bearing successfully as an adult. An essential part of parenting is teaching your children how to triumph over adversity; but for most modern American kids the major sources of hardship in their lives arise precisely from their parents' bailing out rather than fighting through adversity, the result being damaging to the children rather than strengthening.
These are all gross generalizations but in a country of 300 million people valid generalizations, however gross, have significant effect.
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 11:08 AM
---gringoman:
Liquid,
I wonder if the crucifixion is even the key difference. How much does that even matter when Islam holds that Jesus, although a prophet (not as great as the charismatic warlord Mohammed, of course) was still only a man and NOT divine?
------------------------
Well for Christians out there that think the Jews are the main target to "NOT exist" by the ideology of those that follow Allah, it certainly is the alarming difference, because today inside the USA and abroad in the west, many muslims are trying to decieve people into believing that they "respect Jesus" and that on this common respect belief that we should bridge and tolerate their religion in our congregations; instead of telling the truth or exposing it for what it really is. It's a whole universalism political correctness that is being presented to many in the name of tolerance. But in Islamic countries we don't get that same tolerance! Islam wants acceptance from the Christians inside the west as it endorses their legitamacy as "a peaceful religion" instead of a potential political movement that eventually surfaces (or bullies it's way into the mosques)and undermines the community inch by inch. Many muslims have voiced this---that they want America to be islamic eventually. Polls in the UK show it too. When we look at Islamic countries, such as Iran, we can see that the koran becomes the constitution and the shariah law becomes the law! In the future are Christians willing to live under shariah? Are Christians willing to renounce Jesus on the cross and submit to Allah? Because in Islam you can have "A" Jesus...but without the work on the cross and crucifixion. See what I mean? Islam knew it couldn't stand up to the power of the sacrifice of Jesus's blood, so they had to basically make the crucifixion null all together.
What better way to beat your enemy than to strip it of it's power to be motivated to fight back! As for the crucifixion, without it Christians are stripped of their salvation and their hope for reconciliation with God. Earlier I said that our enemy is willing to die for 'their god' and that seems to give them a powerful motivation on the battle field in recruitment, guerilla tactic by suicide bombings via strapped on or hidden in cars, but as a Christian, I am just as strong if not stronger a warrior because although my God doesn't command me to murder my enemies for my assured salvation, (since that has already been done for me by my savior since He didn't want to live an eternity without me) so it is that KEY of a difference that I will not lay down and renounce it or give up my salvation to submit to Allah. See what I mean? Muslims are out there dying for what they believe in their hearts is an assured ticket to paradise, and yet what I am trying to explain is that Christians are fighting for their freedom to choose their salvation by fighting the evil that wants to take that away from them! Many won't agree with that because they haven't been confronted with it up close and person-- YET!
See...I understand that to live under Islamic dictatorship, where as a nonmuslim one would be given three choices. Submit to Allah, pay a tax of protection money until you were not able to pay, or die! It's as simple as that. The fact that Jews and Christians are driven out and persecuted in Islamic countries is because that is what Allah commands. Anyone that falls for the deception that the Islamic god and the Judeo Christian God are the same...is totally fooled.
Posted by: liquid | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 05:16 AM
Kenny,
Re the Allah/Moon God controversy: I'll have to look up the ATB on this when conditions and environs are, unlike currently, more propitious. Prior to leaving the big busy Hannity Forum after (let's just say) "bad blood""between myself and a hard-nosed goober who in Arizona moderates for "people's New Yorky Sean Hannity (who I have no problem with)I got this controversy going there which drew a very big response. I did that back in the Winter (or possibly Spring) of 2005. We needn't ask here whether this is an example of how "great blogminds think alike." I'll just add that you seemed to be looking at the "Spiritual Struggle" in a purer sense, personal prayer etc. While not attempting to ignore or downplay that, my emphasis was more, I guess, on the political/intellectual aspect. E.g. Why does a White House automatically go on the defensive so often? Is it asking too much for career pols to grasp such simple and obvious historical facts like (subject of past gringoScreeds)the fascinating truth that the muslims started this so-called "crusade"business long before the Christians marched to Jerusalem. Or should we accept that leaders need to hold hands with these "moderates" while the "moderates" finance further "business"here, ensuring that Islam makes inroads in the USA like Christianity never will over there where they drove it out millenia ago? Why are Americans, despite all their bombs and ordnance, such p------ies? I don't get it. Do you?
Liquid,
I wonder if the crucifixion is even the key difference. How much does that even matter when Islam holds that Jesus, although a prophet (not as great as the charismatic warlord Mohammed, of course) was still only a man and NOT divine?
The whole matter of monotheism, when you see Judaism as the grandfather, Christianity the Son and Islam as the upstart scimitar-wielding grandson, is not only very inter5esting and very complex, but also--I submit--profoundly relevant to the Long War---a War that began over 1000 years ago, something which liberals, and many Republicans too, seem congenitally incapable of grasping, but which even a common street Arab understands rather well, compared to yet another preppy in a position of power.
Saul Davis,
The interesting thing about Islamo fascism and German Fascism is how the former predates the latter by a millenium but is able to pick up tricks and tactics from the latter, as in Goebbelizing today's Information War. But this is typical. They are also quick to glom onto all the great innventiveness of the West, as we see with today's telecom revolution. Like some Asians, they are excellent at picking brains and sometimes adding clever little twists or refinements to the West's creativity. This is another example of how the Islamites, despite their medeival matrix, are able to use the West against the West. Aren't they clever buggers?
Posted by: gringoman | Friday, August 18, 2006 at 01:08 AM
Classic Spengler from the Asia Times; prescient analysis; he seems to be able to call the shots before they happen.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH01Ak01.html
Posted by: Saul Davis | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Liquid, Kenny and Gringoman: your points are well taken and correct; the principal difficulty here is we need proper leadership; while there are many foot soldiers who are willing and able to ratchet up the GWOT, both physically and from the almost equally important propagand angle, there are very few leaders who are willing or capable of doing so; I think back to the President's address to the nation shortly after Sept. 11, and I firmly believed that he was capable of wearing the Churchill/FDR/Truman/Reagan mantle of leadership. However, I am afraid that the MSM and Iraq have worn the President down. The President listens to State's advice over that of the VP and Sec. Rumsfeld, precisely because the EU, the diplomats, the MSM etc. are accusing him of being a cowboy and not permitting the proper involvement of the UN, diplomacy and the international community; where has that gotten us; are our interests truly aligned with those of Russia, China, the UN and the EU appeasers? Who will lead us? Ohlmert? As they say in Brooklyn, ya gotta be kidding me! Tony Blair? He has his own MSM and Chamberlain problems. Howard -- would be a great possibility; those Australians are tough and do not pull punches; but I do not frankly see the Aussies as leaders in the GWOT; to be very frank, I believe that the only one capable of true leadership was the President, but he has let us down with Iran [the negotiations by the three EUs was a joke from the beginning] and now Lebanon [allowing a resolution that you knew would be broken before it came into effect is not leadership -- see Sec Rice's WAPO op ed]. So, yes, I and many others are depressed, and for good reason. An army without leaders is no army. This is not to say we should not continue to decry appeasement or forcefully promote the GWOT against Islamofascists. It is a practical observation of the realities of present-day international affairs.
Posted by: Saul Davis | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 07:25 PM
gringoman: " If I may, let me cite a little example from Liquid to illustrate.
He mentions the importance of faith and relying on God. Fine Christian sentiment. Yet further down he refers to Islamics who will demand that you submit to Allah.
This raises a matter I brought up on another forum a good while back, but which most of our hard-nosed "reality-based"friends might dismiss as irrelevant to this World War: Are Allah and the Christian God one and the same? Fear not, I don't want to explore this now. But it's clear that Liquid, consciously or not, implied that Allah is not synonymous with the Christian deity. Otherwise, what's the problem with bowing down to theirs if theirs is also yours?"
---------------------------------------
Like Kenny mentioned and linked to, we have had this discussion before, but yeah Gringoman,if one reads the Koran and also is privy to what is taught inside many mosque around the world, one's eyes and one's ears wouldn't recognise Jesus at all, since the Islamic "Isa" Jesus is a re-invented version of the True one. In fact, the Islamic Jesus is a total perversion of the truth of who Jesus was and what He did while on earth and although many muslims will express that they respect all prophets the same and that Jesus was a prophet, they continue with help from their koran to strip Jesus of His work on the cross and strip all divine purpose of salvation from Him. The Koran teaches that Jesus was NEVER crucified, therefore; by taking His sacrifice and gift away, the teaching of the 'Islamic Jesus' robs all of mankind of a choice to accept their savior and the sacrificial blood that can cover their sins. Now for anyone that is Christian, you must ask yourself, who would try to hide from you this free gift from God? Who is inside every second and moment of day and night trying to keep you from even knowing of this gift? Who would go to the trouble to take bits and pieces of the bible--OT and NT-- then distort it into such ways that you don't even recognise it? Again, one must read both the bible and the Koran to see the perversion of the latter with their own eyes! Don't take my word for it...seek it out for yourself so you can be certain! It's all there to see.
I have had some muslims explain to me that on the day of judgement that mohammed is going to intercede for them. I don't know if all believe this since to me in the Koran it seemed to fall on allah's will only if one deserved it, but when someone puts faith into intercession of mohammed I do always ask them," What would mohammed have to offer your maker *since you believe the allah god is your maker* to atone for so much of mankind's sin? What sacrifice did mohammed ever offer you or anyone for that matter? What miracle did he ever produce in his lifetime that would even give him that status of anything divine to have the power to intercede for anyone? Some muslims have stated to me that "our books" --the Jews' and Christians'-- are the ones that are distorted and full of lies yet logically we all know that the Koran was produced well over what? 600 years later? So it doesn't take much to understand that the concept of 'Jesus was never crucified' was a teaching of Islam from the Koran to make the gift of salvation through Christ's work on the cross null to the people of the book and to any muslim that was ever enlightened to the message of those books. All this rewriting of holy scripture of the koran was built on ONE man's word and that he claimed it was given to him from an angel "Gabriel"
I mention this last bit of information to all the Christians reading this because if you will take the time to read in Galatians 1:6-9, where Paul explained it further to us with such great importance that he repeated it twice, 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Isn't that the very birth of Islam? That supposedly 'an angel' came down and presented another gospel to mohammed?
Posted by: liquid | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Gringo,
Two quick points:
1. Don't underestimate the degree to which we devout Christians are also fighting the spiritual war -- but the weapons of spiritual warfare are very different from the weapons of political warfare, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
In short, the spiritual battle is fought on our knees much more than in the field or on the internet. And the more serious a soldier in that war is, the less likely you are (given Jesus' strong words about praying in secret) to see him engaged in the fight.
Having said that, I find myself personally convicted by what you say, because I have realized that I've broken my first rule about political discourse: I should always spend more time praying for any given politician than I spend criticizing him. My criticism/prayer ratio has gotten seriously out of whack vis-a-vis Dubya. So I'll have to quieten down some here at ATB and get that back in balance. Therefore, I personally thank you, Gringo, for the very timely, if somewhat uncomfortable, call to conscience.
2. The question of whether Allah and the Christian/Jewish God are the same was the subject of one of ATB's all-time great open threads, and I highly recommend your perusal thereof. My own take on the question, which is precisely relevant to the point you raised above, and which I don't want to retype here ;-), is pretty far down, but you should read the whole thread, except that as always you can skip anything written by DavidByron (whose general uselessness in discussion I had not yet apprehended when that thread was active).
Posted by: Kenny | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 09:39 AM
Slightly OT but connected; LGF has a YouTube video of a German TV station production regarding the IslamoFascist/Nazi connection during WWII; this is a topic about which I had commented on a number of occasions in the past, and Google has a wealth of information on this topic [search words: 1. Bana and Nazi; 2. Mufti and Nazi]; however, the video places the seriousness of the GWOT viz. the Islamofascists in proper perspectie; they are the present-day heirs of the Nazi philosophy for world domination, even though their philosophy actually preceded Nazi Germany by many centuries; they have successfully and effectively adopted the Nazi tact of the Big Lie propaganda, thanks in great part to the MSM; we do not seem to learn from history -- which failure can cause significant harm to our well being [understatement on]; Chamberlain was the appeaser then; today it is Rice/State Dep't, with significant assistance from the EU and MSM; many blogs have made the connection, but this video is most beneficial in placing the connection in proper perspective -- a picture is worth a thousand words.
Posted by: saul davis | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 09:00 AM
Liquid has touched on something that is so key to this World War that very few---perhaps only the happy few---will truly grapple with it. Call it the Spiritual (okay, Religious) dimension of this global conflict.
Most everyone would rather address the more obvious components of struggle: the Military War, the Information War. The Perils of Success etc.
Who can blame them? These are obviously very, very important elements. (Ask any totalitarian from the Third Reich to the Kremlin to Beijing's Forbidden Politburo to Tora Bora or Tehran.) The spiritual struggle appears either too simplistic, too irrelevant, too dang intangible, and maybe--admit it--even Sunday Schoolish. And most troubling of all, it suggests, or may imply, something that terrifies Modern Man, both the secular and Christian models: Religious War or, as gringovision has phrased it for years now, The War of the Monotheists. Obviously the globalizers, whether "liberal"or "conservative" cannot abide such a beast, especially when doing their sweet mega-deals with "moderate muslims"or when the Trust Fund Liberals are preening with pieties and preppy "sensitivities" till you're ready to puke.
Here's a major point of my little screed today: The "simple" aspect of the spiritual conflict is in fact complex, even profound, possibly even terrifying, and THAT is why, from the White House on down (whether WH is occupied by The Bashed or any of the other bashables from either party)most everyone will avoid it or at least downplay it desperately. If I may, let me cite a little example from Liquid to illustrate.
He mentions the importance of faith and relying on God. Fine Christian sentiment. Yet further down he refers to Islamics who will demand that you submit to Allah.
This raises a matter I brought up on another forum a good while back, but which most of our hard-nosed "reality-based"friends might dismiss as irrelevant to this World War: Are Allah and the Christian God one and the same? Fear not, I don't want to explore this now. But it's clear that Liquid, consciously or not, implied that Allah is not synonymous with the Christian deity. Otherwise, what's the problem with bowing down to theirs if theirs is also yours? Kow-towing to their Allah (seeing Allah as not the old Arab moon good) could even be viewed as the result of a fine Islamic attempt to bring the West back to what it it has strayed from, instead of forcing it to submit to something alien.
And this is just a tiny glimpse of the minefield out there. Clearly the West, or the great majority, are very uncomfortable in this area. (Aren't you? Admit it.) Another reason why the Islamic world can dominate rather easily in this area? If George Bush is seen as out of his depth in grappling with the thousand year history of Jihad, the conquests of Abubekir--- Muhammad's immediate successor--- how Christian Damascus once flowed with Christian blood etc, does anyone, besides the likes of crazy George Soros, think his ambitious office-seeking opponents are any better as they diddle with the Unctuous Nations?
Conclusion: Americans will continue to avoid the spiritual battlefield. They will yield it to Islam, and Islam knows it. Islam can concentrate on what Americans see as the War---the problem of shifty and ever changing guerilla tactics, both for infidel body count, attrition of infidel finance and economy, and of course the obvious Information War. Call it the West's---and the energetic but psychologically inept Americans'--- magnificent bonus submitted freely to Islam. A great Jihad victory requiring not even a single martyr. Even terror has subleties unfit--they think--for infidels and Americans.
Liquid can raise the spiritual/religious dimension again and again. Does anyone think he'll get a big reaction?
Posted by: gringoman | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:47 AM
Liquid has touched on something that is so key to this World War that very few---perhaps only the happy few---will truly grapple with it. Call it the Spiritual (okay, Religious) dimension of this global conflict.
Most everyone would rather address the more obvious components of struggle: the Military War, the Information War. The Perils of Success etc.
Who can blame them? These are obviously very, very important elements. (Ask any totalitarian from the Third Reich to the Kremlin to Beijing's Forbidden Politburo to Tora Bora or Tehran.) The spiritual struggle appears either too simplistic, too irrelevant, too dang intangible, and maybe--admit it--even Sunday Schoolish. And most troubling of all, it suggests, or may imply, something that terrifies Modern Man, both the secular and Christian models: Religious War or, as gringovision has phrased it for years now, The War of the Monotheists. Obviously the globalizers, whether "liberal"or "conservative" cannot abide such a beast, especially when doing their sweet mega-deals with "moderate muslims"or when the Trust Fund Liberals are preening with pieties and preppy "sensitivities" till you're ready to puke.
Here's a major point of my little screed today: The "simple" aspect of the spiritual conflict is in fact complex, even profound, possibly even terrifying, and THAT is why, from the White House on down (whether WH is occupied by The Bashed or any of the other bashables from either party)most everyone will avoid it or at least downplay it desperately. If I may, let me cite a little example from Liquid to illustrate.
He mentions the importance of faith and relying on God. Fine Christian sentiment. Yet further down he refers to Islamics who will demand that you submit to Allah.
This raises a matter I brought up on another forum a good while back, but which most of our hard-nosed "reality-based"friends might dismiss as irrelevant to this World War: Are Allah and the Christian God one and the same? Fear not, I don't want to explore this now. But it's clear that Liquid, consciously or not, implied that Allah is not synonymous with the Christian deity. Otherwise, what's the problem with bowing down to theirs if theirs is also yours? Kow-towing to their Allah (seeing Allah as not the old Arab moon good) could even be viewed as the result of a fine Islamic attempt to bring the West back to what it it has strayed from, instead of forcing it to submit to something alien.
And this is just a tiny glimpse of the minefield out there. Clearly the West, or the great majority, are very uncomfortable in this area. (Aren't you? Admit it.) Another reason why the Islamic world can dominate rather easily in this area? If George Bush is seen as out of his depth in grappling with the thousand year history of Jihad, the conquests of Abubekir--- Muhammad's immediate successor--- how Christian Damascus once flowed with Christian blood etc, does anyone, besides the likes of crazy George Soros, think his ambitious office-seeking opponents are any better as they diddle with the Unctuous Nations?
Conclusion: Americans will continue to avoid the spiritual battlefield. They will yield it to Islam, and Islam knows it. Islam can concentrate on what Americans see as the War---the problem of shifty and ever changing guerilla tactics, both for infidel body count, attrition of infidel finance and economy, and of course the obvious Information War. Call it the West's---and the energetic but psychologically inept Americans'--- magnificent bonus submitted freely to Islam. A great Jihad victory requiring not even a single martyr. Even terror has subleties unfit--they think--for infidels and Americans.
Liquid can raise the spiritual/religious dimension again and again. Does anyone think he'll get a big reaction?
Posted by: gringoman | Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 12:47 AM
Kenny P.: I wasn't aware of the Animal House/Dartmouth anecdote; very funny, but all too true. As someone who spent far too much of his youth around the halls of academe (bachelor's degree and two graduate degrees, including a piled-higher-and-deeper (Ph.D.)), calling academic administrators and deans horses' a**es is an insult to horses and behinds everywhere.
Reads of the day: 1) AP reports that Navid Haq, the coward who allegedly murdered Pam Waechter and wounded 5 other women (including one 4 months pregnant) after kidnapping a 14-year-old girl to get inside the building housing the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, has pleaded not guilty. Rumor has it the weasel, who has quickly gone from valiant Muslim jihadist/shahid ("martyr") to craven defendant hoping to save his precious hide will attempt an insanity defense. 2) memri.org, the indispensable organization monitoring Arab/Muslim media, entertainment, and education, reports and gives clips of an interview with Hamid Gul, former head of ISI (the main Pakistani intelligence organization). Gul, who headed ISI in the late '80s, endorses Mel Gibson's statement that jews are the cause of all wars in the world; Gul even finds perfidious Jewish hands in the 59-year-old-hot-and-cold dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Apparently we Jews (numbering fewer than 14 million worldwide) somehow are responsible for "all wars." Let's see: that includes the centuries-old conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, including many decades when Jews were expelled/banned en masse from the British Isles; it includes all the myriad inter- and intra-tribal wars in sub-Saharan Africa; it includes the 23-year-old war between (mainly Hindu) minority Tamil and (mainly Buddhist) majority Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, etc. The fact that almost every major conflict in the world at the moment involves Muslims, either against non-Muslims of some type or against other Muslims, has no bearing, of course. We <14 million Jews sure have a lot of power over the 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.7 billion Christians, 900 million or so Hindus, and 500-700 million Buddhists in the world! We must be witches or children of Satan! Or, to paraphrase Dana Carvey's old character the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live: If the Muslims have completely f*cked up their nest, turned it into a sh*tpit of obscurantism and willful ignorance and bigotry, povery, backwardness, poor education, corruption, and wanton exploitation and oppression of women, might it be, could it be, not the Jews' fault? Might it be, could it be, THE MUSLIMS' OWN DAMN FAULT!? Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 11:56 PM
When I read through this, I just want to say "all of the above". We are in the "Information Age" and "Information Warfare" is on every military schoolhouse curriculum throughout the world.
Let's do China:
Chinese concepts of information operations/information warfare (IO/IW) include elements such as combat secrecy, military deception, psychological warfare, electronic warfare, physical destruction of C2 infrastructure, and computer network warfare. China views IO/IW as a strategic preemptive weapon for use outside of traditional operational boundaries. IO/IW is to be used substantially as an unconventional weapon at the beginning of a conflict. China is particularly sensitive to the potential asymmetric applications IO/IW can have in any future conflict with a technologically superior adversary.
It is true for conventional forces, like the Israelis rolling in with their tanks and infantry...and it has always been true for practitioners of guerilla warfare, a style of hit-and-run warfare that has been around since ancient times and has always employed principles designed to "do a lot with a little", and have a small force maximize their advantages to have a greater than proportional effect on the enemy.
Both conventional and guerilla forces can use terrorism as a tactic. Terrorism IS psychological warfare...the violent act is meant to elicit horror and fear...a psychological effect on the enemy...typically disproportionate to the magnitude of the attack itself.
Hisballa's rockets don't have much of a military effect, but they have a major psychological effect...on the other hand, weapons that can kill tanks when they cross the border and come within range do have a military effect.
Guerillas, typically being an inferior force in terms of sheer firepower, have always maximized propaganda and used psychological effects to their advantage.
Consider this:
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahedin to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qa'ida in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human economic and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note ..." – Osama bin Laden
Information warfare is not new, nor is recognizing the relationship between information, decision-making, and victory itself novel.
Sun Tzu wrote of the supreme importance of attacking the enemy's strategy (decision-making) and the use of deception to do so, as well as the importance of spying to improve one's own decision-making capacity.
Groups like al-Qa'ida organized along network-centric segmented tribal lines, are benefiting from and taking advantage of opportunities provided by advanced information technologies to recruit, organize, plan, direct, finance, and execute criminal or terrorist acts, as well as to elicit overt and covert support from various population groups in furtherance of their activities.
These terrorist groups may not be susceptible to conventional military or law enforcement strategies.
Modern information technologies are themselves among the primary enabling mechanisms for the emergence and amplification of certain sub-state organized threats to global security.
A shift in military paradigm applies to nation-state conflict as well.
It has been argued that historically manifest wars of destruction (i.e., "total war" among the great powers) gave way to the great war of deterrence (the "cold war" and related proxy skirmishes between the two superpowers), which in turn is being supplanted with wars of disruption shaped by international competition and Information Technology-driven military organizations.
"We are approaching a stage of development when no one is a soldier anymore but everyone is a participant in combat action. The task now is not to inflict losses in men and materiel but to thwart an enemy's plans, demoralize it, undermine its worldview, and destroy its intrinsic values." (Maj. Gen. G.A. Berezkin, Deputy Head of the Russian Federation Defense Ministry Center of Military-Technical Information Studies, in Lessons from the war in Iraq, MILITARY THOUGHT (May 1, 2003).
So, Alexandra has a sense that it "should not be so"...but I think she realizes it is so. And the issue of over-confidence is something that is frequently exploited by the effective practitioners of guerilla and information warfare...in fact it is probably the easiest misperception to exploit.
Not only can over-confidence be turned into a military defeat, but even tactical military victories by a superior force can be translated into strategic defeat if that force is not congnizant of its limitations, and the long term effects opereratons have on public sentiment...the mother's milk of the guerilla/terrorist.
These factors now play out on a global stage...and are ignored only at one's own risk.
Moments of tragedy and failure are always opportunities for reflection on one's relationship with God...perhaps lessons in humility frequently spring from failed hubris...but then...
"When God your Lord brings you into the land that He promised to your fathers... you will find great, flourishing cities that you did not build... you will eat and be satisfied, but be careful not to forget God." (Deuteronomy 6:10; see also 32:15)
It's good to remember God in the good times as well. And it is always best to love your enemy.
"How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right."
Shinguaconse ("Little Pine")
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 07:49 PM
It was an information operation from the get go, from the battlefield to the propaganda mongers.
This quote is from an article about Israeli reservists returning to Israel from Lebanon:
Capt. Arik Dayan said Hezbollah was fighting a different sort of war, in which the goal was not to conquer territory, but to inflict maximum casualties. "They say, 'Come take the village,' then they come to you," he said. "They work in small groups. Simplicity wins."
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060816-121012-9291r.htm
Posted by: rich | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 05:19 PM
From WESTERN RESISTANCE an excellent article about how Al Qaeda Group Calls For Media Jihad
Posted by: liquid | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Antimedia types what I think....thanks.
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 02:36 PM
First I would like to say that the picture today and the topic is not only humbling to me but very much needed. Sometimes we can read things that we walk away from knowing that the writer's spirit was moved from above and that the message has something important for us and so I thank Alexandra for once again being able to pull us back to this spot of honesty because we step off that foundation with emotion and reaction from frustration when things go spinning out of control. I absolutely feel blessed in reading this today, because it reminds each of us that when we acknowlege God that it's in that spot of acknowledgement where He will direct our paths.
You know, we all are guilty, because we are all human; of trying so deeply to reason the current complicated situations, and in doing that we look for answers and solutions in and out of every crook and cranny that is available to us on the table of conflicts and troubles, but in all of the logic and reverse engineering of thought that we take part in, along with much exhausted discussion, we so often forget to be still and consult with our maker, (even though we are taught to put Him first in all things so that all of our endevours will be blessed) we so often forget who takes care of our needs and we get lost in our own understanding and thats when we become so vulnerable to our enemy.
It's amazing how quick so many around the world are willing to be silent on what is really going on against the Jewish people and against the western values and life we cherish --for example on issues like 'Silence begets evil actions'
and how it is alarming to watch around the globe the haze of blaming Israel and the Jews for everything! Instead of sharing encouragement and hope--too many choose gloom and defeat! Is this gloom becoming so contagious? We need to buckle up and be with Israel in every way we can! We have to do more -yes -on the propaganda issues as Pipes points out and since too many ears are willing to fall for the lies but also we need to put a real effort towards encouragement and support in a positive manner to boost and hold up those on the front line of this attack on western values and western life! Isreal needs us like never before! This battle is not over and as we regroup in this pause we have to refresh and put on more than battle fatigues--we have to put on spiritual armour because this conflict is a spiritual and religious conflict no matter how much propaganda tries to graze over it!
IMHO, when Israel AND the western world start to embrace their right to exist within the freedoms of democracy and realise that they must fight with all their strength this enemy (the enemy that wants to dominate us and force us to bow down to Allah)because when Israel and the God fearing nations start to trust in God 's promises to them, then maybe we can give a united front to our enemy! Right now, we just squabble between ourselves and divide our strongholds! In this time of shady uncertainty, we must hold one another up and stand on the foundations of who we are and what we stand for and the strength we gain in trusting God's will and power to hold us up in His purpose!
Now many will say, "So you are suggesting that we are going to fight back with God and become the fanatics like the terrorist?" Well...let me remind you that the enemy is willing to die for "their god" and if we don't regroup and discover the power and will of "our God" then we just as well lay down and submit right now, because the strongest most powerful ammunition we have is the promises of our maker and if we don't accept that and believe that--then we toss away our ultimate strength and become so weak in the battles to come because if we choose to lose our faith and forgot what is precious to us: God, Family, and the Freedoms that God gave us in our Countries today then we have no motivation to fight at all! We take it all for granted and woe to us if we don't fight for it!
I pray that Israel takes the lead and hopefully with more positive support from us all, they can show the rest of us that want our futures to be in freedom and not dimmitude, how to stand united together and trust on God's promises for us and not depend on illusions of peace from a political piece of paper that can be torn up at any time. We have seen how those "peace treaties" fail and it's time to put our faith in the one that created all things and the one that will uphold us. It is there that we will find comfort, guidance and the strength to fight our enemy.
Isaiah 41:10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
Posted by: liquid | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 02:28 PM
When the progagandist media holds up dead Lebanese babies and cries, "See? See what you have done? You have killed the babies!", the response should be, "There will be many more unless you stop attacking us." Then follow through. The only reason groups like Hezbollah exist is because we allow them to. If we had crushed them when they bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut, they would not even exist today.
They exist today because we allow it - because we are too weak to do what must be done - because we somehow seem to get perverse pleasure out of coddling criminals until they kill enough of us that we finally put our foot down.
Posted by: antimedia | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 01:47 PM
It isn't even possible to win a propaganda war when you don't own the machines of propaganda. The west should stop trying to win the propaganda war and stop agonizing over it and simply beat the crap out of the Islamofascists until they say uncle. The hell with "world opinion". The hell with the media. You know, before the first rocket is fired, that the picture painted will be rosy for the enemy and dark for you. So ignore it. Do what must be done and get it over with.
If the west can't do that, then it truly has lost.
Posted by: antimedia | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 01:38 PM
Alexandra,
I’m not sure what to conclude by the mostly undefined outcome of this somewhat “minor” conflict in Lebanon. I don’t buy into the MSM and the talking heads’ premise that Israel and the “West” lost or even came up short, militarily, in this episode of the larger conflict with Syria and Iran.
Nasrallah, for all he might claim, did loose about 1000 fighters, hundreds of launchers and many of his medium/long range missiles. He tossed about 30% of his inventory of short range Katuskias into Israel inflicting relatively little damage. He was deprived of his firing positions in the south, and of his re-supply routes from Syria at the outset of the fighting. Tossing aside the PR, I think the Israelis did “kick some butt”, but not nearly enough to meet “expectations”.
This is where I have a problem. What were the “expectations”? Disarm Hizbollah? Unrealistic by virtue of the way Israel set up and pursued the battle. Get their solders back? No. That would remain an open issue for negotiations no matter what the military outcome was, short of total surrender by Hizbollah. Damage Hisbollah? It’s fair to say that they did. Stop the missle attacks into Israel? No question that was accomplished, at least for the immediate and possibly short term with “peacekeepers” in place. Gain intelligence on Hizbollah’s strength and weapons systems? Again, accomplished. Lay open for the world to see that the government in Lebanon is not “for real", and is still a pawn to be played by Iran? Again, accomplished for the ignorant masses in the West who did not recognize or admit this beforehand.
I’m not being paranoid or delusional when I suggest that something “large” looms on the horizon, and that the entire “three act play” we witnessed, was critical positioning to confront what is inexorably coming our way.
Regards,
JCC
Posted by: RunningRoach | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Alexandra, I do agree with those who say that one of the mistakes Israel and the West have made is underestimating Hizbullah's (and Hamas' and Irans et al.) strength propaganda wise. Not just that, but also the willing compliance of the MSM -> just look at the AP: the AP is now even sticking up for Green Helmet and conveniently ignoring bullet-proof evidence that he is a Hizbullah master of propaganda.
In every war, it's of the utmost importance to win the war of propaganda. In the West, the images shown to us were constantly negative for Israel and positive for Hizbullah. We have been confronted with this time and time again.
Israel quite clearly lost this part of the war.
It seems that the Israeli government and the US government weren't really busy defending themselves publicly / for the media. One of the biggest mistakes that has been made is that Livni decided to stay in Israel, instead of going to New York and defending Israel in person there.
There have been more mistakes than that, of course. Israel also made gigantic military mistakes. But, that is, of course not where your article is about.
Israel should have fought the propaganda part of the war much more aggressively. Israel's mistake has been halfheartedness. Half-heartedness in just about everything.
One must either be cold or hot, lukewarm will not bring victory.
Lastly: indeed, I believe that Israel and the US were overconfident in how to handle this war. The idea that it could be done by airpower alone speaks volumes. Not only is that a ridiculous idea (heck, I'm not even an amateur when talking about military strategies, but even I understood instantly that airpower alone would not be suffice), it's also an absolutely inexcusable mistake.
Olmert made huge mistakes, not one, not two but many. These mistakes caused Israel to loose this war in every possible way.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 08:30 AM
Alexandra,
If Israel's (and by extension the U.S.) problem in Lebanon has been over-confidence bred by previous bouts of over-success, the news from the Middle East may be better---much better--- than anyone around here thought. That is, the news from Israel's (and by extension the U.S.) perspective looks dismal. Spell that 'damn dismal.'Yes, this is hardly a gringo exclusive. Earlier I cited ex-Lt. Col Ralph Peters, a very pro-Israel analyst who warned last month about Israel's unpreparedness for Lebanon.
Now (with your leave) let's go to Bill Roggio, who's done a wrap-up of the grim results (which, alas, do bear out the gringoPeters'view of weeks ago.) Bill is an ex-Army guy who is becoming a significant New Media military analyst and also correspondent. He (like I tried to, last year, though I was stymied by the desk jockeys in Washington) even got off the couch and made it to Anbar Province in Iraq with the Marines (last year) and has tripped to Afghanistan this year, taking a leave again from wife, small kids and job. New citizen correspondent, what? At my site there is this from him, including link to much longer, detailed look at this Lebanosis for those interested. See? For the over-confident successfulls, there is plenty of this muck to go around.....Alexandra, it's so bad it may even be good.
===========================================================
Roggio: Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and every Islamist terrorist organisation in the world won. Israel and the west lost, the people of Lebanon lost big. And the UN also managed to broker a deal that ironically may spell its future irrelevancy for all the wrong reasons. Read Roggio's assessment.....Meanwhile, the pap charts of Western leadership are full of pretentious platitudes like "pivotal moment in the Middle East"and equally pretentious cliches about the "march of freedom" which, of course, "the terrorists fear and will try to obstruct."
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 08:09 AM