Osama bin Laden dead: what to do now?

Whither US policy now that OBL is dead

Now that Osama bin Laden has been declared killed by the U.S. what should be their next step?

Snouck's answer: this is a good time to declare a victory and get the hell out of the quicksands of the Middle East and Afghanistan.

However the attack Obama instigated NATO attack on Libya shows the American government has not learned that attacking Muslim countries is a bad idea. The West's greatest problem these days seems to be the inability to learn lessons, caused by the dogmatic belief in human equality.

German Army takes off Red Cross

(HT Politically Incorrect) Doctors and Medics take Red Cross insignia off their vehicles. The internationally recognized symbol, was created to separate life saving personnel from fighting personnel. To shield the former from attack. This symbol has become the preferred target of attacks by Muslims in Afghanistan.

Hells Angels on the March

War that is not between states

In order to understand warfare as it is today military theorists such as Israeli Professor Martin van Creveld and American William Lind pioneered new concepts of war such as Non-Trinitarian Warfare and 4th Generation Warfare respectively. In these concepts wars are not just fought between states (Allies against Axis), but also between states and nonstate forces (Israel against Hamas) and sometimes between just non-state actors (Northern Alliance against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan in 2001).

The concept of Non-Trinitarian War as Martin van Creveld calls Non-Trinitarian Warfare is becoming more widely debated lately as evidenced by lively discussions on blogs such as Gates of Vienna recently. The subject is gangwars in Danmark.

www.islamineurope.net has previously featured two stories on the Amsterdam Hells Angels by Snouck, one of

11 april 2007 Hells Angels "Banished from Eden" and
23 april 2006 Hells Angels "Organized Crime in constant state of reorganisation"

The Hell's Angels are a important organized criminal force in Europe. In Denmark the local chapters of the Hell's Angels are under pressure from gangs of immigrants who are fighting with them for territory. The Hells Angels have started a new organisation AK 81 to recruit Danes and add musle to their force, without diluting the cohesion and standing of the core Hells Angels. The cement of the alliance is the notion that both non-criminal ethnic Danes and the Hells Angels are under threat from immigrant gang violence. The Hells Angels can provide leadership and organisation for Danes who want security from the violent ethnic gangs.

Propaganda is the key to win the support of the population

In order to influence public opinion an unnamed author wrote an piece on the danger of the gangs of immigrant thugs to Danish society. The article was published on the website of the Danish Chapter of the Hells Angels and is called the "Jackal Manifesto". It was translated by Henrik Raeder Clausen and the translation was published on the Gates of Vienna (GoV) blog.

Development of Non-Trinitarian Warfare in Denmark and the Future

Next GoV published a piece by the hand of Baron Bodissey titled "Drawing the line".

In "Drawing the line" the Baron draws a parallel between the rise of feudalism after the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of Crime Organisations who become protectors of the people.

The debate

I forecast that we will see many more of the ideas of Martin van Creveld debated in the future. The concepts that belong to wars between states do no provide a lot of insight in the conlflicts the West is finding itself in as a result of the actions of Jihadists. This is worsened by the effect on society of Muslim colonisation of Western land as a result of mass immigration.

Bigger picture: The Surge

Steve Parkin of Ontario TV interviews General (ret.) Douglas Macgregor on the bogus, make believe war the US is waging. On "terror". Not on Islam. I repeat, not on Islam. The specific subject is the much touted surge.

Douglas Macgregor makes many interesting and commendable observations.

View the interview here.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new line

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has come back to The Netherlands. Because she has not found anyone there willing to pay for her protection.

What is interesting is that she has a new line on Islam according to Rod Dreher, who quotes an interview on Reason, which is not yet online (HT Mr. Laurence Auster).

Ayaan: "Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace."

AND

Ayaan: "There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it.

Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, "Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution," he's wrong?

Hirsi Ali: He's wrong. Sorry about that."

In the discussion on View from the Right there is a suggestion that one of the reasons why Ayaan is moving back is because the neo-cons that she is working for at the AEI are forcing her to toe the line on "the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam". It is this crazy belief that has enticed the US to waste its strength by bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is one frightening suggestion. The neo-cons are worse than useless in the fight for the West and against Islam.

Find the article by Rod Dreher on Ayaan here.

The article has an interesting treatise of difference of the role of religion in US and European societies.

Find the discussion of the Rod Dreher's article on VFR here.

Poll: half of Dutch population sees Islam as a threat

Peil.nl, a firm specialized in public opinion and polls published a report on attitudes of Dutch voters regarding Islam. The cause was Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders' call to ban the Quran. This poll was already mentioned on the KleinVerzet blog by a MAUDLIN Erwin. I commented on his conclusion a few days ago.

The question: "Does the presence of the Islam in our country represent an enrichment or a threat or neither?

Fifty-one percent of the sample replied Islam is a threat. The sample was broken up according to the party the respondent voted in the last election. Ninety-nine percent of the sample that voted for the Conservative Freedom Party of Geert Wilders said Islam was a threat. The other big rightwing party supporters (CDA and VVD) showed a sixty to seventy percent rate of those who thought Islam is a menace to society. The small Christian Union supporters showed only thirty-four percent thought Islam is a threat, but their supporters are mostly in the little affeced countryside. Amazingly thirty-four percent of Labour Party supporters and thirty-seven percent of the hardline leftist Socialist Party supporters thought the presence of Islam threatens Dutch society and is no enrichment. And just eleven percent of the posh but small Greens viewed Islam as a threat.

So the view that Islam is a threat to society is widely held in the Netherlands, the majority view. This view is held by the overwhelming majority of those who identify with the Right and by a large minority of those who support the Left.

Finally, those who support the right are consistently slightly bigger than those who support the Left in The Netherland. Since 1972 however the media and political establishment are far more Leftist in their views than the population.

To condense it in one slogan: Multicultural ideology is dead in The Netherland. As far as the population is concerned. The political, academic and media elites are still ambling along as if nothing happened.

For those who read Dutch here is the link to the site with the research: Peil.nl.

The document can be found under: "09-08-2007 Geert Wilders en de Koran"

The Church of the Second World War

Erwin at the Kleinverzet blog quoted a Frontpagemag contributor, quoting an Arab Christian:
"I think there are two ways to avoid [this Armageddon]. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don't want this confrontation anyway.
I think he's right with that last assertion. But as long as the West will not stand up to the more committed elements within islam, and especially Iran, I am afraid most muslim citizens will bet on what seems to be the strong horse. There's some good advise to our politicians: You want Dutch muslim citizens on your side? Show them you have the stuff to take on and defeat the scum that would foist the Khalifa upon us all."

Just as there is a Church of the Left, there is a Church of the Second World War in the West. Adherents the creed are wont to make analogies between situations faced today with situations from the conflict against Rightwing totalitarianism. The Second World War is the "good war". Everybody agrees that the Nazis were evil and had to be defeated. Also the Second World War was won by a coalition of the British Empire, the USA and in those we recognize what still are still major nations of military capability. The fact that murderous Soviet Russia was also a part of the coalition is usually glossed over.

OK. Some hard basic truths not particularly difficulty to grasp:
1. The Second World War is over.
2. The Second World War ended 60 years ago.
3. Islam is not the Axis, it is a religion with 1,3 billion adherents
4. Because Islam is a different social organism than a alliance of nation states, industrial war by mass armies, the model of war that defeated the Axis, will not work defeating Islam. Islam fights in God's space, and industrial war cannot reach there.
5. Iran is not the leader of Islam. In fact Iran is Shia, while the rest of Islam is mostly Sunni. So to say that Islam will be defeated once Iran is defeated is not just wrong, it is silly. There are only 70 million Iranians and 1,3 Billion Muslims.
6. The USA just lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's right folks. They lost it. They lost the support of the home front, as evidenced by the recent American elections. The US politicians on both sides are just procratinating pulling the troops out.
7. Israel just lost in Lebanon. Again. The Israelis these days follow the American pattern of war slavishly, which contributes to their downfall.

8. Wars lost by (semi-) Western nations/coalitions since 1945:
Algeria (the French)
Indonesia (the Dutch)
Vietnam (twice) (the French and the USA)
Afghanistan (twice) (the Russians)
Lebanon (twice) (the Israelis)

A few I do not care to list.

In all these conflicts the West lost to opponents vastly inferior in firepower. France, USA and Russia were absolutely ruthless in the pursuit of their war aims.
9. The USA can attack and bomb Iran. They can occupy it. They can destroy its army and infrastructure. The result will be that more US soldiers will die and that US public opinion will turn even more against the war.
10. Technology is spreading and becomes more and more accessible to Non-Western nations. This means that not just Iran, but a whole range of non-Western nations will soon possess nuclear arms, including Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentine. The monopoly on this technology can not be American. One can not prevent knowledge to be aquired by eager learners.
11. Economic and political power is flowing from the USA, mostly to Asia. The US only has a edge only in military power. That is not enough to benefit from a war, even if it was won. If Iran blocks the strait of Hormuz the oil price will strongly rise. The American economy is on the brink of recession anyway. Going to war with Iran will clinch it.
12. The USA is a proposition nation. The creed of the USA since the 1960ies has been that there is no dominant religion or ethnic group that is leading in the USA or has a special claim to it. What is keeping the USA together apart from mere habit is a vision of shared and rising prosperity. A major economic bust may tear its society apart.
13. The USA lives on credit. It runs a huge current account deficit with Asian countries. China holds massive currency holdings. US Treasury bonds. Dollars. If they lose faith in the USA's capacity to guarantuee the value of these reserves or if they are cross with the USA they will start to sell these holdings. Invading Iran will frighten and anger the Chinese leadership. They will not easily pull the rug from under the American economy. After all only America can buy up their stuff. But a war and an invasion in Iran might well do the trick. Iran is a part of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a Chinese led alliance of Non-Western nations.
14. The West was economically and population wise much more dominant in 1945 than in 2007. These days the Asiatics and Islam are much bigger chunks of humanity.
15. Invading Iran will cause Iran's population to rally around the flag and the mosque. Currently the Iranian regime is almost as unpopular as Bush's government. It is much to the interest of the current clique to be invaded.

All these points argue that the outcome of a conflict with Iran will end in desaster. The West has no means to compell Iran or the larger Muslim world to submit to its will. But the West is in great danger of pulling itself apart by its suicidal immigration policy and the destruction of its armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally:
"You want Dutch muslim citizens on your side? Show them you have the stuff to take on and defeat the scum that would foist the Khalifa upon us all."

That is odd. It seems here that Kleinverzet wants to argue that it is in the interest of the USA to impress Dutch Muslims. Or perhaps that the Dutch government confront Iran. I will deal with the former. Even if the US Government thought it is in their interest to intimidate Dutch Muslims by invading Iran then it still would not work. There is no connection between Dutch Sunni Muslim immigrants communities and Shia Iran. And Dutch Muslims oppose Dutch culture and society not because Iran inspires them to do so, but because their Quran based faith inspires them to do so. Because they get away with it and their numbers are growing by the day. If current trends are not addressed by closing the borders and expelling Muslim communities Dutch national society will be torn apart or Islamized. I expect the former and fear the latter.

The strong horse in the Muslim / West equation is the pitting of the community of the faithfull against the community of the hedonists and decadents. No matter how weak the faithfull, if there is no will of resistance on the Dutch side, the Muslims can only win.

Finally the leadership of the West is firmly in thrall of the WW2/industrial war paradigma, despite the fact that it keeps losing its wars or is unable to turn military victories in political advantage. The West seems unable to learn.

Rudyard Kipling witnessed the same in the British Army after the Anglo-Boer war before the First World War. He wrote a poem about it called: "Rimmon". Look it up if you are poetically inclined. It is a commentary on the Bible story of Naaman, the Syrian, who is cured by the prophet Elisa from the leprosy that ails him.

Naaman could not learn from what happened to him.

Our future: The Middle Ages

Professor Martin van Creveld, the expert on non-clauzewitzian warfare just published a new article on Defense and the National Interest

The past:

For a thousand years before 1945, the story of mankind had been one of political consolidation. To be sure, empires rose and receded, were created and fell to pieces. But however twisty the road, in the long run it always led toward larger and more powerful units. By 1914, virtually the entire Earth was dominated by just seven of them, six of them established by white men and five centered in Europe. Needless to say, they promptly fell to fighting each other on an unequaled scale and with an unequaled ferocity. By the time their struggle ended 30 years later, 80 to 100 million people had been killed.

The present and the growing power of transnational organisations:

From Indonesia to Scotland, and from the former Soviet Union to southern Africa, the process most characteristic of our age is political splintering, decentralization, even disintegration. Hardly a month goes by without some new state appearing on the map. And political transformation extends far beyond government. Each time a new user acquires a TV dish or links up to the Internet, the nature of politics undergoes a subtle change. Each time a new international organization arises, more states find themselves caught in its coils. The splintering process has led to vast increases in the power of organizations other than states, such as multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and the media. With each passing day these groups are a little more independent of government. With each passing day, the influence they exercise in world affairs grows.

It is true that the public is resisting the power of some transnational organisations dreamed up by the political class (EU), but other social units other than states are increasing their in the minds of the subjects they seek to control, as we can see in the struggle in Iraq between a transnational alliance of Western nations to create a nation that would do their bidding and a legion of non-nation groups that fight them and each other for dominance over populations and territories.

The future:

There will be continued political decentralization accompanied by massive population movements from one political unit to the next. These political units will vary widely, from sovereign states to international organizations that are not sovereign, and from those with large territories to those that have very little territory or none at all. Operating within a very loose framework of international law, from time to time they will go to war against each other. But compared with the titanic struggles of the years 1914-45, these wars will tend to be small and, except to those directly involved, harmless.

Martin van Creveld wrote "The Transformation of War" in 1990 in which he showed the waning power of nation states and the inability of these states to perform their core duty: physical security. Rereading the book in 2006 it is uncanny how prescient he was at that time.

Another seminal book by Van Creveld is: "The rise and fall of the State"

Read more of Van Creveld's article at d-n-i.net.

Terrorists with Nukes

An ESSENTIAL read: this is the end of the nation-state, as we know it.

A Frontpage Magazine symposium on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not to states such as North-Korea or Iran. But to terrorist groups: such as al-Qaeda.

Paul Williams at FrontPage:"there is empirical proof that al-Qaeda possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In Herat, they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested while crossing the Allenby Bridge toward the checkpoint at Ramallah in Israel in a rusty old Volkswagen van. Within the van, Mossad discovered a bomb which turned out to be a highly sophisticated plutonium-implosion device with an explosive yield of 10 kilotons (equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima)."

AND

Hamid Mir at FrontPage: "In the next few years, I came to know that Al Qaeda had a big brigade of nuclear and chemical experts who conducted a dirty bomb test in the mountains of Kunar in 2000."

Al-Queda has a group of nuclear scientists from Pakistan's nuclear establishement, working on development and maintainance of nuclear weapons. They are part of Dr. Khan's network of nuclear technologists.

The origin of the weapons is unsupervised Soviet stocks. Supervision of these weapons stocks was interrupted in the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990. Germany has wisely funded a program to prevent these weapons and technologies from falling in the wrong hands, but this has clearly not been enough.

Apart from the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear weapons have never been used in war. The USA could bomb Japan without fear for retaliation or what is called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

A transsnational network like al-Queda is not a target. This makes the threat from Al-Quada a VERY serious threat, unlike the threat from North-Korea or Iran, which are sitting ducks, just like the Nation States of Europe and North America.

Al-Queda can attack, but being so dispersed and invisible hidden in the cultural fabric of Middle Eastern societies and it colonies elsewhere, it cannot be counter-attacked. Think about that.

Read the whole article on nuclear weapons prolifirating to networked transnational organisations HERE.

Unpopular Message

The number of visitors to this blog rose steadily by about 10 percent per week. Yesterday the number of visitors took a 25 percent dent however, especially in visits from the USA. I guess my message about the lost war in Iraq was not a popular one.

Still I stand by my endorsement of Van Creveld's assessment.

The war in Iraq is not going well. There is no victory in sight. I saw some horrible footage yesterday from a film made by Jihadi's. It was shot of American soldiers on the streets in Iraq in armoured vehicles and humvees. They were getting shot by Jihadi snipers. The footage was accompanied by religious chanting in Arabic. The footage of well-equipped US soldiers with million dollar Equipment and sensors standing around seeing nothing is an illustration of the warnings of Van Creveld.

What to do against the Jihad against the West? The democratisation of the Middle East is not working. I have always maintained that it is impossible. Because Iraqi and most other Middle Eastern societies are too fractured along religious (Sunni, Shia) and tribal and ethnic lines to be able to live in a democratic society. Francis Fukuyama wrote a book "Trust" about the necessity of trust and understanding between citizens in a society in order for people to co-operate vulontarily. This is a necessary precondition of democracy. Middle Easterners do not trust one another. High levels of trust are only found in Europe, European derived societies such as Australia and Japan. That is why they need dictators to run societies. That is why civil wars break out.

That is why democracy in Iraq won't work. So if we pursue a defence against Jihad we must shed our illusions about the possibility of democratisation of reshaping the enemy in our own image. The US Army is not an instrument of social reform. Conservatives should understand this. There will be new terror attacks on Western targets. Globally. And something needs to be done. Otherwise people in Europe and the US will lose confidence in their governments and we get instability in our homelands.

A Fool's War

Martin van Creveld, the Israeli war guru who is an expert on warfare in these times we are living in and on the diminishing power of the state wrote a scating piece on Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq. Title: "Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War" The US troops have been in Iraq since 2003. Since then 2,000 soldiers have been killed and only a tine minority of Americans support the war. It is obvious that the US forces must be withdrawn. The question is when and how. Van Creveld ominiously compares the situation in Iraq to Vietnam. And Iraq will be more dear to the US then that war.

During the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam the American handed over their equipment to the South Vietnamese. This is no option now. The Iraqi Army is much weaker than even the ARVN and todays equipment is incomparable more complicated. After the victory of the Communists in 1975 the North ended up with mounains of sofisticated American weapons, which they used to devastating effect in the Vietnam Chinese war of 1979 and the ousting of the Khmer Rouge. Also Vietnam had a centralised government whereas Iraq is a jumble of competing groups.

Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.

Van Creveld continues to state that first the US forces have to concentrate on Bagdad and then to pull back to Basra and Kuwait.

A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.

And

a complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that.

The reasons the presence is necessary is that Iran must be deterred from filling the power vacuum. Teheran will be the greatest benefactor from Saddam being toppled. Saddam was the US ally before the first gulf war used as a counterweight to the power of Iran. Now that counterweight is gone the US will have to do the work themselves in order to protect the Gulfstates.

A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.

So the second benefactor of the Second Gulf War is Al-Queda. Great news!

However, Turkey, Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American assistance. Van Creveld ends by naming the invasion the greatest mistake in 2,000 years (4 Roman legions massacred by the Germans in the Teutoburger forest). And calls for impeachment of Bush and his cronies.

A modern day prophet

Martin van Creveld is a Dutch born Israeli. He is widely regarded as an absolute expert on war in the modern era. It is obligatory to read his books on US military academies, although his idea's are make for depressing reading for any member of a modern military force.

Some of Mr. van Creveld's books conventional and take a more or less standard look at warfare, examples: "The Sword and the Olive" on the Israeli Defense Force and "Command in War".

However his "Transformation of War" and the "Rise and decline of the State" are ground breaking and have far reaching implications not just for todays and future warfare but also for the developments in societies world-wide.

We are going to take a look at what Martin van Creveld has to say on this blog in the weeks to come.

Long war

There is long war ahead of us. The election news coming out of Iraq is upbeat. Let us suppose that power in Iraq can be handed over to a democratic and reasonably pro-Western government in Bagdad. And that the government will be able to keep the Sunni Muslims happy and maintain peace and order.

Billions of dollars have been spend on defeating Saddam Hussain and on keeping the US Army in the field against small bands of Baathist and Islamist Insurgents. 2.100 US troops got killed as well as 98 Brits.

So how much closer is the US and the West to security? How does a safe and pro - Western Iraq prevent Islam from taking over Western countries through Immigration, superior birth rates in combination with terror attacks? This is not only a danger for Europe but for the US as well. Especially in the cities around the great lakes Muslim communities are growing. Assimilation is prevented by defenses like the Mosque, halal food, special clothing items prescribed by the religion, circumcition and restrictions on mixed marriages. These are the defenses that allowed the Jewish communities to survive in Europe and the Middle East for 2.000 years.

The difference is that the Muslims are more of a demographic and ideological threat than the Jews. The Jews were always a small minority, without a spectacular birthrate and their religion does not order them to bring the societies they live in under Islamic control.

The Pentagon is now struggling with this problem. Fighting the insurgents in Iraq have brought greater understanding of the force that is motivating them: the Qoran and the vision of the Caliphate.

The following are exerpts of an article that was posted on frontpage magazine a few days ago:

The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.

So the Pentagon reacted to the 9/11 armed with the best weapons money can buy, but had not stocked up well it's Armoury of Knowledge. However this is being rectified as the conflict continues.

But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United States.

CIFA is the new name given to the former polygraphic institute of the US Department of Defence. "Its mission is to produce a common Defense Department counterintelligence operational picture, and deliver unique and actionable information to key decision makers in federal, state and local governments". Polygraphs are used to interrogate captured suspects and prisoners of war. A service that exist to extract useful information from prisoners, must have a library of concepts that its enemies use to shape their ideologies. In order to interpret answers or cues the interrogator must know the full range of ideologies that the enemies of the West use to motivate themselves. Just as a good interrogator of captured North Vietnamese Communist troops had to have a good idea of Communism and Vietnamese Nationalism in order to understand what a captured North Vietnamese soldier or officer was telling him during the American involvement in the Vietnam war (1962 - 1972). So has the modern day interrogator develop the meta data to interpret the data that prisoners are "sweating out". And the meta data has to be passed up to the decision makers for them to be able to understand the facts that be passed on later. So they can act upon the data.

Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad."Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed.

Any war has next to a Military level also Political, Religious and Cultural spheres in which battle has to be joined in order for victory or even just survival to be attained. Military dominance is worthless without concious striving towards Political, Religious and Cultural dominance.

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs."Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch.

According to CIFA "Islam is an ideological engine of war". And this is the message it is bringing to the higher ups in the American governement and the Defense Bureaucracy. But is it a welcome message? What is keeping the message back from being transmitted upward?

the briefing states, ... government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized

We know the evil force that is keeping those who rule our societies, our elites from seeing the truth. Their vision is shackled by the same legal and cultural powers that they use for thought control over the masses. Need I whisper its name?

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.

The productive classes of the West are worn down by the costs associated with mass immigration. Such as providing services and transfer income to the third world masses, often Muslims, that invade our nations, while the right to speak out against it is taken away by the power hungry state. Meanwhile the enemy strengthens itself with funds, technology provided by other civilisations. Do we drive Syrian cars or carry Egyptian watches? Run Libian Software on our computers?

In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.

CIFA is saying what has been argued by Immigration reformers for decades. Mass third world immigration is a threat to the core populations of the West.

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

They new immigrant communities initially speak softly and deferentially, which comes naturally when you are small and marginal. This we saw in Europe in the 60 to 80ties.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

During this phase Islamic communities use the Qoran to create pockets of influence in the urban centres, the government bureaucracy and in the political system made invisible by the wizardry of the High Priests of Political Correctness.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

Second and Third generation Muslims rise against the Infidels all over the Western world. But they seem to be impatient and make mistakes with their timing. Too much exposure to the time scale of the hectic West?

It also notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war.

Muslims are ordered to get on top in the societies they live in at the expense of the present power elite.

Right now political leaders don't understand the true nature of the threat, it says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them. They still think Muslim terrorists, even suicide bombers, are mindless "criminals" motivated by "hatred of our freedoms," rather than religious zealots motivated by their faith. And as a result, we have no real strategic plan for winning a war against jihadists.

Without a strategy to gain the commanding heights and the Stronghold of the enemy, Western forces are stumbling in the valleys and swamps, sinking in the crud with the heavy weapons and technology, without really hitting the enemy. New fearless fighters keep challenging our soldiers. Where do they come from? Where is their secret hideaway?

Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam."I don't like to criticize our intelligence services, because we did win the Cold War," says a Northern Command intelligence official. "However, all of these organizations have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information."Why? "All suffer heavily from political correctness," he explains.PC still infects the Pentagon, four years after jihadists hit the nation's military headquarters."A lot of folks here have a very pedestrian understanding of Islam and the Islamic threat," a Pentagon intelligence analyst working on the project told me. "We're getting Islam 101, and we need Islam 404."The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures -- such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting "critical vulnerabilities" or rifts within the Muslim faith and community -- can begin."Most Americans don't realize we are in a war of survival -- a war that is going to continue for decades," the Northcom official warns.It remains to be seen, however, whether our PC-addled political leaders would ever adopt such controversial measures.

There it is again. PC is blinding us. PC is cloaking our enemy. We will never find his Stronghold even less destroy it if we allow bad thinking to cloud our minds.