On War - And Idiots

You know, sometimes it's scary who we elect to be our leaders in this country. Sometimes it's a guy like Strom Thurmond, who's dead 20 years before he gets out of office, other times it's a guy like John Edwards, who's a conniving, closeted socialist, and other times it's a guy like Chris Dodd, who's just plain stupid. With Dodd, however, the most frightening aspect of his stupidity is not that it got him elected to the U.S Senate, but that it's deluded him into thinking that he deserves more. That's why he is running (quite unsuccessfully, I might add) for the Democrats' Presidential Nomination. This quote, from a speech he made earlier today, is why he shouldn't be running for the Democrats' Presidential Nomination:

"....In fact, [the trial of the al-Qaeda terrorist Zaccarias] Moussaoui is the perfect victory. Our system is shown to be fair. The court struck a balance that protects both our values and our security. We didn't lose anything. Moussaoui ultimately showed himself to be a fool--deranged, a joke, hardly someone that we'd think of as a great Middle East martyr. Ultimately he's imprisoned in a place where his name will be forgotten forever. How is that not a great victory?"

Compare that case to the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who organized the attacks of 9/11. He was held in a secret prison, where he claims he was tortured severely. Whether he is lying or not, by our actions we have allowed Khalid Mohammed to claim the moral high ground. Khalid Mohammed plays martyr to a world that is inclined to believe it.

Torture does not work....."

Yes folks, you read that right, Senator Dodd, a man who wants to be President, believes that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, has the "moral high-ground" against us. And why does he have the moral high ground? Because he was 'waterboarded' while in U.S custody.

Since there is clearly such moral parity between making an admitted terrorist endure a painful drowning simulation and masterminding the death of 3,000 innocent civilians.

Seriously, what planet is Dodd from? It would be a stretch to call Khalid Sheikh Muhammad a human being, much less one who could hold any kind of moral ground - even at the below-ground level. I think he'll find that many people, myself included, are somewhat sympathetic to his position on the issue of 'torture' - but telling all those people that they are the moral equals of terrorist masterminds doesn't strike me as a great way to win converts to your cause.

Ultimately, however, for all the problems with his style and presentation, there is one thing which the Senator's words make abundantly clear, and it is the thing that makes his status as an elected official so damned frightening - and that is how the Senator completely and utterly misunderstands our enemies. Read that first paragraph in the above quote again - you'll see an underlying sentiment there that, somehow, these Islamic fascists we're fighting actually care how we treat our prisoners of war.

Really? Does the Senator think that giving Zaccarias Moussaoui a fair trail makes it any less likely that an American Soldier captured by al-Qaeda will be beheaded? Does he think that potential jihad recruits in the Middle East will look at the U.S's fair trial of Moussaoui and go, 'geez, since they convicted him at a jury trial, the Americans must be the good guys'? Surely he's observant enough to realize that they'd be more likely to call the whole thing a pre-arranged Zionist scam than to credit America for having done the right thing.

And remember, just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean they think it's the right thing to do.

Indeed, Al-Qaeda doesn't care what we do when we catch their little terrorists; they just care about whether or not we catch them. The only time Islamic Radicals find our trials useful and 'convincing' is when they can use them for their own propaganda purposes - which is why Al-Qaeda explicitly directs jihadists, once they get to court, to claim they were tortured and abused while in prison. No really, it's in their freakin' training manual.

And that's what's scary about Chris Dodd - he really thinks they care about what we do, and, more importantly, he thinks that they will respond to it in a rational, Western way. Just look at what he said about Moussaoui; he claimed that, as a result of the damage done to him by the trial, he was "hardly someone that we'd think of as a great Middle East martyr."

Well, whoop-de-doo-da Senator, of course WE don't think he'd make a great martyr, but, again, it doesn't matter what we think - it matters what THEY think; and we don't have much of a say-so in who they think will make a great martyr. Indeed, this is one of those times when multi-culturalism is actually quite useful; because in order to defeat someone in a war, you have to understand where they're coming from and be able to think about things from their perspective - irrespective of how flipping crazy they are.

You know, come to think of it, for an open-minded, multi-cultural, liberal, Mr. Dodd sure has one hell of an arrogant, western perspective on the situation.

And herein lies the problem with many on Mr. Dodd's side: their Eurocentrism. They still seem to be operating, as most Europeans are, with the built in assumption that war and politics fall within the realm of the Nation-State and the rational actor. It is, if you will, a Clausewitzian perspective on a decidedly non-Clausewitzian world; and thus, it is a perspective which has fostered a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy and his goals on the part of many of our leaders.

This is not the 18th or 19th Century, and the battle against Islamic radicalism is a far cry from the Napoleonic Wars in which Carl von Clausewitz learned the lessons that shaped his famous theories, including those in On War. But times change, and war does too - it, of all things, certainly hasn't remained stuck in the past.

It would be helpful if our leaders might somehow figure that out too.

"We Are In A War"

Earlier today, with limited pomp, circumstance, and media attention, Marine General Peter Pace left his post as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before riding off into the sunset, however, General Pace had some parting words for his and, by extension, the War's critics.

"I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war.' We have an enemy who has declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives. So the dialogue is not about 'Are we in a war' but how and where and when to best fight that war to preserve our freedom and to preserve our way of life and to do so with the least damage to our own society and the least damage to those who we're fighting against so we can put the pieces back together on the end of this. We will prevail. There's no doubt about that."

The emphasis was added to highlight the most important point, one which many on the anti-war side continually fail to grasp, and that is this: no one has ever defeated an Islamic Jihad by running away. Politicians in the United States, including the President, are fond of downplaying the influence of religion on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the larger, so-called, War on Terror - but they do so at their own peril. The label of 'Terror' is a misnomer, as we are not out to eliminate the threat of terrorism; indeed, to do so would be an impossibility. Given this, I have long thought that this war should be called either the 'War on Islamic Fascism,' or, in more 'PC' terms, the 'War on Islamic Fundamentalism.'

Indeed, like it or not, we are in a Religious War. And it is a Religious War because they have defined it as such - and to ignore them would be a disaster. Indeed, as Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the famous, On War:

"The supreme, most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish, by that test, the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature."

Or, in the simpler words of Sun-Tzu's The Art of War; "know thy enemy." I sense a similar warning from General Pace to those in Washington, and throughout the U.S, who wish us to believe that this War is something we can end simply by leaving Iraq.

Now, this war is not a Religious War in the Medieval sense of term, where one religion battled another; but a more modern one, as we find the battle lines drawn not between two religions, but between one religion, Islam, and the Secularists, who oppose its agenda. Of course, Islam fighting a Religious War is nothing new - Islam has been at war with the infidels since Muhammad and his first Muslim converts began attacking Arabic caravans traveling across the Arabian Desert in the 620's. It then continued with a frenzy until, finally, in 732, Charles Martel sent the Islamic warriors into retreat at the Battle of Tours. But Islamic jihad did not vanish - it only rested and regrouped. In 1453, the hordes of Muhammad finally overcame the walls of Constantinople, and with them the Byzantine Empire, thus beginning, yet again, a march of Islamic warriors towards the heart of Europe. As before, they were turned back by Europeans, this time while trying to siege the city of Vienna in 1683. Despite being forced into retreat yet again, the Muslims held on as long as was possible, until the crumbling ruins of the Ottoman Empire were finally destroyed in the First World War.

Then, sometime during the middle of the 20th Century, around the time many Europeans were reeling from their own disastrous experiments with the likes of Fascism and Imperialism, and others about to reel thanks to their experiments with Communism - Islam began to rumble again. Influenced by everything from Nazi ideology to the polarity of the Cold War world, Islam became re-acquainted with its warrior jihad of old; and slowly began to channel this spirit through organizations like Al-Qaeda, ultimately culminating in what should have been an obvious sign to all in the West that a new onslaught of jihad was back, and taking aim at them: the 9/11 attacks.

With that loose framework of the three major 'waves' of Islamic jihad, I now come back to General Pace, and, specifically, the last part of his remarks which I quoted above. Here, in discussing the eventual "end" of this War, he hints at what we are doing differently in this phase of the fight against jihad. In the past, the solution to Islamic jihad has been simply to kill as many Muslims as was feasible, and, eventually, through military strength, beat the jihad back into Arabia and out of your 'world.' As you can see though, setting aside, even, the fact that Arabia is no longer 'out of our world,' this strategy has proven vastly ineffective at preventing future assaults of jihadists. This time, we are attempting to address this problem - and doing so by attempting to reform the Islamic world from within. Just as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were able to temper and eventually eliminate 'Crusaders' and able to moderate Christianity, we are planning to use similar ideological tools to temper jihadists.

It is, in all respects, a phenomenal and over-whelming task. We are hoping that by instituting Democracy we can not only beat back, this, the third wave of jihad, but also pre-empt a potential fourth wave; although given history, it seems unlikely that the latter might be possible. Yet, one thing is clear; Democracy would be, in most all respects, a death blow for the third wave of jihad. It would not end it, but it would certainly be its Tours. That is the significance of the battle of Iraq in this greater War on Islamic Fascism; and, whether he meant to or not, it is what General Pace hinted at today when he talked about putting the pieces of, not just our society, but their society back together when this War is over. He's hoping that pieces of the Iraq we put back together will be new ones. 'Enlightened' ones, if you will. He's asking people to not give up on this vision, and he's not asking because he feels it's the better choice between continuing the fight in Iraq and ending the War. He's asking because he knows that, if we want to win, in the end, we have no choice.

After all, we are in a War - whether we like it or not.