re: "Still Think Islam Is Just One More Innocent Religion?"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road noted a symptom of Britain's reaching the demographic tipping point.

Money quote(s):

"Muslims sum to about 2% of the Sceptered Isle’s population. That’s the level of penetration at which Muslim militants commence thrusts such as the above. It’s possible at such a low national percentage because Muslims tend to form exclaves: concentrations within which their greater aggressiveness gives them local dominance. Secular law soon ceases to operate within such an exclave; Muslims who would prefer it are intimidated into compliance by their more militant neighbors.

In the past few years, we have seen thoroughfares in major European cities, most notably Paris and Amsterdam, daily taken over for Muslim prayer recitals. At such times no one can pass those streets. More often than not, the local authorities decline to act. What, react against a public prayer ceremony with police power? With violence? To the Europeans, the possibility doesn’t exist." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

This strategy of colonization is not new nor is it unique to Britain.

7/28

re: "National Security Part 3: The Role Of Economics"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road reviewed the economic basis for military strength.

Money quote(s):

"The last thing any commander wants to do is take his men into an unwinnable war, especially a war unwinnable by reason of inadequate material resources"

Unfortunately, wars aren't always fought by two sides which chose to go to war against each other. It only takes on side to start a war. The enemy gets a vote.

"If a commander dislikes to go to war inadequately provisioned, a national command authority -- in the case of the United States, the president -- should dislike to send him there. Yet it's in the nature of nation-states that, as John Jay said most memorably, they'll go to war whenever there's a good chance of profiting thereby."

This pre-supposes that a commander-in-chief is sufficiently knowledgable, or sufficiently well-advised, that he (or she) knows the difference. Or cares.

(Yes, I'm still pissed about the whole "the army you have" crack.)

"Economic strength is both the precondition for military readiness and the requirement for military endurance. To be considered well defended, a nation must have both.

Analysts disagree on the extent to which a nation can endure various degrees of economic militarization. In the early years of the RAND Corporation, studies were submitted to the Pentagon that proposed that the United States could divert as much as 50% of its GDP to military expenditures, if that were necessary to meet some contingency. Needless to say, there was a wide spread of opinion on whether that was true, and if so, on how long the nation could remain in being under so large a military burden."

Full mobilization is something that the U.S. has never, not really, experienced. Nothing like what various European states, such as Britain, Russia, or Germany, experienced during World War II.

"(A)nnual military expenditures come to about $700 billion: 5% of GDP. Given that the armed forces are one of the seventeen enumerated powers of Congress, that doesn't seem disproportionate, especially considering the broadening of the military's missions and responsibilities in recent years."

Ah, but what about the penumbras!

"It must be said that we spend as much as we do on our military because our "allies" spend so little on theirs. Not only are we committed to their defense; we are all too frequently called in to handle crises they have disdained to address.

Yet despite all that spending and the large, capable military it supports, we are not secure."

There's no such thing as being completley secure, at least this side of the Pearly Gates. The writer discusses some of the ways in which he believes Americans perceive themselves to be insecure, which are worth reading, particularly with regards to the problems causing, and resulting from, illegal immigration.

"(N)ational security is affected by our willingness and ability to maintain mobilization bases: facilities from which we could rapidly develop new or previously rejected military capabilities, or greatly expand the ones we have.

Mobilization bases are important because few major wars begin as "bolts from the blue." There are normally clear indications that conflict is brewing well before the first exchange of fire. That would be so even in our present age, in which the interval between a firm decision and the ballistic nuclear bombardment of any point on the globe is no more than thirty minutes."

A firm decision should be made upon a basis of firm information. More than likely somewhat longer than 30 minutes would be required to assemble, to say nothing of developing, actionable intelligence.

"(S)uch mobilization bases cost money. Worse, it's money spent to remain flexibly poised against notional threats: possibilities that might never materialize. They're the first targets of budget-cutters in a time of austerity. Thus, we cannot be sanguine about building and maintaining such bases without maintaining our economic health and vitality. Even then, it would be necessary to keep unpleasant but yet unrealized possibilities in mind when the budget-cutters come to call."

Good advice for the strategic-minded, but the strategic-minded won't be calling the shots when the knives come out for budget cutting.

"America was not altogether ready for World War II. We had reduced our World War I Army to pre-war levels, and had retreated from most aspects of military production. Fortunately, the psychological response of Americans to the attack on Pearl Harbor left us ready and willing to endure a considerable degree of privation for the sake of the forces and materiel the war would require. Above all, America was rich enough, and free enough, to convert half of its productive sector to the making of weapons of war. It is unclear that we could do that today."

I'm a bit more optimistic about our ability to convert great swaths of our productive sector to war production, but I'm less sanguine about what of our productive sector actually remains within our own borders.

re: "National Security Part 5: The Power Elite"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road takes a dim view of where we're headed.

Money quote(s):

"(C)itizen morale is an important -- nay, indispensable -- component of the national security. It determines how many of us will answer a "call to the colors," and how ardently we'll undertake the tasks it demands.

For most of its history, the United States was a high-morale society. Indeed, Albert Jay Nock, one of the premier cynics of his time, described our morale as like unto "an army on the march." It was so high that it sent millions of men into combat to protect and liberate faceless others, not once but twice."

"From the standpoint of the private individual, convinced by the words and deeds of the power elite that he is merely fodder for the State's schemes, disaffiliating from the nation and concentrating on personal security and gain is both reflexive and purely rational. Why should he take up arms to defend something that ceaselessly strives to shackle and mulct him? Why should he accept a politician's plea that he sacrifice for the greater good? He's been persuaded that a sacrifice is all he'll ever be. There's no future in it."

"Matters become particularly grave when the power elite acquires a general reputation for considering itself above the law. Law in a Western nation is nominally superior to any individual; that's the basis of republican governance. Lawbreakers are supposedly conceded no immunities because of their station in life. But in recent years, the practice has diverged greatly from the theory.

Should the power elite manifest a disdain for the requirements of the law through its actions, it will be exceedingly difficult to conceal that attitude from the citizenry. As no one ever thinks of himself as "below" anyone else, the inevitable consequence is the evaporation of respect for the law as such. Citizens will ignore, evade, and outrightly break the law whenever it's possible, safe, and to their advantage. Even the most popular laws will be indifferently enforced, as the enforcers will progressively more often "sell exemptions" -- i.e., look the other way for a consideration -- than act according to the black-letter law and their public responsibilities. They, too, have their individual interests to serve.

Domestic law and the prevailing level of respect for it might not seem relevant to national security. Yet there are forces, some overtly hostile, that exploit our willingness to break our own laws. The general incoherence of our attitude toward illegal immigration provides an excellent case study: it's not just job-hungry Mexicans that flow across our borders. The ongoing traffic in illegal drugs, and the intentions of those whom it funds, provide another." (Bold typeface added for emphasis.)

&

"(A) set of dynamics have operated, since the end of World War II at least, to reduce American national security. In part, it's because we've accepted more external commitments than we can honor, whether because of the finity of our forces or the strains on our pocketbooks. But in greater part, it's because of the social, economic, and political deterioration we've allowed here at home.

Your Curmudgeon must reluctantly assess America's national security as low, perhaps dangerously low. The extreme risk-aversion of our major foreign enemies is our main protection at this time. Even a small chance that the awesome military power we command might be deployed against them is enough to deter them...for now. But individuals and groups already within our borders that have acted to undermine our law, our economy, and our morale from within are exposed to no such risk -- and their successes to date have emboldened still other persons and groups, including some that are nominally, but in no other way, American."

re: "National Security Part 2: The Armed Forces"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road takes a look at "military" missions.

Money quote(s):

"(I)n the event of an invasion of the land territory of the United States, America's armed forces should reply with their full speed and power. That's what armed forces are for. If we're not going to use them for that, we needn't have spent all that money on guns, ships, tanks, planes, and various sort of ammunition for them. Despite that self-evident fact, the existence of our armed forces is itself an element of ongoing controversy, mainly arising from two questions:

How large a military do we need?

What should it do when it's not fighting in the field?

It is here, rather than in the use of whatever military we have at the moment to respond to an attack on America or her vital interests, that questions of national security arise."

IIRC (from my long-ago days as an AROTC cadet), the Army's mission is to defend the nation and carry out the national mission.

Defending the nation sounds simple enough, but is actually extraordinarily complicated.

Carrying out the national mission is whatever the commander-in-chief or the Congress says it is, pretty much.

"Only after World War II did our peacetime military grow to "superpower size." In large measure, that growth was elicited by the alliances the U.S. entered in the years after the war, most particularly NATO.

The NATO alliance occupied about half of America's combat power for forty-five years. The great size of the putative opponent -- the USSR -- seemed to demand a large military presence in Europe, if the Old World was to avert yet another continent-shattering war."

Mission accomplished. Second- and third-order consequences which nobody predicted (no one ever does) shouldn't obscure that basic fact.

"After the World Wars, it became America's job to secure the world's oceans, those indispensable conduits for travel and trade. Thus, the Navy could not be permitted to shrink to its pre-war size (even though it has). The emergence of the intercontinental bomber and the nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile as strategic threats made it necessary to erect the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), best known for its redoubt in Cheyenne Mountain. The swelling of those two services required the support of vast defense-contracting and defense-procurement apparatuses; modern wars must be fought with modern weapons, wielded according to the best available strategic and tactical thinking available." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"This was inevitable; technological advance, plus the emergence of a new, aggressive ideology and its dominance of two enormous nations, demanded it. Those who objected to the large military, saying that that nuclear weapons made it unnecessary, completely missed the critical point: You cannot respond to small, confined incursions with large, indiscriminate weapons. Indeed, large nukes cannot deter a similarly armed opponent willing to use lesser forces and military proxies to advance its interests. To meet the threat of such an opponent, a military capable of responding with calibrated force, from the smallest engagements all the way up to global nuclear war, is required.

Yes, even in "peacetime." " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"The current crisis along our borders, particularly our southern border, screams for a military response. Surely, an invasion need not be composed of uniformed men to be a danger to the nation. Indeed, it's arguable whether the armed drug gangs or the (generally unarmed) hordes of illegal aliens constitute the greater threat to our national security. "

This same argument has been posed, from a legal standpoint, to justify the exclusion of children born to illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

re: "The Final Assault: Foreseeable Mopping-Up Operations"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road extrapolates along similar lines as my yesterday's post.

Money quote(s):

"Since the enactment of same-sex marriage legislation by the State of New York, certain questions have been on the minds of those opposed to the idea:

What else will this change?
Will churches, synagogues, etc. be compelled to solemnize same-sex marriages?
What about businesses run by religious proprietors?"

&

"Given that New York, despite the cosmopolitan-secular veneer afforded it by New York City, is as religious as any other part of the country, the bill could not have passed the Senate without such provisions. However, given the activism of American judges, there is no guarantee that an appellate court will swallow either the exemptions or the inseverability provision. A court decision mandating same-sex marriage without any exemptions is quite possible, just as same-sex marriage was foisted upon Massachusetts by a judicial decree.

Finally, given the documented history of homosexuals' pressure upon the churches, particularly the Catholic Church, to accept them and their ways despite longstanding doctrine, it's easy to foresee additional rounds in this battle." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

re: "The Strange Case Of Pastor Terry Jones: A Sunday Screed"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road rejects the "Religion of Peace" construct. Emphatically.

Money quote(s):

"Were we ever to rid ourselves of the notion that Islam is "a religion of peace," we'd fall upon the Middle East, North Africa, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Muslim enclaves in Europe, and every other Islamic hellhole in a body. We'd purge that noxious creed from the world out of righteous wrath and humanitarian concern for all decent persons who want only to live in peace. Anyone who would dare to suggest that we'd be wrong to do so would earn our undying contempt."

I've got to say, as un-fond as I am of, the counterfactual ROP mantra, it's always seemed to me that Prof. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory was as much a warning as a paradigm. And that Pres. Bush (43) was correct in not making the GWOT into an intercivilizational war.

"There is absolutely no possibility of "reforming" Islam. Islam is founded on violence. It's made all its gains in the world through violence and intimidation."

And behavior which is rewarded will be repeated. Got that part.

re: "Libya, Libya, Libya"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road opines on strategy and national interests.

Money quote(s):

"The most consequential error a commander can make is erroneously assuming that he knows his enemy's objective. Indeed, the bulk of analysis during a ground engagement goes into deducing the enemy's objective from his tactics. The underlying principle is so fundamental that it's almost invisible: You're fighting specifically to deny the enemy his objective, and to misconceive it all but guarantees that he'll reach it despite you.

On the other side of the ledger is your objective: the specific goal you're trying to reach in the circumstances before you. Oftentimes, it's merely the negation of your enemy's objective. In simple, two-contestant actions, that's almost always the case. That implies that at the end, either one of you will win and the other will lose, or both of you will retreat from your campaigns, having thwarted one another."

A commander on the ground has to worry about both tactics and operational art. Americans are spectacularly good at this stuff, btw. However, those are just the first two rungs of the ladder; there's strategy and grand strategy. But knowing your own objectives is essential and figuring out your adversary's is nearly as important.

"There are many players in this game. They're not limited to the Qaddafist forces and the rebels opposing them. The situation entangles many of the nations of Europe and the Middle East, plus supra-national forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood. America's own objectives are highly muddled, as it's unclear what outcome would benefit us at all, much less more than all other possible outcomes."

I like the way he thinks. Nice and convoluted-y.

"(A) good guideline for messes such as Libya is to defer making any irrevocable decisions until clarity should arrive. That guideline will sometimes leave us sitting on our hands while a golden opportunity passes by...but it will always prevent us from expending American blood and treasure to no gain, or to our ultimate rue."

&

"For the present, it's best to watch and wait. Given our military power and the relative weakness of all the other participants, no configuration of circumstances is likely to arise that couldn't possibly be undone in the future. Let's have a little clarity before exposing more of our bravest citizens to flying lead and anti-aircraft fire."

re: "A Warning"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road discusses the utility, and likely necessity, of disproportionate response in the war on Islamicist terrorism.

Money quote(s):

"By implication, any escalation of our current conflict, most particularly further attacks on American civilians with or without weapons of mass destruction, will evoke a comparable response from us.

This is a great pity. It would mean that additional thousands of Americans had already died at Muslim hands."

"The proper time to strike with maximum force was when the video clips of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 atrocities in the streets of their hellholes, handing out candy and firing AK-47s into the air, reached the United States. When nattily dressed Muslims in Iraq and Iran jeered at our naivity and vulnerability, and wished our suffering had been even worse. When mullahs and imams in Cairo and Riyadh decreed that the Great Satan had finally gotten some of what was coming to him.

We would have put the other Muslim-majority nations on notice that American blood is to be treated as sacred -- that we will not allow anyone to spill it without suffering in Biblical disproportion. That's what world-record military superiority is for. Not "humanitarian aid" or "disaster relief." "

After 9/11, Pres. Bush decided against a strategy of massive retaliation, de-linking in his public statements and actions the religion of Islam and and individual muslims in general from responsibility for the attacks.

I suspect strongly that had he been inclined to take the other approach, he would have found considerable domestic political support. People (and I include members of Congress in that set) were scared, and were looking for someone to act.

"Our failure to act on it has already cost thousands of civilian lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Our restraint in responding to the blows dealt us will ultimately cost us at least as much more; Islamic militants and the states that sponsor and shelter them have already made it clear that they consider it evidence of weakness and lack of confidence.

They will strike us again."

&

"One way or another, they will strike us again. More Americans will die, and fear will blanket the land once again. Many will cry out for answers: Why did our "leaders" not act to prevent a villainy so easily foreseen? Why was it necessary that the innocent die en masse before the evil could be identified and punished? Hadn't we already had warnings enough?"

Pres. Bush made the decision, deliberate or or conditioned, to de-escalate (relatively speaking) rather than massively relatiate. He gave the moslem world a chance not just at survival but at freedom, democracy, &tc;. Considering the long odds against success, his approach (with fits and starts) has been surprisingly successful, mainly due to the efforts of the “troops,” military and otherwise.

The survival of the islamic world, and indeed ourselves, depends upon him having been right. The American people will not tolerate a second bite at the 9/11 apple.

_____

Hat tip to KG at Crusader Rabbit ("Islam has two allies here in the West - the Left and political correctness. The fight is with all three.").

re: "Freedom And Power, Part 3: The Shape Of Things To Come"

The Curmudgeon Emeritus at Eternity Road talks about language, about calling things by their true and proper names, and about who's winning the war.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he tactic, as it's currently practiced, is executed with superlative skill."

"Mr. Gardner, unlike so many of us, has actually been watching as events have progressed. Moreover, his assessment -- that Islam is winning the conflict -- strikes your Curmudgeon as entirely accurate."

"Islam's primary targets are the peoples and nation-states of the Western world: the nations of Europe and North America. Thus, it has chosen to attack a population that masses to about a billion people, that produces an aggregate annual product of over $25 trillion, and that possesses numerous armies equipped with the most fearsome weaponry ever devised. One would think that so puny and poverty-stricken a force as Islam would have no chance against such a group of targets -- that its humiliation would be a mere finger exercise for the West, and its elimination would follow as a matter of course.

Yet Islam is winning. It advances on the war's every front.

If you doubt this, ask plainly: Who is making concessions to whom? Whose legal and political systems are being forced to accommodate whose demands? Whose violence and disruptive demonstrations are being treated as evidence of a need to conciliate whom? Whose institutions are faced with lawsuits, prosecutions, and other disruptions by whom, on what grounds, and with what "adjustments" suggested as remedies?"

"With vanishingly few exceptions, America's governments and public men did not consciously create or assist the rise of the Islamic menace. Islam's visionaries -- never doubt that it has them -- merely peered across the oceans at our progressive surrender to multiculturalism, moral relativism, and the weakening of the American character, and decided that the time had come to strike. Though some of the subsequent events have been showier than the rest, the panorama, from Muslims' demands for workplace accommodations all the way to the destruction of the World Trade Center, displays a unifying theme: We will conquer you, for you are too soft to resist us."

&

"Governments throughout the West have rejected the notion that our borders should be closed to Muslim entrants. With regard to the overt acts of violence Muslims have committed against free peoples, governments' reactions have exaggerated the imperative of "not surrendering to hatred and bigotry" -- that is, not taking Islam at its word that what its jihadists are doing to us is precisely what it commands of all its adherents. Most notably, no public figure of importance has dared to state that Islam itself is the driving force behind the campaign to terrorize the West into submission. The closest anyone has come was President Bush's fleeting attempt to define the enemy in the War on Terror as "Islamism," which he retracted almost immediately in the face of denunciations from Muslim-mouthpiece groups."


_____

Hat tip to KG at Crusader Rabbit ("Islam has two allies here in the West - the Left and political correctness. The fight is with all three.").