re: "The Muslim Brotherhood's American Defenders"

Caroline Glick re-posted her Jerusalem Post article at CarolineGlick.Com ("the most prominent woman in Israel"), regarding America's current mis-comprehension of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Money quote(s):

"On Wednesday, John Brennan, US President Barack Obama's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, made a quick trip to Israel to discuss Hezbollah's massacre of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria last week."

&

"Unlike previous US counterterror officials, Brennan does not share Israel's understanding of Middle Eastern terrorism.

Brennan's outlook on this subject was revealed in a speech he gave two years ago in Washington. In that talk, Brennan spoke dreamily about Hezbollah. As he put it, "Hezbollah is a very interesting organization."

He claimed it had evolved from a "purely terrorist organization" to a militia and then into an organization with members in Lebanon's parliament and serving in Lebanon's cabinet."

This is what comes of having a "war on terrorism" and "violent extremism" rather than responding directly to the organizations and movements which have employed those tactics against us.

Namely the MB and her sister- and daughter-organizations like Hezbollah.

"Brennan's amazing characterization of Hezbollah's hostile takeover of the Lebanese government as proof that the terrorist group was moderating was of a piece with the Obama administration's view of Islamic jihadists generally.

If there are "moderate elements," in Hezbollah, from the perspective of the Obama administration, Hezbollah's Sunni jihadist counterpart - the Muslim Brotherhood - is downright friendly."

&

"On February 10, 2011, Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made this position clear in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Clapper's testimony was given the day before then Egyptian president and longtime US ally Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign from office. Mubarak's coerced resignation owed largely to the Obama administration's decision to end US support for his regime and openly demand his immediate abdication of power. As Israel warned, Mubarak's ouster paved the way for the Muslim Brotherhood's ascendance to power in Egypt.

In his testimony Clapper said, "The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaida as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in Egypt, etc."

Watching Clapper's testimony in Israel, the sense across the political spectrum, shared by experts and casual observers alike was that the US had taken leave of its senses."

DNI Clapper is not a working-level intelligence analyst. He has to function in the political realm and that can be expected to color his public remarks.

One does have to wonder what the non-public recommendations and assessments look like.

(CAA has no direct experience regarding the DNI but there are people CAA respects who have, and they respect him.)

"The slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood is "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the path of Allah is our highest hope."

How could such a high-level US official claim that such an organization is "largely secular"?

Every day Muslim Brotherhood leaders call for the violent annihilation of Israel. And those calls are often combined with calls for jihad against the US. For instance, in a sermon from October 2010, Muslim Brotherhood head Mohammed Badie called for jihad against the US."

One can always blame bad policy decisions on bad advice, but you then have to shoulder the blame for choosing bad advisors.

"The obliviousness of Brennan and Clapper to the essential nature of Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are symptoms of the overarching ignorance informing the Obama administration's approach to Middle Eastern realities."

&

"(I)n October 2011, according to the Beirut-based Arabic news portal al Nashra, Dalia Mogahed, Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, blocked a delegation of Middle Eastern Christians led by Lebanon's Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai from meeting with Obama and members of his national security team at the White House. According to al Nashra, Mogahed canceled the meeting at the request of the Muslim Brotherhood in her native Egypt.

The White House canceled the meeting days after Rai visited with then French president Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris. During that meeting Rai angered the French Foreign Ministry when he warned that it would be a disaster for Syria's Christian minority, and for Christians throughout the region, if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad is overthrown. Rai based this claim on his assessment that Assad would be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood- dominated Islamist regime.

And nine months later it is obvious that he was right. With Syria's civil war still raging throughout the country, the world media is rife with reports about Syria's Christians fleeing their towns and villages en masse as Islamists from the Syrian opposition target them with death, extortion and kidnapping."

See my comment above about choosing bad advisors.

"Why is the Obama administration shunning potential allies and empowering enemies? Why has the administration gotten it wrong everywhere?

In an attempt to get to the bottom of this, and perhaps to cause the administration to rethink its policies, a group of US lawmakers, members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees led by Rep. Michele Bachmann sent letters to the inspectors-general of the State, Homeland Security, Defense, and Justice departments as well as to the inspector-general of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In those letters, Bachmann and her colleagues asked the Inspectors General to investigate possible penetration of the US government by Muslim Brotherhood operatives."

Silly idea, right? Because of course none of America's enemies has ever tried to infiltrate our government for purposes of influence and espionage before.

(Well, not if you don't consider World War I, World War II, the Cold War..... )

"(T)he lawmakers made clear that when they spoke of governmental penetration, they were referring to the central role that Muslim groups, identified by the US government in Federal Court as Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, play in shaping the Obama administration's perception of and policies towards the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied movements in the US and throughout the world.

That these front groups, including the unindicted terror funding co-conspirators, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), play a key role in shaping the Obama administration's agenda is beyond dispute."

Do I really have to link to the Holy Land Foundation trial documents again?

I guess so.

"There is an ample body of evidence that suggests that the administration's decision to side with the hostile Muslim Brotherhood against its allies owes to a significant degree to the influence these Muslim Brotherhood front groups and their operatives wield in the Obama administration.

To take just one example, last October the Obama administration agreed to purge training materials used by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies and eliminate all materials that contained references to Islam that US Muslim groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood had claimed were offensive. The administration has also fired counterterrorism trainers and lecturers employed by US security agencies and defense academies that taught their pupils about the doctrines of jihadist Islam. The administration also appointed representatives of Muslim Brotherhood-aligned US Muslim groups to oversee the approval of training materials about Islam for US federal agencies."

She concluded:

"It is clear that the insidious notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate and friendly force has taken hold in US policy circles. And it is apparent that US policymaking in the Middle East is increasingly rooted in this false and dangerous assessment.

In spearheading an initiative to investigate and change this state of affairs, Bachmann and her colleagues should be congratulated, not condemned. And their courageous efforts to ask the relevant questions about the nature of Muslim Brotherhood influence over US policymakers should be joined, not spurned by their colleagues in Washington, by the media and by all concerned citizens in America and throughout the free world."

7/27

re: "Raymond Ibrahim: The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests"

Raymond at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") provided some historical context that contrasts with today's bland pronouncements.

Money quote(s):

"Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time.

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema)."

&

"It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed."

What is today called the "Muslim world" was once, variously, the Roman- and Byzantine Christian Mediterranean world and the Persian empire.

"The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis,” paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.

Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America’s classrooms, as many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion’s intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals."

Pillage, booty, slaves, and taxes. And all to the greater glory, &tc.

"The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook’s mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a “spiritual-struggle” against one’s vices."

And yet "jihad = inner spiritual struggle" is now the textbook answer throughout the military and the IC, and said with a straight fact to boot!

To aid in the disorientation, while Pres. Bush can not be seen by the current administration to have done anything right, ever, his pronouncing that "Islam is a religion of peace" is accepted without a twitch. Weird.

"(T)he Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam’s theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures."

&

"In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

3/1

re: "Reclaiming State Department Clarity on Jihad and Sharia"

Andrew G. Bostom at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") had harsh criticism for the State Department.

Money quote(s):

"Islam's defining doctrine of jihad war against non-Muslims, and resultant 14 centuries of sanguinary imperialism, and accompanying acts of terrorism, through the present, notwithstanding, ad nauseum contemporary State Department pronouncements re-affirm what Muslim propagandists insist--that the creed is an enlightened pacifism.

Glaring examples of this corrosive State Department apologetic on Islam have been provided by the two most recent Secretaries of State, Condoleeza Rice, and the current Secretary, Hillary Clinton." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Mr. Bostom provided some examples before continuing.

"(O)bsequious pandering to Islam--despite the daily confirmed, abject failure of these efforts to provide any strategic benefit to the US--was not always enshrined State Department "policy."

Edward A. Van Dyck, then US Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called "capitulations") between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer US-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck's report--written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats--opens with an informed, pellucid, and remarkably compendious explanation of jihad and Islamic law (Sharia):

In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. "Fiqh," as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; ...with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts--"the House of Islam," and the House of War;" out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammednas (sic) that "all kinds of unbelievers from but one people." "

Jihad and Islam aren't something new, after all. Pres. Jefferson found it necessary to educate himself as to the facts due to the depredations of the Barbary pirates against U.S. shipping (and naval vessels).

"We are in desperate need of a strong new Secretary of State willing to purge the State Department of all those dogmatically inculcating such counterfactual, delusive Islamophilia. Diplomats possessed of--or at least receptive to learning--Van Dyck's unapologetic wisdom, must be recruited and installed if we are to survive the violent and non-violent jihad being waged against the US. America employed such informed, clear-eyed patriotic diplomats in the past; we need them now more than ever before."

Sec. Clinton has indicated at least once that she intends her tenure to last no longer than the current president's first term. So regardless of the electoral results this November, we can expect a new secstate sometime within the next 12 months, give or take.

5/12

re: "Poverty causes jihad, except when it doesn't: 60% of jihad suspects in Britain are from comfortable, middle-class backgrounds"

Marisol at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") questioned an unquestioned article of faith.

Money quote(s):

"It is a politically correct article of faith that Islamic supremicism and violent jihad must stem from something other than Islamic texts, teachings, and traditions, and poverty and lack of education are popular diversons." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

&

"What remains unanswered amid those conjectures is why the response to those difficulties in life, including bereavement and loneliness, leads so often to violent "radicalization" for Muslims in Britain, as opposed to, say, members of the Anglican Communion from far-flung corners of the world."

It's the operating system, the worldview, the "reality tunnel" which a thorough steeping in Islamic texts, teachings, and traditions (such as one experiences growing up in a sharia and jihad-promoting environment) imprints on a young, impressionable mind.

(So no matter how educated, no matter how "modern," when a trauma or setback occurs, the default position is to blame, and punish, the infidel.)

10/17

re: "Timeless Islamo-Realism from Princeton’s Patricia Crone"

Andrew Bostom ("Uncreated, Uncreative Words") relayed some highlights of Patricia Crone.

Money quote(s):

"“Muhammad’s God elevated [this] tribal militance and rapaciousness into supreme religious virtues…In short, Muhammad had to conquer, his followers liked to conquer, and his deity told him to conquer: do we need any more?” "

In short, he told them what he knew they'd want to hear.

"Muhammad’s God endorsed a policy on conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever they might be found…Arab soldiers were told on the eve of the battle of Qadisiyya [as recorded by the great Muslim historian Tabari], with reference to Iraq; ‘if you hold out…then their property, their women, their children, and their country will be yours.’ God could scarcely have been more explicit. He told the Arabs that they had a right to despoil others of their women, children, and land, or indeed they had a duty to do so: holy war consisted in obeying."

This predates the modern entitlement state by a millenia, but the underlying principle remains the same: you owe me what I want because I want it.

10/16

re: "Nothing Toulouse"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club (the blogger formerly known as "Wretchard") examined some intelligence lessons-learned.

Money quote(s):

"French intelligence may have missed a few indications that Mohammed Merah was not the average guy. He was on the US no-fly list, apart from having been ejected from Afghanistan in 2008 by US forces. French intelligence itself apparently had orders to watch him and had interviewed him on the occasion of his return from Afghanistan, which he described as being a tourist trip."

Repeat after me: there are no tourists in Afghanistan. None. Ever. Niente.

"There was, as one French politician put it, altogether “too many arms, too many trips, too much money” — and too much pull for Merah to be your typical lone gunman next door. The natural thing for conspiracy theorists to suspect was that he was somebody’s asset — just whose and on which side of the fence — is fertile ground for speculation. But there is one depressing alternative. Everybody just screwed up."

And that's another harsh lesson of intelligence as practised in the real world. Not simply the sterile "mistakes were made," but the grittier fact that people make mistakes.

"The dangers of figuring out just who is working for whom was illustrated by the Camp Chapman attack in Afghanistan, when an entire CIA cell was blown up by their prize agent, who as it turned out, was working for the other side."

That disaster could have been prevented quite simply, more's the pity. CAA sincerely hopes that the CIA's operators have incorporated the lessons-learned therefrom.

"Intelligence operations are by their very nature a high-risk business. But as a CIA study remarked, the biggest intelligence failures are marked by two characteristics: a failure of fusion of knowledge and a lack of objectivity."

Good points. Intelligence fusion can take place at many levels; its quality is going to vary based on many factors, not least of which will be the quality of the analysts doing the fusion and the level and breadth of access they have to various sources of intelligence and information.

As for objectivity, well, there's always the danger of "falling in love with your source." Not actual love-love, you understand; just losing objectivity.

"Everything is always clear on Monday morning to the intelligence pathologist. But everyone who died in the Sunday game is still dead."

Harsh. But not untrue.

"Lack of Objectivity is even more damaging to the intelligence cause."

If you already have a conclusion, then why go through the motions of the intelligence process, why do all that collection and analysis, unless as a form of theater?

"(P)eople have agendas. They want to see the world in certain ways — whether the world is really like that or not — because their political masters want to view the world in that way. So you distort intelligence and if you want a world in which there are no jihadis, only right wing Neo-Nazis, then you get a world with only right wing Neo-Nazis.

The result of course, is that bad stuff happens. And here’s the third rule of intelligence failure which the CIA document omits. The really useful thing about post-mortems on failures is not what you learn, but who you can blame. The entire purpose of a post-mortem is to protect bias in the system. The result in these cases is that the least powerful bias is sacrificed to the gods. Such a sacrificial victim becomes the designated Fall Guy." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

3/22

re: "Muslims Texting Death Threats to Christians: "We want this country to be purely an Islamic state, so we must kill the infidels and destroy thei"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") asked the what-comes-next question:

"Did you really believe that the Islamic north Sudan would allow the Christians and black secular Muslims to live in peace in the north after they (South Sudan) declared independence from the brutal oppression and genocide of jihad?"

Historically, one of the follow-on consequences from partition based upon ethnicity or religion has been ethnic cleansing in the rump successor-state. See the Balkans, Greece, and Turkey after World War I, Eastern Europe after World War II, and Pakistan after the partition with India.

That doesn't make it right or pretty, but it does make it unsurprising.

9/18

re: "But What if it’s True?"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") exhibited a much higher opinion of Spencer Ackerman than I can suspend my disbelief to stomach.

(Bear in mind, the scalp, i.e. Scooter Libby's indictment, of which he is so proud was not the official actually responsible.)

That being said, Lex addresses the issues Ackerman is blind to.

Money quote(s):

"For my own part, I would like to draw a necessarily blurry line between what Mr. Ackerman and the FBI call “main stream” American Muslims and the “pious and devout.” Because the possibility never occurs to the former at least that to be a pious and devout Muslim necessarily means super-ordinating the will of God, as expressed to his Prophet 14 centuries ago in an inalterable text, and that this potentially places the believer in conflict with the values of modern Western Civilization. Most will find a way to live with that conflict. A notable few, weak-minded or otherwise deficient, have spectacularly failed to do so."

A deeper than bumper sticker slogan knowledge is required of anyone attempting to realistically address the issue of Islamic-based terrorism and jihad.

(Is CAA an expert? Hell no! But I've got a shelf of much-read books which attest to my attempts at defeating my own ignorance of the issues.)

"Steeped in the culture of Western liberalism, he declines to even recognize this possibility: To the degree you are a good Muslim, as defined by rigorously following and promoting the entirety of the Koran (with Islam lacking as it does any centralized institution to contextualize those 7th Century scriptures in a 21st Century world, what other definition could there be?) it becomes increasingly difficult to be a good citizen.

Because the great monotheistic faiths of the world are fundamentally different, or else Samuel Huntington never would have gotten published (you don’t have to agree with the man’s conclusions to appreciate his command of history)."

Huntington himself knew, and wrote, that (I paraphrase) his "clash of civilizations" theoretical framework didn't explain everything. Modestly (for him), he put it forth as a useful theoretical lense.

(Oh, and to sell books.)

"There are Muslims who are good citizens who point out to us the more radically dangerous among them, and those of Islamic (as opposed to Islamist) traditions who eschew the active “lesser” Jihad to await God’s inevitable ordering of the world under Sharia. But to be a truly pious and devout Muslim – of the Wahabist and Salafist sects in particular – requires the follower to accept as unquestioned the guidance and example of Mohammed, and act on them, straight down the line. It is useful to remember that “Islam” means submission to God’s will, and God wills the believer to act.

(Some well-meaning civil rights activists say that to acknowledge these inconvenient truths is render oneself an “Islamophobe”, subject to the non-rebuttable charge of racism. But Islam is not a race, it is rather a set of beliefs. These beliefs are open to scrutiny and analysis.)" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

By definition, a "phobia" is an irrational fear. How someone with access to news media over the past decade or so could term a fear of Islam or islamists (or even garden variety muslims) to be wholly irrational, to the point where it merits a clinical-style name, is something CAA couldn't do with a straight face.

"In his Regensburg lecture, the man who would become Pope Benedict XVI committed an impolitic gaffe – one in the character of inadvertently blurting out the truth – when he said quoted 14th Century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (thanks, Zane), “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The lecture caused quite a stir, not because it was untrue necessarily but because it was likely to make certain people deeply unhappy. And you know how they get when they’re unhappy." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Clearly His Holiness didn't get the memo about whitewashing European history to fit politically-correct fashions.

9/15

re: "Fort Hood jihad murderer's trial: "People will want to hear the other side during the court-martial, but what could he possibly say in his defe"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") urged letting this defendent testify on his own behalf.

Money quote(s):

"Let the world hear him preach Islam and jihad and explain that that was why he murdered thirteen people in cold blood. Let the world see a jihadist justifying his actions."

That would almost certainly qualify as educational television.

7/10

re: "Ramping Up to Another Jihad Genocide in The Sudan?"

Andrew Bostom ("Uncreated, Uncreative Words") puts the situation in Nubia (i.e., South Kordofan) into historical perspective.

Money quote(s):

"(Y)et another jihad genocide may be under way in The Sudan—Arab Muslim mass murderers preying upon indigenous non-Arab, primarily Christian blacks—this time in the Nuba Mountains."

The Nuba Mountains are, mostly, in the central part of what is now (since the formerly semi-autonomous Southern Sudan is now independent South Sudan) southern Sudan.

"Conservative death toll estimates as of now suggest that the number is at least in the “hundreds,” with a minimum of 60,000 displaced.

The feckless UN peacekeeping presence confined to its Kadugli base, includes Egyptian peacekeepers, viewed as very sympathetic toward the Arab Khartoum government, and accused by many Nuba of being complicit in targeted assassinations within the U.N. camp sheltering displaced refugees."

This is a very old story for Sudan, predating independence by centuries.

"Jihad depredations against the Nuba are a recurring phenomenon in Sudan’s history. Winston Churchill’s accounts from The River War as a young British soldier fighting in the Sudan at the end of the 19th century, described the chronic situation, in its larger context"

Looks like I'll have to find this book.

"During the 1990s, some 500,000 Nuba were killed when the Arab Muslim Khartoum government declared jihad against them."

Governments declaring jihad against their "own" people? That can't be a good thing, can it? I suppose it's easier if you don't actually see them as either "yours" or "people."

"The Nuba’s chronic plight raises yet again this overarching moral and existential question for our era of resurgent global jihad posed in 1999 by the late southern Sudanese leader John Garang:

Is the call for jihad against a particular people a religious right of those calling for it, or is it a human rights violation against the people upon whom jihad is declared and waged?"

John Garang, who died in 2005, got his start as a South Sudanese leader when he was sent to quell a mutiny among Sudanese troops in the south who had been ordered to move to the north (where they didn't want to go).

He joined them. (Before that, he was an officer in the Sudanese Armed Forces.)

re: "The Ideology of Pestilence"

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.") explains how conspiracy is not necessary when consensus suffices.

Money quote(s):

"To conceive of the Islamic invasion as a centrally-directed process is to misunderstand its nature and impose a Western model of behavior on the collective psychological, social, and political actions of Muslims.

Overall Islamic strategy is not coherent and well-organized, no matter how shrewd and effective any of its individual actors and groups may be. To conceive of it as a political entity with a dictator or single decision-making body is to miss the point.

Islam is effective precisely because it is a distributed phenomenon, and utilizes what might be called a micro-ideology — a small set of easily-understood instructions that are encoded and replicated in hundreds of millions of minds across the length and breadth of the Ummah." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Author Tom Kratman says something similar about transnational progressivism; that it's not necessary for there to be a conspiracy, only a widely-accepted consensus about a world-view.

"The exploitation of the infidel may involve a full violent jihad. It may also take the form of razzia — armed raids, pillaging, looting, rapine, and destruction.

In 21st-century Europe, Canada, and the United States, however, the preferred method is what has been called the “stealth jihad” — the gradual but steady infiltration, occupation, and subversion of Western countries.

This does not need to be a hierarchically-arranged and centrally-directed process to be effective. In fact, a full onslaught organized by an outside political entity would be detected and countered, because this is the traditional form of political conflict which the West recognizes, and in which it is supreme.

The stealth jihad in all its forms is the only strategy which can conquer the West, and it is very effective indeed, since our political systems have no template that includes it. We cannot fit it into any conceptual framework, and seem unable or unwilling to devise a new one that would allow us to deal with it effectively." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The Muslim Brotherhood actually developed, and U.S. law enforcement discovered, the plan for an Islamic takeover of the U.S. Set your search engine for the Holy Land Foundation trial and take a look at was was entered into evidence. Or peruse some of my earlier posts with the Muslim Brotherhood tag.

"Most of the boat people who arrive on Lampedusa or Pantelleria do not view themselves as the vanguard of an Islamic invasion. They come with all the various motivations that you would expect from a group of poverty-stricken and mostly illiterate refugees — fear of repression and violence back home, a desperate search for a better means of subsistence, the desire to take advantage of the legendary bounty of Europe, etc.

However, since they carry within themselves the encoded instructions of Islamic micro-ideology, their modus operandi will be one of rapacious exploitation. They will have no moral scruples of the sort that a Westerner would understand, and feel no shame or embarrassment about being indolent parasites upon their infidel hosts — the simplified Islam they bring with them tells them that this is exactly their due, their basic right as members of a superior social group living amidst their inferiors.

Individual behavior driven by this imperative, when multiplied by thousands or millions, aggregates into an Islamic conquest. Not necessarily suddenly. It doesn’t have to happen all at once. Gradually, over decades, there are more and more Muslims. Always taking, taking, taking from the kuffar. Slowly, imperceptibly, as they become more numerous, our system fades away and is replaced by theirs.

In the long run, Islamic exploitation always fails. The parasite always kills its host. The process takes centuries — the glory of the Persians and the Byzantines persisted for a long time after the Islamic conquest. But in the end their lights guttered and died, and they became corrupt and backward satrapies until the magic of petroleum revived them."

This process is well understood among leading Islamic scholars. Witness a recent call, in the interests of ending Egyptian poverty, for the taking of loot, booty, and slaves from the (infidel) West.

re: "Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya"

Pamela Geller (who had a birthday this week) at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") isn't crazy about the plaintiffs, but likes the suit.

Money quote(s):

"Finally, elected officials are holding a runaway President to account. Does anyone know what the hell we hope to accomplish in Libya? What is Obama's endgame in Libya, aiding al qaeda? On May 20th, the 60th day of Obama's war in Libya, Obama was requird by law to get Congressional approval to continue his ops in Libya. The war he consulted no one about, the war he did not go to Congress on, the tyrant's war.

He is now engaged in four wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a secret war in Yemen, and his strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in the highest US military casualty rates, year over year, since these engagements began (in July 2009, I called it -- Obama's Afghanistan strategy: target US military). He refuses to identify Islamic terror, jihad or religious motivation. His counter terror adviser, John Brennan, says, "jihad is a legitimate tennt of islam," so what exactly is Obama fighting in these four wars, and who is he fighting for?"

U.S. participation in the Libyan action has been troubling me as well, but I'm of a somewhat literalist turn of mind when it comes to things like the powers of government, including the presidency.

re: "An Overfilled Heart: Usages And Abusages"

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road is laudatory towards Mark Steyn and assesses politicians and policies.

Money quote(s):

"They who go into politics are generally persons of weak conscience. Two centuries of the demotic incentive -- the need to please 50%-plus-one to gain or retain power -- have produced a sub-race of Mankind almost completely free of moral qualms. All that matters to them in any situation that requires a decision is the utterly pragmatic determination of the currently relevant constituency: just who those 50%-plus-one are to be "this time." " (Emphasis in original. - CAA)

"It has been clear since 732 Anno Domini that the Western world, once better described as Christendom, is at war with Islam. Clear, that is, to anyone with adequate knowledge of the dictates of Islam whose intellect isn't fettered to an irrational desire to appear "tolerant" and "inclusive." "

Mr. Porretto has this precisely reversed. Islam has been at war with Christendom, indeed with all its neighbors, since its inception. (It's hardwired into the programming, after all.)

"Denunciations of the assertion that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim have been widespread. Suffice it to say that we'd rather not believe that 53% of American voters did such a stupid thing. And perhaps, in the sense of having disclaimed the Shahada and accepted Christian baptism, Obama is at least formally not a Muslim. However, his behavior since his inauguration to the presidency speaks otherwise. At the very least, in any clash between Muslim and non-Muslim interests or sensibilities, he prefers to take their side against ours. He's even said so, publicly."

If you're of the opinion that having a Muslim father suffices to make one a Muslim (as many do believe), then that's going to be your opinion. If you're of a more Christian mindset, you believe (as I do) that an individual's professions of faith are what matters.

(Think of it as an extension of our Constitutional principle forbidding "corruption of blood.")

He concludes:

"Ugly language can be abused -- and abusive. However, as I've written before, there are times when nothing else will suffice. If we're not at such a point today, we're awfully damned close to one.

But at the ultimate cusp, the "WTF macro" will not suffice. Present trends in mealy-mouthed, insincere international diplomacy continuing, we'll soon reach a nexus at which the options will be two: to surrender to Islam, root and branch; or to "cowboy the fuck up!" and acknowledge the true dimensions of this war. At that point, no amount of profanity, however employed, will adequately describe the horrors before us. More, the longer we take to get to that nexus, the worse the sequel will be, no matter which course we choose to follow." (Emphasis in original. - CAA)

This is indeed the quandary. Was Pres. Bush (#43) correct in directing us to painstakingly avoid the very Clash of Civilizations that UBL wished to incite? Or is such a global conflagration inevitable, with delay only increasing the bloodshed, body count, and likelihood of victory.

These are the sorts of questions that serious people should be thinking and talking about, not this ridiculous "Wiener-gate" nonsense.

re: "Finally."

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") and I don't agree about everything. In fact, we differ profoundly (if respectfully) on some social issues.

But she nails this.

Money quote(s):

"As with most decisions I make, the reasons behind my decision to join the Foreign Service were complicated. Among them of course was that my wife was in the Service. But bin Laden was a deciding factor too...after 9/11, I wanted to serve my country. And as an out lesbian, military service was not an option.

So I am glad he is dead...I know that while this has cut the head off the snake, the danger continues. I pray for the safety of all those serving our country now."

Western Civilization, including our little corner of it here in Los Estados Unidos, is a fairly big tent. And I welcome those willing to serve to keep the tent poles upright, the lines untangled, and pegs firmly in the ground.

That applies as much to our colleagues in uniform, to those serving around the world in our Intelligence Community, as well as to those of us willing to serve as roustabouts in our Foreign Circus, er, Service.

"He is (was) a spoiled rich kid. He sent poor muslims off to die in the service of a jihad that most muslim leaders reject. He never took a risk to his own life to carry out his murderous plans.

And so all this time, while we had an image of him living in caves, an image that no doubt served him well among his followers, many of whom actually are living in caves and other lives of desparate poverty, he was actually living in a million dollar mansion.

He had excellent security and was in town and a mere 60 miles from Islamabad. He was not living a life of hardship, but he used the lives of hardship of his followers to carry out his plans with no personal risk to himself."

This is not a leadership model I would recommend.

"(T)here are those who will decry this action, who will say all war is wrong.

I am a believer in diplomacy, in negotiation. I believe soft power must go hand in hand with hard power, that we can save lives by better funding the diplomatic corps so we can fight fewer wars. But I don't think we can ever hope to stay out of all wars.

Because I believe Hitler would have continued his evil plans to wipe all Jews from the face of the earth had it not been for war. I am not convinced that slavery would have ended without war."

Violence never settles anything except for those things that only violence will settle.

re: "The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part I – Understanding the Threat"

John Guandolo at Big Peace has begun a frightening series of articles.

Money quote(s):

"It is now March of 2011. That jihadi attack on the United States is over nine years behind us. The declaration of a global jihad from Iran in 1979 is over 30 years in our rear view mirror. The national security apparatus of the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to “make America safer,” yet we still have not defined our enemy – or even tried. There is no place in the national security structure which has objectively evaluated the threat doctrine of our enemy, and then created a strategic plan for victory for the United States – per U.S. warfighting doctrine. This lack of strategic understanding of the nature of the threat we face is not only costing us lives on the battlefield in wars with no realistically stated objectives, but so long as we drift aimlessly, we cannot win and we allow the enemy to move our boat as he sees fit. That, is the enemy’s strategy. And he is executing with great success."

This problem has implications far beyond the merely doctrinal and theoretical. When the ever-awkward construction "global war on terrorism" is junked for "man-made disasters," it's not an improvement.

Foreign policy, or at least diplomacy, is just one of the instruments of national power which can be used to implement or support a strategy, grand strategy, or even an operational or tactical plan. Without a clear grand strategy in the current global war, or even an acknowledgement that it exists (that there is something bigger going on that two isolated theatres of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), foreign policy will be about what you see now.

"The United States continues to view the wars (the establishment sees this as several conflicts, not as one global conflict) as kinetic engagements where guns, air power, drones, bombs, and other weapon of war are brought to bear on “Al Qaeda terrorists” and others with whom we are engaged on the many battlefields around the world."

As I noted above, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not conceived and initiated as wholly unrelated and independent activities, whether you agree with them or not. They were, and are, separate campaigns in a larger strategy.

Students of history will note that strategies, and grand strategies, evolve, as do objectives. Abandonment or feigned ignorance of those objectives, however, partway through their accomplishment courts great hazard.

"Every brand new intelligence officer in the United States military knows that when the United States evaluates a threat, our doctrine drives us to begin our process with WHO the enemy says he is and with WHAT the enemy says are HIS reasons for acting. That is where the U.S. analytical process begins – per our own doctrine. If we had done this after 9/11, we would not have so much confusion about the enemy we are engaging.

One hundred percent of the enemy we are fighting states he is fighting “Jihad” in the “Cause of Allah” in order to implement Islamic Law (Shariah). Therefore, U.S. analysts must begin here. Does Islamic Law exist? If so, what does it say about “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad?"

Clearly, what even the shiniest new intelligence officer or analyst knows requires years of experience and higher education to unlearn. But it can be done.

"Our entire national security apparatus is focused (fixed) on the threat of the violent Jihadis – Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups throughout the world engaging U.S and allied troops on the ground around the world.

Our enemy has no intention of defeating us on the battlefield. The kinetic war being waged by organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the many other jihadi groups is meant to bleed us, fix us in place, and create a strategic distraction while the real war they are fighting is won in the information battlespace. While AQ fixes us in place, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) presses the U.S. – and the West at large – into a corner with a stated foreign policy mirroring that of Al Qaeda. Who is the OIC? The OIC is the umbrella organization for every Muslim nation in the world – 57 states (they count Palestine as a state). At the Head of State and King level the OIC seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law. They have a 10-Year Plan in English on their website that may begin shedding light on who they are and what they intend for the West."

Oddly, I was recently required (earlier last year) to write a strategy paper as if I were a military analyst tasked with developing a strategy for Al-Qaeda. It looked a lot like what you just read. Of course, I was probably looking at many of the same, publicly available, source documents available to Mr. Guandolo.

"(T)he reason the International Muslim Brotherhood is calling for the death of Qaddafi is because he is “killing Muslims without right,” a capital crime under Islamic Law, and an act defined as “terrorism” by the OIC – that means the Head of State and King of every Muslim nation in the world has a parallel foreign policy from the one they are discussing with our State Department, and our State Department does not have clue one about it."

Our State Department, like the military, is run as a top-down organization and, like aboard the Titanic, it's difficult-to-impossible to change a large organization's course from down here in the engine room. Individual analysts and reporting officers must continue to write the truth as they observe it, as they interpret it, and keep faith that policy and decision makers are doing more than filing things down the memory hole and proceeding with their pre-conceived biases.

"The Muslim Brotherhood, like the OIC and Al Qaeda, seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law (Shariah). You do not need a SCIF or a “secure space” to pull this information up on a classified government system. All of the enemy doctrine can be found on the worldwide web, in books, in speeches, in their training curricula, and coming out of their mouths on a daily basis."

What he said.

"When the MB says they have “renounced violence” they are – hold onto your hats – lying.

From several major terrorism trials in the United States, and other information, we now know nearly every major Muslim organization in North America is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative group. We know many are support entities for Hamas, and all of the Islamic organizations working with the U.S. government are controlled by the MB. These include: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Hamas support entity; the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas organization; the Muslim Students Associations (MSA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); the Interntional Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Hamas support entity; and many other. We also know that the objectives of the MB mirror those of Al Qaeda.

The MB’s doctrine is crystal clear on their objectives. The means for achieving these objectives is to wage a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a “grand jihad” – to destroy us from within. They seek to co-opt our leadership in all areas of our society – political, military, intelligence/law enforcement, media, religious. Civilization jihad by our hands. When we see that the Islamic advisor to President Clinton was a Muslim Brother and an Al Qaeda operative currently in federal prison, or that the MB runs the Shariah Compliant Financial programs for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or that senior policy advisors to Secretary Napolitano are Muslim Brothers, or that the Assistant Director for the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate is an Iranian-born Muslim, we see that there are catastrophic security issue within the U.S. government and that - just maybe – the MB means what they say."

These statements, if true, have some very scary implications. I'm disinclined to tar everyone with a Middle Eastern or Muslim background with too broad a brush, having served in uniform with more than one such individual in whom I have undiminished confidence. Nonetheless, connections with MB-connected front organizations are not happy-making.