Trump Trashing in Europe

February 22, 2017

No stereotype is possible without elements of truth. Some received clichés, however, are more reliable than others. Take Ireland and Germany for example; where journalists shed the guise of civility recently to validate long-standing national tropes, fake Irish piety and residual German fascism.

Ireland’s political and “cultural” magazine, Village, featured a cover with President Trump as a target, with text which argued that Catholic theology justified assassination. Ironically, this argument comes from an islet that still genuflects to the memory of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Over in Germany, Der Spiegel ran a cover showing Trump beheading a bloody Statue of Liberty, suggesting that Trump might kill an infidel or apostate in the Islamic manner.

Tasteless doesn’t begin to describe this variety of fake journalism so much as it reveals cultural truths about the countries of origin, if not validating a host of euro-trash stereotypes.

Culture and politics in Ireland has long been a function of bullets, bombs, alcohol, religious fascism, clerical, pedophilia, and, more recently, anti-Semitism wrapped in a Palestinian keffiyeh.

Indeed, modern Irish history reads like Dante: centuries of religious mayhem, followed by more recent collaboration with European fascists, collusion with Mideast and North African terrorists, and lately a national clerical scandal involving homosexual pedophiles that makes the Boston Catholic archdiocese look like a boy scout retreat.

If you can pardon the analogy, Dublin and the Vatican now have a leg up on Boston. The former Irish Catholic Archbishop of Boston, you may recall, is still closeted in the Vatican to avoid American prosecutors. When Pope Francis was asked about the arrogant gay clique in the Roman Curia itself, he responded: “Who am I to judge?”  This is the same Mario Bergoglio who allowed Fatah terrorists to open an official embassy to the Vatican, in the middle of Europe.

The Village exhumed Saint Thomas Aquinas to justify the charge that Trump is a tyrant. Using Thomism to argue for assassination is a little like blessing a rosary with toilet water. The Irish call their cultural magazine, “Village.” Indeed, small minds in a tight moral space, lest you missed the point.

Ireland was once thought to be the land of saints and scholars, the most Catholic country in Europe. Alas, today Ireland is rated the most anti-Semitic country in Europe, a distinction once held by Germans.

If the subject is gratuitous mayhem or terror, Catholic Ireland and global Islam share the same bloody pedigree.

Not to be outdone by the Irish, Germany now equates emerging American policy with Islamism and terrorists, evoking flashbacks to the Goebbels and Hitler era where Berlin slander and calumny was used to demonize, then exterminate Jews. No small wonder then that a German publisher just released a 21st Century edition of Mein Kampf as if 20th Century Europe didn’t get enough Hitler.

Under Angela Merkel, Germany is more Goebbels than Goethe. Apparently, you can ban the National Socialist party in Berlin whilst not exorcising the Nazi weevil from the German psyche.

Take Merkel’s “open borders” policy and subsequent Muslim migrant blitz. No head of state in the EU has done more for terror, fear, appeasement, jihad, Islamic religious fascism, and continental instability than the German chancellor.

If the EU is going the way of the Holy Roman Empire, no single individual is more culpable than “Angela.” Indeed, if common sense security is at risk in Europe, the angel of death rides on Merkel’s broom.

And if the subject is fascism, Merkel and Berlin get high marks again for cultural consistency. In two world wars, Germany sponsored Arab and Muslim fascists in Palestine and more recently in a crumbling Yugoslavia. Muslim Bosnia and Muslim Kosovo now provide more fighters to the Islamic State than any other European country. Historical German secular fascism and now Islamic religious fascism are mutts from the same litter.

Merkel is not without consequential EU collaborators. European Council president Donald Tusk calls the new American administration a “threat” after only two weeks in office.  French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, channeling the Vichy meme of yore, says that France is going to have to “learn to live with (Islamic) terrorism.”

A better question might be; who wants to live in a European Union that might evolve into an Islamic caliphate?

Valls may be prescient nevertheless. Angela Merkel is probably overcompensating for Hitler, ignoring the religious fascism of Persians, Arabs, and Islam at large. Taking cues from Berlin, the greater danger now is arrogance, spite, and panic at the EU Council.

Most of the loose talk about Nazis and fascists is an attempt to make a hysterical European left appear to be victims. Social democrats in today’s Europe are linear descendants of totalitarian Communists and fascist National Socialists. The bottom line in Brussels, unfortunately, is still Big Brother and the nanny state.

Since WW II, the usual coercion and violence on the left has been ameliorated by sugar teat dependency. As social democracies run out of other people’s money, and gullible voters, socialist mayhem should resume in earnest.

Meanwhile, religious reinforcements arrive daily from the Ummah. Brussels, led by Berlin, makes the continental jihad possible. Kulturkampf  in Germany is now schadenfreude for the remnants of civilization in the West.

Unfortunately, poetic justice does hold a candle to just war.

Indeed, the EU is more hospitable to Muslim migrants than is the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic States. Islam is happy, if not eager, to export religious dogma and Islamic politics to a submissive  West. Both terror and callous indifference to Islamic migrants/ refugees makes islamophobia possible.

Muslim state failure to aid Islam’s victims gives life to every stereotype about jihad and the abject moral inferiority of global Islamic politics.

Generalizations about European culture, Irish and German especially, are probably as valid as any contemporary stereotypes about Muslims. Difficult as it is to imagine the shamrock and the swastika as allies, behavior and cultural beggary make such wingmen possible.

The European Union began as a promising economic condominium. Over time, EU chauvinism and NATO imperialism upstaged mercantile considerations. EU political and NATO military expansion preceded apace, consequences be damned. Having escaped the bounds of original intent and prudence, the EU is now thought to be imperial, an enemy to the safety and sovereignty of EU member states.

Brexit and Donald Trump may be two too late for a European Union paralyzed by arrogance and denial.

Since World War II, Europe has at once become captive to spendthrift social democracies, colonial guilt, globalist phantasies, and a kind of communal imperialism that diminishes real Muslim threats with appeasement and invents Russian thugs to rationalize a bigger EU and a larger NATO.

To blame any of this on Donald Trump, confuses effects with causes. Or as a Cassius put it, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

——————————–

Tags: Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, the European Union, Germany, Ireland, fascism, Catholicism, pedophilia, Islamism.

Images:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-04/irelands-left-aims-crosshairs-trumps-head-decides-assassination-disproportionate-res

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38867961

https://twitter.com/edelstudio/status/827568159704150017/photo/1

 

Advertisements

Adieu Voltaire

January 17, 2015

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Some wag suggested that Voltaire was murdered the other day in Paris. If this is true, then surely it was a mercy killing. Men like Voltaire and Daumier would be out of place in Francois Hollande’s Fifth Republic anyway.  Euro- socialism and traditional Gallic chauvinism are now complicated by Anti-Semitism and Islamophilia. Jews seem to be holding their own as pariahs, but the French romance with Mecca and Muslims is starting to break bad.  A dozen or more body bags will do that.

To distinguish between a Jew and a Muslim in France, and in Europe at large, is to separate a culture of life from a cult of death. Jews are ever a model of tolerance, achievement, and assimilation, and at the same time true victims of bigotry in every sense of the word. Muslims, for the most part, are neither tolerant nor assimilated. Yet, somehow the Jew is still ostracized and the Muslim plays the victim, even in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Muslim sensitivities everywhere are now more important than truth or justice anywhere.

Alas, none of this has much to do with justice or morality anyway. France and many other naïve Europeans have surrendered pride and identity to Brussels and in turn volunteered to be colonized by a 5th column of Arab/Muslim religious imperialists.

It’s hard to calculate the price of cheap labor when the real currency is common sense, identity, or culture. The Arab no-go slums that surround Paris are testimony to French venality, the blowback from communal Europe, and all those associated social or economic fantasies.

With assimilation off the table, open borders become the open wounds of cultural decay. Urban necrosis in Paris and London, and many other European capitals, is a self-inflicted wound.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter, a British Sunni Imam in London crowed on the Fox Network that the key to Muslim rage was sharia, that arbitrary amalgam of contrived history, false prophets, and social toxins. Imam Anjem Choudary’s suggestion to “submit” was nonetheless superfluous. European and American journalists have been on their knees since oil was fifty cents a gallon.

Starting with Daniel Pearl, and continuing with the recent spate of beheadings by ISIS, we see video after video of journalists on their knees literally pleading for their sorry apologetic lives, denouncing their homelands, and then being butchered anyway. Journalists are a special obsession for Islam because professional writers are now the iconic representatives of cowering democracies.  No group has done more to rationalize and sanitize the barbarity that is Islamic imperialism.

You would think that Islamists would embrace their Media co-conspirators in Europe and America; Arab “spring” propagandists and Palestine pimps for example.

Au contraire! For the devout, the apostate must be put to the sword before the infidel. Apologists and traitors are reviled by both sides.

Fear is the dominant ethic of modern journalism; fear to mock Mohamed or the Koran, fear to document the clear links between atrocity and religious dogma, fear to publish the graphic evidence of beheadings, fear to expose slavery, abuse of children, and rampant misogyny, fear to offend Arab dictators, fear to offend ayatollahs and imams, and now the fear to publish the very satire that precipitated the death of real heroes. American and European editors also fear that things might get worse, a dread that now has all the earmarks of inevitability.

An amateur video about prophetic pedophilia was used to justify the slaughter in Benghazi and now provocative cartoons are used to justify the carnage in Paris.  “Piss” Christ is rationalized as high art in New York City but any mockery of Mohamed’s yen for little girls is regarded as justifiable capital blasphemy.

Yes, the Charlie Hebdo journalists were rare exceptions in a trade where timidity is the norm and candor is a vice. Any offense, real or imagined, is the real peril for modern journalists, the tar baby of political correctness. Truth is now any pablum that pacifies gutless editors and their clueless readers.

The feigned indignation, mock shock, and hypocrisy of private and public Media outlets over the latest outrage is mind boggling. There’s nothing new or startling about the bloodbath in Paris or the carnage that is sure to follow. Pander precedents are now legendary: the bloody trail from Satanic Verses to Charlie Hebdo is now a well-travelled venue of liberal, artistic, and literary shame.

The Associated Press, Washington Post, or NY Times are no more likely to publish the evidence for which their French colleagues died then they are to refuse to wear head scarfs in Dhār. The BBC, American PBS, and the Fox Network are not likely to show any satiric cartoons about Islam either. The Charlie Hebdo raid, like the 9/11 attack, is thus another win for the prophet’s vanguard, another nail in the coffin of civility.

In a Media culture where there seems to be no bottom, CNN might be the worst. The Jane Fonda network used a day of “mourning” followed by a Sunday “unity” day rally to market the “moderate” Muslim majority myth ad nauseam. Islamist shills like Christiane Amanpour and Fareek Zakaria trotted out the usual tired, asserted conclusions about what most Muslims believe. Putting a Shia American and Sunni American on point to cover another Islamic atrocity is probably just a another happy coincidence for cooked books.

The apathetic Muslim majority are guiltless today in the same sense that the majority of French Parisians were guiltless in the Holocaust during WW II.

The West is now impaled on the horns of the dot.com dilemma: on the one hand governments and internet industries who exercise no restraint in collecting information; and on the other hand analysis, public and private, which ignores or twists facts for fear of offending the guilty.

Small wonder then, that the humiliation of democracies like France, England, and America is now a blood sport for the Ummah. The official response in America is prophylactic self-censorship. The Associated Press (AP) and the Obama White House have revised the official and public rhetoric of politics to eliminate words like Islamism – as if there were no links between deviance and devotion.

François Hollande, a metrosexual in the Chirac mold, called for a moment of silence the day after the latest Muslim blitzkrieg. That moment of prayer in Paris, however, was no tribute to slain journalists or freedom of the press.

Where timidity is a value and courage a vacuum, “silence” is the perfect word to capture European and American cowardice. Silence is the preferred response to jihad, Islamism, and Islamo-fascism.  Alas, silence is acceptance and silence is submission.  And ultimately, silence is the sickly sweet sound of surrender.

France also sponsored a day of “unity” on Sunday, 11 January, unity against Islamic terror. At least 40 world leaders and millions of ordinary Frenchmen marched. Even Benjamin Natanyahu came from Tel Aviv.  Washington was absent. No senior politician from the Barack Obama regime attended the “leadership” gathering.

The unity march in Paris was a gathering of world leaders, statesmen and citizens who marched to oppose Islamic terrorism. Mister Obama and his national security team do not qualify on either count. With no leadership and no strategy on the terrorism issue, their sympathies, by default, lay with Islamic reputation not French victims.

Obama and Biden were probably watching football on 11 January in silence. AWOL on Benghazi and now AWOL in Paris, team Obama continues to be “under achievers and proud of it.” The Obama regime will go down in history as an example of how democracies are capable of voting for failure.

Europe is not “Charlie.” America is afraid too. Both are weak. Voltaire and Charbonnier are now a pas de deux, both rolling in their graves.  La Belle France. and America are starting to look like museums for ideas.


Bibi Netanyahu’s Lament

October 16, 2014

ISIS and Hamas are fruit from the same poisoned tree.” – Netanyahu at the UN

Benjamin Netanyahu is one of a kind among seasoned politicians. He doesn’t just think outside of the box, the Israeli prime minister makes boxes for men like Barack Hussein Obama. Take the perennial impasse in the Middle East, the so-called Palestinian problem. The atmospherics alone tell the story. Netanyahu has been to America a dozen or more times since Obama came to office. In that same period, the American president has been to Israel once and even then reluctantly.

The Israeli PM addresses the American president as ‘Mister President,’ Obama addresses the Israeli PM as ‘Bibi,’ a diminutive of Benjamin. In this, Barack Obama comes across as petty and immature. Surely, there’s no love lost between the two, their relationship is a little like an experienced adult trying to reason with an insecure adolescent.

My way or the highway seems to be Obama’s petulant premise for any domestic negotiation. In contrast, he seems to think the international world of Muslim pathology is win/win game. Foreign policy naiveté might be an attempt to channel the wisdom urban philosophers like Rodney King, “Can’t we just get along?”

Every time that the Israeli prime minister comes to Washington, he reminds the world, and Diaspora supporters, that Israel alone has been at the front in the fight against Islamic terror for 60 years or more. In contrast, the Mediterranean littoral is now littered with the debris of recent American failure, failures among putative Arab and Muslim “allies” of the Obama administration.

In all of this, the American president thinks he is on the right side of history. He likes to whistle in the dark too, telling the American people that they are safer since his national security team came to town. Netanyahu sees the world as it is, the best that might be said of Obama is that he is naïve, frightened, confused – or in way over his head.

Israel is a sovereign successful nation, a rich culture that predates toxic Islamic monocultural illusions by millennia. Indeed, tiny Israel and the Diaspora have made more artistic, scientific, and cultural contributions to humanity in 60 years than the Ummah has made in 500 years. Unlike Arabs, Ottomans and their historical subjects, Jews never cultivated empire – political, religious, or military imperialism.

Calling parts of the traditional Jewish homeland “occupied” territories is a little like calling New Mexico, California, or Scotland occupied. Land lost in war is often lost to history and the enemy. Israel has been more than generous, by any modern standard, with lands returned to ungrateful Arab neighbors who were defeated in existential wars. For Israel, the alternative to military victory is always extinction.

The Arab population within Israel lives better than Muslims in most any state with an Islamic majority. Indeed, most Arab countries are judenfrie by fiat and that includes the lands occupied by Fatah and Hamas. When the subject is Jews, the progressive West and the Islamic East see tolerance as a one-way street. Indeed, anti-Semitism is the bond that now unites the liberal West and theocratic East, a kind of macabre moral suicide pact.

Israel cannot trust fractious Palestine any more than Arabs trust Palestinians.

Any examination of the history of so-called Palestinians in states bordering Israel tells the tale of Arab duplicity. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have been ruthless in suppressing Palestinian militants. Indeed, you might argue that, until the advent of al Qaeda, most Muslim autocrats were happy to have the jihad focused on Israel.  Arabia, especially, was happy to let the Palestine chimera fester in the Holy Land.

Arabs care about Palestinian territorial claims in the Levant about as much as New Yorkers might care about Algonquian claims to Manhattan. For too many Muslims, Palestine is seen as the permanent drip torture that erodes the state of Israel.

Alas, the fascist wolf always goes for the weak and lame. Hence, those plump complacent Arab dictators who supported Fatah, Black September, the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and predictable grandchildren like ISIS, are now surrounded by Islamist carnivores.  You might buy a wolf, but he will never be housebroken.

For once, Joe Biden was correct when he recently called the Turks on similar double dealing in Syria and Iraq. ISIS is a created problem, a descendant of all the other “nefarious characters” that rampage globally in the name of religious war these days.  Biden conveniently failed to mention America, Europe, and Arabia as early co-sponsors of ISIS in the Levant. ISIS is simply another mutation of the global Islamic  jihad.

Bibi Netanyahu is too diplomatic to use a canine metaphor to describe metastasizing Islamic terror. Dogs are haram for Muslims. At the UN  on 29 September he instead compared religious terror to a tree; indeed, he used a Christian homily, a selection from the New Testament, Mathew 7:18.

Say nothing else about the Israeli prime minister, you would have to admit this guy knows how to work a room.

The prime minister’s simile was creatively ambiguous. Examples of bad fruit, Hamas and ISIS, are specified; however, we are left to wonder whether the “poisoned tree” is Islam, Muslims, or just the twisted beards who would behead infidels, apostates, and oil autocrats.

Nonetheless, beneath Netanyahu’s UN lament lay some new thinking on a new approach to the Palestine pot hole and the global jihad; withal, a new direction for Israel and the West.

Without equivocation, the Israeli prime minister calls Islamism a global fight, a threat to Arab regimes as well as the Ummah at large. He puts the burden for a Palestine solution where it belongs, with the Arab nation. Concurrently, he isolates Iran’s nuclear ambition as a threat to Sunni Islam and Israel. Netanyahu suggests that Shia and Sunni Islamists are branches of the same “poisoned tree.”

Heretofore, Israel and America have tended to atomize the threat, attempting to deal with individual manifestations while ignoring the larger phenomenon. A fractured strategy is manifest in whack-a-mole tactics where each terror group is treated as a local problem.

Yesterday it’s the West Bank, today it’s Gaza. Yesterday it’s Fatah, today it’s al Qaeda and Hamas, and tomorrow it’s ISIS. The anthology of firefights and factions is open-ended and global.

Trying to solve the Palestinian problem by talking to Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas is a little like trying to contain global terror by talking to the Taliban’s semi-literate Mullah Omar. Even if success could be had with one faction, little is done to solve the universal problem.

Without saying so much in so many words, Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be suggesting that Israel ought to be negotiating directly with Riyadh and Cairo, indeed the Arab League, not Ramallah.  By implication, we might also suggest that America and the EU ought to bypass the UN and negotiate directly with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). If the OIC aspires to speak for the global Ummah, the time has come to speak with one voice.

Islamism is now a universal problem, the defeat of same requires a global solution. And if any boots are required on the ground, they need to be on Muslim feet. And the West doesn’t need to offer too many incentives, as Netanyahu says, for collective Muslim action. Without a new strategy or plan, the oft celebrated “moderate” Islamic majority will be devoured in short order by the beasts of Muslim hell. Ins’allah!

——————————————

This essay appeared previously in the American Thinker and the Iconoclast

Image:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTf5W4idW0sk4aICS5kM3VmdTxbLJw5Kx2hSNrrvrziu_j0NuPdUw

 

 


We Are Israel

September 8, 2014

“We don’t thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.”  – Golda Meir

Almost every news report on the latest Palestinian war leads with comparative casualties; Israeli victims number in the tens while Arabs number in the hundreds. Such stories never fail to report on the percent of women and children injured as if Hamas tactics played no role in the predictable collateral damage of urban warfare.

Back in the day when Communism was a Soviet monopoly, Joseph Stalin is alleged to have said; “One death is a tragedy; a million is just a statistic.” Stalin was, if nothing else, a realist. He knew that numbers, like much statistical evidence, are just as malleable as anecdotal evidence. Objectivity, like truth, is also peculiar to the eye of the beholder. Military disciplines and sciences are no exception.  All wars produce statistics, yet for the most part, battle numbers are most useful as propaganda. Take comparative casualties, the full metal jacket of statistics, a weaponized statistic if there ever were one.

Somehow, for Media apologists, Palestinians terrorists firing from population shields should be immune from counter-battery fire. We are lead to believe that the “disproportionate” number of Palestinian dead or wounded is evidence somehow that Israeli defensive reactions are “excessive.”  Israel is thought to have forfeited the moral high ground. Jews protecting their homes are yet again portrayed as villains.

Never mind the tortured history of Israeli patience or what Jewish casualties might have been if Israel did not maintain a competent defense. If Israel could not defend itself, the price to be paid is another holocaust. Just such a prophesy is part of the Hamas charter.

And never mind that Gaza was given back to the Arabs in what turns out to be naïve quest for peace.  Never mind that Hamas uses hospitals, mosques, and residential neighborhoods as weapons depots, launch pads, and entry points for infiltration tunnels. Never mind that Hamas has used the aid and good will of NGO’s and naïve western supporters to purchase those rockets and fund those tunnels. Never mind that Israeli doctors and hospitals frequently treat Muslim victims in wars that Israel does not initiate. And never mind that Fatah and Hamas are just the most recent examples of the many local and global terrorist organizations with a Palestinian lineage. Let’s leave these facts aside for the moment and speak just about comparative competence.

Jews anywhere, Israelis in particular, are very good at what they do. Indeed, global Jewry is arguably the most successful ethnic/religious minority on the planet. Where Jews live, they make enormous contributions to commerce, literature, science, music, art, and education. Muslims, in contrast, one fourth of the world’s citizens, desiccate in a kind of cultural desert that has persisted since Roman times. Beheading is again one of the faces of Islam. Contemporary achievement and cultural gaps that separate Muslim from Jew are vast by any measure.

And now, of necessity, Jews are also very adept at the world’s oldest profession. The stereotype about Jews being good at everything but contact sports has been laid to rest, yet again in Gaza. Since 1947, Jews have proven themselves to be able soldiers in what, if statistics like population matter, has always been a lopsided conflict, David versus Goliath if you will.

Israeli military efficiency in concert with Arab incompetence alone accounts for disproportionate casualties today, yesterday, and for the indefinite future. There has never been any moral equivalence between the way the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fight and the abject savagery of historical Jihadists or contemporary Islamists. The Jewish David is every bit the moral superior of the Muslim Goliath.

Indeed, while Israel defends itself yet again, the Muslim world writhes in the anguish of medieval religious genocide – in East Africa, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Indeed, Islamism is advancing globally.

Press and politician alike whine and anguish over mice in Gaza while Jihadist elephants rampage. Any fair observer need only load the word “beheading” or “crucifixion” into their search engine to know the gulf between contemporary Jewish culture and bestial Islamic imperialism.

Horrid videos and ‘selfies’ now taunt the West, a clinical forecast of what awaits Jews, infidels, apostates – Americans and Europeans. Muslims may represent a sixth of humanity, but at the same time Islam seems to sport 90% of humanity’s dysfunction.

In Europe, the traditional hubs of anti-Semitism (France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, and Scandinavia) are now energized too by Muslim immigrants and Islamism.  Jewish victims in Europe, a world away, are blamed for a global social pathology that has nothing to do with Jews, least of all Israel.

Alas, the Obama administration and his uniquely inept national security and foreign policy teams have supported a cascade of regime changes in the Muslim world, from North Africa, to South Asia and now most perilously in the Levant. Imprudence and appeasement has liberated the dogs of Muslim hell.

The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) rampages through the created chaos in the Levant, a barbarian nightmare that has nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with American and European policy blunders. And now with the Arab and Muslim world aflame; a confederacy of the clueless in Washington and Brussels are picking a new fight with Russia too; a diversion to be sure.

Mister Obama may not be a Koran thumping zealot, yet surely he creates as much suffering as any rabid Islamist. And just as surely, the Obama national security team is a milquetoast ‘ally’ of Israel.

Nonetheless, America should send Bibi Netanyahu and the IDF a thank you note and a case of champagne sometime soon. Here’s what David has done to Goliath in the past few days.

The IDF has put a bullet through the ears of any ‘two-state’ solution. Hamas has been exposed as an unreliable partner for even the likes of Fatah, say nothing of Israel. The Palestinian unity and statehood chimera is the real collateral damage from recent fighting.

The generals in Cairo have been alienated too. Closure of the Israel border might be inconvenient. Closure of the Egyptian border could be fatal for Gaza. Egypt has decades of bad blood with the Muslim Brotherhood. General el-Sisi is not likely to tolerate an al ikhwan stepchild, a terrorist state, on Egypt’s northern border. Hamas may have done a lot more than shoot itself in the foot this time.

Hamas, Fatah, and global Islamism may still have friends in the Media, New York, Brussels, and Washington, but allies that count, local coreligionists, now including the most populous nation in Arabia, appear to be fed up with the idea of “Palestine.” Ins’allah!

The West has been on the wrong side of history since New York was attacked by a Saudi/Arab terror team. Clearly the tactical response of remote air strikes, small wars, and appeasement has failed. Islamists are on the march while free-world allies dither. Europe and America are now perilously close to being on the wrong side of civilization too.

Israel has thrown itself again into the breach, a solitary beacon of courage beset by a nest of vipers. Israel again rises to be the 21st Century metaphor for the Gates of Vienna. Would that America, Europe, and the rest of the civilized world see the example in the most recent Jewish struggle? Religious or political fascism cannot be appeased; it must be defeated in detail at the points of origin, those dark tunnels that riddle the Muslim body politic.

Sponsor states like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey, and Iran must be confronted. Without external ideological/ material support and sanctuary, groups like al Qaeda, Hezzbollah, Hamas, and ISIS would be impossible. Terror is the symptom, cancerous religion abetted by fascist politics in the Ummah is the disease.

Barack Obama tells us that he is seeking a solution where there are “no victors and no vanquished.”  Hard to believe such vapidity coming from the mouth of a man who presumes to lead the civilized world. The historical and real-politic naiveté of such banalities defies explanation.

There is no substitute for victory.   We are with Israel – or we are done!

………………………………………………….

Colonel G. Murphy Donovan was the last Director of Research and Russian (nee Soviet) Studies at USAF Intelligence. He was also a former senior USAF research fellow at the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. The author served in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive (1968) and the invasion of Cambodia (1970).

Images;

http://images.catholic.org/media/2014/08/08/14075170681961_700.jpg

http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Golda_Meir-Y.jpg/180px-Golda_Meir-Y.jpg

 

 

 


Pandering With Junk Science

May 30, 2012

Two successive administrations now have sought to appease Muslims by minimizing the threat from Islamists. Indeed, science has now been enlisted in that effort. Early stimulus came from the White House.

Hours after 9/11, a Republican president allowed a host of Saudi elites to flee  the US by chartered aircraft before the blood was dry at the World Trade Center. Never mind that most of theManhattan suicide martyrs were Saudis. The political cue then was meant for domestic and foreign consumption; to wit,America would not hold passive aggressors, sponsor nations, or Islamic propaganda, accountable for the atrocities of “extremists.”

From the beginning, the majority of Muslims were anointed “moderates,” on the authority of an asserted conclusion. Concurrently, fellaheen danced in the streets of Arabia. No matter; blame for the terror threat was still confined to specific non-government agents like al Qa’eda or the Taliban. By fiat, Islamic terrorism was fenced as isolated criminal phenomena with local motives; in short, militant jihad was represented as a perversion of, not a tenant of, Islamic theology or Muslim politics.

This politically correct illusion was reinforced by an Obama administration in a series of forays into the Ummah where the American president declared unequivocally that America, and NATO by extension, is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Never mind that NATO or American troops might be killing Muslims in four, or is it five, separate venues. “We are not at war!” was the party line. And never mind that Obama has yet to visit Israel as president.

Less well known is the “independent” science which now back fills or rationalizes the political Esperanto of the last decade.  A RAND Corporation  report, How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qai’da, is an example. Notice the assumption embedded in the title; “counter” not defeat. The body of the report is devoted to asserting that terror (a military tactic) is best addressed by political, not military means. Separating war, an amalgam of tactics and strategy, from politics is not an assumption that Churchill or Eisenhower would have made. A politically correct world-view turns logic on its head; tactics are confused with strategy.

The RAND report ignores the larger strategic phenomena of jihad bis saif and protected Islamist hate mongering. But the bottom line of this “systematic” analysis is the most revealing: “Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.” Such assertions are a kind of strategic masochism, not science; not even common sense.

How the West views Islam is more important then how Islamists act – or see themselves? By such logic, Arizona sheriffs might be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan instead of the US Marines. And by such logic, where might the holy warriors, if caught, be tried; lower Manhattan?  Treating terror as crime allows the lazy analyst with an agenda to dismiss the political implications of Islamism.

Another RAND paper on another recent South Asia massacre, entitled “Lessons of Mumbai,” is an even better example of cooked books; a case where analysis and credibility is undone by evidence ignored.

The Mumbai attack was unique in two respects; a small Jewish center was targeted, the occupants were slaughtered; and the hotel hostages were then screened for religious affiliation – again, seeking Jews. It’s a safe bet that none of the Mumbai killers were ever stopped at an Israeli checkpoint or lost a building lot in east Jerusalem. This attack was planned and executed with motives removed from the usual; the India/Pakistan rift or the Israel/Fattah impasse. Mumbai was clearly motivated, in part, by a strain of virulent, contagious, and global anti-Semitism. No mention of this appears in Lessons of Mumbai’s “key judgments.”

The recent terror attack, against a religious school in Toulouse,France, is a macabre echo of Mumbai. A rabbi and four young Jewish children were shot at point blank range by Mohamed Merah, a home grown Arab terrorist of Moroccan origin. Let’s assume for sake of argument that Israeli intransigence is the source of Muslim anger. How does blowing a little girl’s brains out advance the “two state solution?”

The global bloom of anti-Semitism since the turn of the 21st Century is no accident. Those who ignore it, especially scientists at places like RAND, make it possible. Ironically, many of RAND’s most eminent researchers are or have been Jewish.

(This Mumbai report also reinforces suspicions about non-profit excess. Lessons of Mumbai  is a mere 25 pages long, yet lists ten (sic) authors; an average of two and a half pages per analyst. Makes you wonder how many scientists are required to screw in light bulbs in Santa Monica. Clearly, featherbedding is not just restricted to government operations.)

Some recent RAND national security analysis may actually qualify as apologetics. The 2010 paper entitled Would-be Warriors  analyzes the incidence of terrorism in the US since 9/11. The paper actually ends with the assumptions, concluding:

“There is no evidence (sic) that America’s Muslim community is becoming more radical.America’s psychological vulnerability is on display… panic is the wrong message to send.”

“No evidence” – or none that RAND can detect from the sands of Santa Monica? If sixteen USintelligence agencies didn’t connect the dots before 9/11, while suicide bombers were training in America; RAND’s statistical assurances ring more than a little hollow. Islamic terror didn’t begin with the barbarisms in lower Manhattanin any case. And assertions about psychological vulnerability or “panic” are straw men or worse. Who panicked in the wake of the Twin Towers  atrocity? Indifference or political apathy maybe; but surely not panic.

And on US Muslim radicalization, clearly RAND statisticians rarely audit student sentiment at any urban “occupy” rallies or any California campus when an Israeli speaker appears. Nor does the RAND analysis account for the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) or the fact that this home grown political movement was recently hijacked by radical Muslim American bigots. Anti-Semitism is ever the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine. The NBPP’s most recent outrage was to threaten to burn the city of Detroit at a city council meeting.

In the interests of fairness, we should point out that other non-profits,PEWResearchCenterfor example, also fail to account for the sea change in the very visible American Black Panthers. PEW claims to be non-partisan, but apparently that doesn’t rule out political correctness. Indeed, with modern pollsters and sociologists, American Muslim groups like the Panthers and the Nation of Islam seem to enjoy a double immunity; race and religion. Somehow such groups are, at the same time, Islamic; but not Muslim.

The growth of radical Islam in African American communities is complimented by a surge in prisons nationwide. Congress and Public Television seem to have access to prison data, but non-profits likeRAND and PEW apparently do not work in those neighborhoods.

The creation of veiled apologetics is not as worrisome as the pervasive misuse of such “scientific” analysis. Part of the problem may lay with endowments. Like more than a few major universities,RAND courts Arab or Muslim good will for the same reason that Willie Sutton frequented banks. That’s where the money is.

Attempts to curry Arab favor are underwritten by a priori  beliefs about Muslim “moderation.” Assumptions about what Muslims believe may make terror possible, providing a permanent rationalization, a kind of laissez passer for militants.

Today, RAND has one of the richest nest eggs outside of Harvard yard. And clearly, the designation “non-profit” is an oxymoron. The more appropriate designation would be “untaxable” – for reasons yet to be justified. Successful think tanks may be a lot of things, but like wealthy universities, they are not “charities” by any stretch of logic.

Recent government sponsored national security research has reversed the poles in the “non-profit” equation. Think tanks are richer and government sponsors are going broke. If quality of analysis is the return on government sponsored research, national security research is nearing some kind of strategic default.

Financial success has allowed think tanks like RANDto diversify the study agenda and expand their physical plants. Yet, the ideas of geographic isolation, and keeping politics at a distance, have been jettisoned with a vengeance. Beyond the original site at Santa Monica;RANDnow has offices inVirginia(near the Pentagon),Pennsylvania,Louisiana,Mississippi,Massachusetts,Mexico,England,Belgium,Qatar, UAE, and Abu Dhabi.

For objective national security analysis, the last three locales are the most worrisome. Hard to believe that systems analysis or scientific candor will put petro-dollars or Islamic theocrats at risk. Politically correct “science” allows universities and think tanks to work both sides of the threat equation. Call it the Ellsberg legacy.

While the overall cast of RAND Corporation national security research is cautious and in many cases politically deferential; the occasional old hand still puts mustard on his fastball. Jim Quinlivan wrote an essay in the RAND Review (summer, 2003), based on statistical analysis, that suggested under-manned American excursions against insurgents or terrorists in dar al Islam, were bound to end badly – using strict military measures of effectiveness. Today, that report might be considered prophetic. Unfortunately, such voices are seldom endorsed or underlined with corporate authority.

The Quinlivan essay was written shortly after 9/11 when “kinetic” solutions were all the rage; his paper flew in the face of the prevailing political winds. More recent RAND reports, as discussed above, tack with the prevailing political winds. The difference is integrity.

The early rhetoric from President Bush categorized the Manhattan attacks as “acts of war.” But since then, the Bush and Obama administrations, and government sponsored research, take great pains to confuse the issue with criminality – and policies where victory over Islamism is never a goal or an option.

First, there was the Iraq distraction, a theater that had little to do with world-wide terror or Islamism; and then came a period of dithering over Afghanistan, the so-called “war of necessity.” Throughout, neither political party could decide whether to treat the soldiers of Islam as prisoners of war or criminals. While Americans remained confused; Islamists made steady gains. For the West, the drift into the muck of appeasement and the humiliation of a Soviet-like retreat now seems inevitable.

America and NATO are headed for the exits in the Levant and South Asia. Yet, the greater problems of a nuclear Iran and the growing Arab irredentism are still metastasizing. And all the early political Pollyanna about democracy and freedom in Arabia hasn’t altered the vector of religious politics.Tunisia,Egypt,Libya,Bahrain, and now Syria, are on the cusp of clerical control. Like Iran,Turkey,Iraq, andAfghanistan; the political prospects for Muslims today are largely theocratic.

All of this seems to be a kind of pandering with junk science. Indeed, the decline of a Euro-American vision that made creativity, art, science, and democracy possible has been underwritten by the worst possible political “science” that borrowed money can buy. Insh’allah!

————————————————–

This essay appeared in the 30 May 02 edition of the American Thinker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the interests of fairness, we should point out that other non-profits,PEWResearchCenterfor example, also fail to account for the sea change in the very visible American Black Panthers. PEW claims to be non-partisan, but apparently that doesn’t rule out political correctness. Indeed, with modern pollsters and sociologists, American Muslim groups like the Panthers and the Nation of Islam seem to enjoy a double immunity; race and religion. Somehow such groups are, at the same time, Islamic; but not Muslim.

 

 

The growth of radical Islam in African American communities is complimented by a surge in prisons nationwide. Congress and Public Television seem to have access to prison data, but non-profits likeRAND and PEW apparently do not work in those neighborhoods.

 

The creation of veiled apologetics is not as worrisome as the pervasive misuse of such “scientific” analysis. Part of the problem may lay with endowments. Like more than a few major universities,RAND courts Arab or Muslim good will for the same reason that Willie Sutton frequented banks. That’s where the money is.

 

Attempts to curry Arab favor are underwritten by a priori beliefs about Muslim “moderation.” Assumptions about what Muslims believe may make terror possible, providing a permanent rationalization, a kind of laissez passer for militants.

 

Today, RANDhas one of the richest nest eggs outside of Harvard yard. And clearly, the designation “non-profit” is an oxymoron. The more appropriate designation would be “untaxable” – for reasons yet to be justified. Successful think tanks may be a lot of things, but like wealthy universities, they are not “charities” by any stretch of logic.

 

Recent government sponsored national security research has reversed the poles in the “non-profit” equation. Think tanks are richer and government sponsors are going broke. If quality of analysis is the return on government sponsored research, national security research is nearing some kind of strategic default.

 

Financial success has allowed think tanks likeRANDto diversify the study agenda and expand their physical plants. Yet, the ideas of geographic isolation, and keeping politics at a distance, have been jettisoned with a vengeance. Beyond the original site atSanta Monica;RANDnow has offices inVirginia(near the Pentagon),Pennsylvania,Louisiana,Mississippi,Massachusetts,Mexico,England,Belgium,Qatar, UAE, andAbu Dhabi.

 

For objective national security analysis, the last three locales are the most worrisome. Hard to believe that systems analysis or scientific candor will put petro-dollars or Islamic theocrats at risk. Politically correct “science” allows universities and think tanks to work both sides of the threat equation. Call it the Ellsberg legacy.

 

While the overall cast of RANDCorporation national security research is cautious and in many cases politically deferential; the occasional old hand still puts mustard on his fastball. Jim Quinlivan wrote an essay in the RAND Review (summer, 2003), based on statistical analysis, that suggested under-manned American excursions against insurgents or terrorists in dar al Islam, were bound to end badly – using strict military measures of effectiveness. Today, that report might be considered prophetic. Unfortunately, such voices are seldom endorsed or underlined with corporate authority.

 

The Quinlivan essay was written shortly after 9/11 when “kinetic” solutions were all the rage; his paper flew in the face of the prevailing political winds. More recentRANDreports, as discussed above, tack with the prevailing political winds. The difference is integrity.

 

 

 

The early rhetoric from President Bush categorized theManhattan attacks as “acts of war.” But since then, the Bush and Obama administrations, and government sponsored research, take great pains to confuse the issue with criminality – and policies where victory over Islamism is never a goal or an option.

 

First, there was the Iraqdistraction, a theater that had little to do with world-wide terror or Islamism; and then came a period of dithering over Afghanistan, the so-called “war of necessity.” Throughout, neither political party could decide whether to treat the soldiers of Islam as prisoners of war or criminals. While Americans remained confused; Islamists made steady gains. For the West, the drift into the muck of appeasement and the humiliation of a Soviet-like retreat now seems inevitable.

 

Americaand NATO are headed for the exits in theLevantandSouth Asia. Yet, the greater problems of a nuclearIranand the growing Arab irredentism are still metastasizing. And all the early political Pollyanna about democracy and freedom inArabiahasn’t altered the vector of religious politics.Tunisia,Egypt,Libya,Bahrain, and nowSyria, are on the cusp of clerical control. LikeIran,Turkey,Iraq, andAfghanistan; the political prospects for Muslims today are largely theocratic.

 

All of this seems to be a kind of pandering with junk science. Indeed, the decline of a Euro-American vision that made creativity, art, science, and democracy possible has been underwritten by the worst possible political “science” that borrowed money can buy. Insh’allah!

 

 

 

The author is a former Senior USAF Intelligence Research Fellow at RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. This essay is an excerpt from a longer treatment of the think tank phenomenon, and political pandering, to appear In the New English Review later this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two successive administrations now have sought to appease Muslims by minimizing the threat from Islamists. Indeed, science has now been enlisted in that effort. Early stimulus came from the White House.

 

Hours after 9/11, a Republican president allowed a host of Saudi elites to flee theUS by chartered aircraft before the blood was dry at theWorldTradeCenter. Never mind that most of theManhattan suicide martyrs were Saudis. The political cue then was meant for domestic and foreign consumption; to wit,America would not hold passive aggressors, sponsor nations, or Islamic propaganda, accountable for the atrocities of “extremists.”

 

From the beginning, the majority of Muslims were anointed “moderates,” on the authority of an asserted conclusion. Concurrently, fellaheen danced in the streets of Arabia. No matter; blame for the terror threat was still confined to specific non-government agents like al Qa’eda or the Taliban. By fiat, Islamic terrorism was fenced as isolated criminal phenomena with local motives; in short, militant jihad was represented as a perversion of, not a tenant of, Islamic theology or Muslim politics.

 

This politically correct illusion was reinforced by an Obama administration in a series of forays into the Ummah where the American president declared unequivocally that America, and NATO by extension, is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Never mind that NATO or American troops might be killing Muslims in four, or is it five, separate venues. “We are not at war!” was the party line. And never mind that Obama has yet to visitIsrael as president.

 

Less well known is the “independent” science which now backfills or rationalizes the political Esperanto of the last decade.  A RANDCorporation report, How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qai’da, is an example. Notice the assumption embedded in the title; “counter” not defeat. The body of the report is devoted to asserting that terror (a military tactic) is best addressed by political, not military means. Separating war, an amalgam of tactics and strategy, from politics is not an assumption that Churchill or Eisenhower would have made. A politically correct world-view turns logic on its head; tactics are confused with strategy.

 

The RANDreport ignores the larger strategic phenomena of jihad bis saif and protected Islamist hate mongering. But the bottom line of this “systematic” analysis is the most revealing: “Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.” Such assertions are a kind of strategic masochism, not science; not even common sense.

 

How the West views Islam is more important then how Islamists act – or see themselves? By such logic, Arizona sheriffs might be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan instead of the US Marines. And by such logic, where might the holy warriors, if caught, be tried; lowerManhattan? Treating terror as crime allows the lazy analyst with an agenda to dismiss the political implications of Islamism.

 

Another RANDpaper on another recent South Asia massacre, entitled “Lessons of Mumbai,” is an even better example of cooked books; a case where analysis and credibility is undone by evidence ignored.

 

The Mumbai attack was unique in two respects; a small Jewish center was targeted, the occupants were slaughtered; and the hotel hostages were then screened for religious affiliation – again, seeking Jews. It’s a safe bet that none of the Mumbai killers were ever stopped at an Israeli checkpoint or lost a building lot in east Jerusalem. This attack was planned and executed with motives removed from the usual; the India/Pakistan rift or the Israel/Fattah impasse. Mumbai was clearly motivated, in part, by a strain of virulent, contagious, and global anti-Semitism. No mention of this appears in Lessons of Mumbai’s “key judgments.”

 

The recent terror attack, against a religious school inToulouse,France, is a macabre echo of Mumbai. A rabbi and four young Jewish children were shot at point blank range by Mohamed Merah, a home grown Arab terrorist of Moroccan origin. Let’s assume for sake of argument that Israeli intransigence is the source of Muslim anger. How does blowing a little girl’s brains out advance the “two state solution?”

 

 

 

The global bloom of anti-Semitism since the turn of the 21st Century is no accident. Those who ignore it, especially scientists at places likeRAND, make it possible. Ironically, many ofRAND’s most eminent researchers are or have been Jewish.

 

(This Mumbai report also reinforces suspicions about non-profit excess. Lessons of Mumbai  is a mere 25 pages long, yet lists ten (sic) authors; an average of two and a half pages per analyst. Makes you wonder how many scientists are required to screw in light bulbs inSanta Monica. Clearly, featherbedding is not just restricted to government operations.)

 

Some recent RANDnational security analysis may actually qualify as apologetics. The 2010 paper entitled Would-be Warriors  analyzes the incidence of terrorism in theUS since 9/11. The paper actually ends with the assumptions, concluding:

 

“There is no evidence (sic) thatAmerica’s Muslim community is becoming more radical.America’s psychological vulnerability is on display…panic is the wrong message to send.”

 

“No evidence” – or none that RANDcan detect from the sands of Santa Monica? If sixteen USintelligence agencies didn’t connect the dots before 9/11, while suicide bombers were training in America; RAND’s statistical assurances ring more than a little hollow. Islamic terror didn’t begin with the barbarisms in lower Manhattanin any case. And assertions about psychological vulnerability or “panic” are straw men or worse. Who panicked in the wake of the TwinTowersatrocity? Indifference or political apathy maybe; but surely not panic.

 

And on US Muslim radicalization, clearly RANDstatisticians rarely audit student sentiment at any urban “occupy” rallies or any California campus when an Israeli speaker appears. Nor does the RAND analysis account for the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) or the fact that this home grown political movement was recently hijacked by radical Muslim American bigots. Anti-Semitism is ever the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine. The NBPP’s most recent outrage was to threaten to burn the city ofDetroit at a city council meeting.

 

 

In the interests of fairness, we should point out that other non-profits,PEWResearchCenterfor example, also fail to account for the sea change in the very visible American Black Panthers. PEW claims to be non-partisan, but apparently that doesn’t rule out political correctness. Indeed, with modern pollsters and sociologists, American Muslim groups like the Panthers and the Nation of Islam seem to enjoy a double immunity; race and religion. Somehow such groups are, at the same time, Islamic; but not Muslim.

 

 

The growth of radical Islam in African American communities is complimented by a surge in prisons nationwide. Congress and Public Television seem to have access to prison data, but non-profits likeRAND and PEW apparently do not work in those neighborhoods.

 

The creation of veiled apologetics is not as worrisome as the pervasive misuse of such “scientific” analysis. Part of the problem may lay with endowments. Like more than a few major universities,RAND courts Arab or Muslim good will for the same reason that Willie Sutton frequented banks. That’s where the money is.

 

Attempts to curry Arab favor are underwritten by a priori beliefs about Muslim “moderation.” Assumptions about what Muslims believe may make terror possible, providing a permanent rationalization, a kind of laissez passer for militants.

 

Today, RANDhas one of the richest nest eggs outside of Harvard yard. And clearly, the designation “non-profit” is an oxymoron. The more appropriate designation would be “untaxable” – for reasons yet to be justified. Successful think tanks may be a lot of things, but like wealthy universities, they are not “charities” by any stretch of logic.

 

Recent government sponsored national security research has reversed the poles in the “non-profit” equation. Think tanks are richer and government sponsors are going broke. If quality of analysis is the return on government sponsored research, national security research is nearing some kind of strategic default.

 

Financial success has allowed think tanks likeRANDto diversify the study agenda and expand their physical plants. Yet, the ideas of geographic isolation, and keeping politics at a distance, have been jettisoned with a vengeance. Beyond the original site atSanta Monica;RANDnow has offices inVirginia(near the Pentagon),Pennsylvania,Louisiana,Mississippi,Massachusetts,Mexico,England,Belgium,Qatar, UAE, andAbu Dhabi.

 

For objective national security analysis, the last three locales are the most worrisome. Hard to believe that systems analysis or scientific candor will put petro-dollars or Islamic theocrats at risk. Politically correct “science” allows universities and think tanks to work both sides of the threat equation. Call it the Ellsberg legacy.

 

While the overall cast of RANDCorporation national security research is cautious and in many cases politically deferential; the occasional old hand still puts mustard on his fastball. Jim Quinlivan wrote an essay in the RAND Review (summer, 2003), based on statistical analysis, that suggested under-manned American excursions against insurgents or terrorists in dar al Islam, were bound to end badly – using strict military measures of effectiveness. Today, that report might be considered prophetic. Unfortunately, such voices are seldom endorsed or underlined with corporate authority.

 

The Quinlivan essay was written shortly after 9/11 when “kinetic” solutions were all the rage; his paper flew in the face of the prevailing political winds. More recentRANDreports, as discussed above, tack with the prevailing political winds. The difference is integrity.

 

 

 

The early rhetoric from President Bush categorized theManhattan attacks as “acts of war.” But since then, the Bush and Obama administrations, and government sponsored research, take great pains to confuse the issue with criminality – and policies where victory over Islamism is never a goal or an option.

 

First, there was the Iraqdistraction, a theater that had little to do with world-wide terror or Islamism; and then came a period of dithering over Afghanistan, the so-called “war of necessity.” Throughout, neither political party could decide whether to treat the soldiers of Islam as prisoners of war or criminals. While Americans remained confused; Islamists made steady gains. For the West, the drift into the muck of appeasement and the humiliation of a Soviet-like retreat now seems inevitable.

 

Americaand NATO are headed for the exits in theLevantandSouth Asia. Yet, the greater problems of a nuclearIranand the growing Arab irredentism are still metastasizing. And all the early political Pollyanna about democracy and freedom inArabiahasn’t altered the vector of religious politics.Tunisia,Egypt,Libya,Bahrain, and nowSyria, are on the cusp of clerical control. LikeIran,Turkey,Iraq, andAfghanistan; the political prospects for Muslims today are largely theocratic.

 

All of this seems to be a kind of pandering with junk science. Indeed, the decline of a Euro-American vision that made creativity, art, science, and democracy possible has been underwritten by the worst possible political “science” that borrowed money can buy. Insh’allah!

 

 

 

The author is a former Senior USAF Intelligence Research Fellow at RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. This essay is an excerpt from a longer treatment of the think tank phenomenon, and political pandering, to appear In the New English Review later this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two successive administrations now have sought to appease Muslims by minimizing the threat from Islamists. Indeed, science has now been enlisted in that effort. Early stimulus came from the White House.

 

Hours after 9/11, a Republican president allowed a host of Saudi elites to flee theUS by chartered aircraft before the blood was dry at theWorldTradeCenter. Never mind that most of theManhattan suicide martyrs were Saudis. The political cue then was meant for domestic and foreign consumption; to wit,America would not hold passive aggressors, sponsor nations, or Islamic propaganda, accountable for the atrocities of “extremists.”

 

From the beginning, the majority of Muslims were anointed “moderates,” on the authority of an asserted conclusion. Concurrently, fellaheen danced in the streets of Arabia. No matter; blame for the terror threat was still confined to specific non-government agents like al Qa’eda or the Taliban. By fiat, Islamic terrorism was fenced as isolated criminal phenomena with local motives; in short, militant jihad was represented as a perversion of, not a tenant of, Islamic theology or Muslim politics.

 

This politically correct illusion was reinforced by an Obama administration in a series of forays into the Ummah where the American president declared unequivocally that America, and NATO by extension, is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Never mind that NATO or American troops might be killing Muslims in four, or is it five, separate venues. “We are not at war!” was the party line. And never mind that Obama has yet to visitIsrael as president.

 

Less well known is the “independent” science which now backfills or rationalizes the political Esperanto of the last decade.  A RANDCorporation report, How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qai’da, is an example. Notice the assumption embedded in the title; “counter” not defeat. The body of the report is devoted to asserting that terror (a military tactic) is best addressed by political, not military means. Separating war, an amalgam of tactics and strategy, from politics is not an assumption that Churchill or Eisenhower would have made. A politically correct world-view turns logic on its head; tactics are confused with strategy.

 

The RANDreport ignores the larger strategic phenomena of jihad bis saif and protected Islamist hate mongering. But the bottom line of this “systematic” analysis is the most revealing: “Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.” Such assertions are a kind of strategic masochism, not science; not even common sense.

 

How the West views Islam is more important then how Islamists act – or see themselves? By such logic, Arizona sheriffs might be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan instead of the US Marines. And by such logic, where might the holy warriors, if caught, be tried; lowerManhattan? Treating terror as crime allows the lazy analyst with an agenda to dismiss the political implications of Islamism.

 

Another RANDpaper on another recent South Asia massacre, entitled “Lessons of Mumbai,” is an even better example of cooked books; a case where analysis and credibility is undone by evidence ignored.

 

The Mumbai attack was unique in two respects; a small Jewish center was targeted, the occupants were slaughtered; and the hotel hostages were then screened for religious affiliation – again, seeking Jews. It’s a safe bet that none of the Mumbai killers were ever stopped at an Israeli checkpoint or lost a building lot in east Jerusalem. This attack was planned and executed with motives removed from the usual; the India/Pakistan rift or the Israel/Fattah impasse. Mumbai was clearly motivated, in part, by a strain of virulent, contagious, and global anti-Semitism. No mention of this appears in Lessons of Mumbai’s “key judgments.”

 

The recent terror attack, against a religious school inToulouse,France, is a macabre echo of Mumbai. A rabbi and four young Jewish children were shot at point blank range by Mohamed Merah, a home grown Arab terrorist of Moroccan origin. Let’s assume for sake of argument that Israeli intransigence is the source of Muslim anger. How does blowing a little girl’s brains out advance the “two state solution?”

 

 

 

The global bloom of anti-Semitism since the turn of the 21st Century is no accident. Those who ignore it, especially scientists at places likeRAND, make it possible. Ironically, many ofRAND’s most eminent researchers are or have been Jewish.

 

(This Mumbai report also reinforces suspicions about non-profit excess. Lessons of Mumbai  is a mere 25 pages long, yet lists ten (sic) authors; an average of two and a half pages per analyst. Makes you wonder how many scientists are required to screw in light bulbs inSanta Monica. Clearly, featherbedding is not just restricted to government operations.)

 

Some recent RANDnational security analysis may actually qualify as apologetics. The 2010 paper entitled Would-be Warriors  analyzes the incidence of terrorism in theUS since 9/11. The paper actually ends with the assumptions, concluding:

 

“There is no evidence (sic) thatAmerica’s Muslim community is becoming more radical.America’s psychological vulnerability is on display…panic is the wrong message to send.”

 

“No evidence” – or none that RANDcan detect from the sands of Santa Monica? If sixteen USintelligence agencies didn’t connect the dots before 9/11, while suicide bombers were training in America; RAND’s statistical assurances ring more than a little hollow. Islamic terror didn’t begin with the barbarisms in lower Manhattanin any case. And assertions about psychological vulnerability or “panic” are straw men or worse. Who panicked in the wake of the TwinTowersatrocity? Indifference or political apathy maybe; but surely not panic.

 

And on US Muslim radicalization, clearly RANDstatisticians rarely audit student sentiment at any urban “occupy” rallies or any California campus when an Israeli speaker appears. Nor does the RAND analysis account for the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) or the fact that this home grown political movement was recently hijacked by radical Muslim American bigots. Anti-Semitism is ever the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine. The NBPP’s most recent outrage was to threaten to burn the city ofDetroit at a city council meeting.

 

 

In the interests of fairness, we should point out that other non-profits,PEWResearchCenterfor example, also fail to account for the sea change in the very visible American Black Panthers. PEW claims to be non-partisan, but apparently that doesn’t rule out political correctness. Indeed, with modern pollsters and sociologists, American Muslim groups like the Panthers and the Nation of Islam seem to enjoy a double immunity; race and religion. Somehow such groups are, at the same time, Islamic; but not Muslim.

 

 

The growth of radical Islam in African American communities is complimented by a surge in prisons nationwide. Congress and Public Television seem to have access to prison data, but non-profits likeRAND and PEW apparently do not work in those neighborhoods.

 

The creation of veiled apologetics is not as worrisome as the pervasive misuse of such “scientific” analysis. Part of the problem may lay with endowments. Like more than a few major universities,RAND courts Arab or Muslim good will for the same reason that Willie Sutton frequented banks. That’s where the money is.

 

Attempts to curry Arab favor are underwritten by a priori beliefs about Muslim “moderation.” Assumptions about what Muslims believe may make terror possible, providing a permanent rationalization, a kind of laissez passer for militants.

 

Today, RANDhas one of the richest nest eggs outside of Harvard yard. And clearly, the designation “non-profit” is an oxymoron. The more appropriate designation would be “untaxable” – for reasons yet to be justified. Successful think tanks may be a lot of things, but like wealthy universities, they are not “charities” by any stretch of logic.

 

Recent government sponsored national security research has reversed the poles in the “non-profit” equation. Think tanks are richer and government sponsors are going broke. If quality of analysis is the return on government sponsored research, national security research is nearing some kind of strategic default.

 

Financial success has allowed think tanks likeRANDto diversify the study agenda and expand their physical plants. Yet, the ideas of geographic isolation, and keeping politics at a distance, have been jettisoned with a vengeance. Beyond the original site atSanta Monica;RANDnow has offices inVirginia(near the Pentagon),Pennsylvania,Louisiana,Mississippi,Massachusetts,Mexico,England,Belgium,Qatar, UAE, andAbu Dhabi.

 

For objective national security analysis, the last three locales are the most worrisome. Hard to believe that systems analysis or scientific candor will put petro-dollars or Islamic theocrats at risk. Politically correct “science” allows universities and think tanks to work both sides of the threat equation. Call it the Ellsberg legacy.

 

While the overall cast of RANDCorporation national security research is cautious and in many cases politically deferential; the occasional old hand still puts mustard on his fastball. Jim Quinlivan wrote an essay in the RAND Review (summer, 2003), based on statistical analysis, that suggested under-manned American excursions against insurgents or terrorists in dar al Islam, were bound to end badly – using strict military measures of effectiveness. Today, that report might be considered prophetic. Unfortunately, such voices are seldom endorsed or underlined with corporate authority.

 

The Quinlivan essay was written shortly after 9/11 when “kinetic” solutions were all the rage; his paper flew in the face of the prevailing political winds. More recentRANDreports, as discussed above, tack with the prevailing political winds. The difference is integrity.

 

 

 

The early rhetoric from President Bush categorized theManhattan attacks as “acts of war.” But since then, the Bush and Obama administrations, and government sponsored research, take great pains to confuse the issue with criminality – and policies where victory over Islamism is never a goal or an option.

 

First, there was the Iraqdistraction, a theater that had little to do with world-wide terror or Islamism; and then came a period of dithering over Afghanistan, the so-called “war of necessity.” Throughout, neither political party could decide whether to treat the soldiers of Islam as prisoners of war or criminals. While Americans remained confused; Islamists made steady gains. For the West, the drift into the muck of appeasement and the humiliation of a Soviet-like retreat now seems inevitable.

 

Americaand NATO are headed for the exits in theLevantandSouth Asia. Yet, the greater problems of a nuclearIranand the growing Arab irredentism are still metastasizing. And all the early political Pollyanna about democracy and freedom inArabiahasn’t altered the vector of religious politics.Tunisia,Egypt,Libya,Bahrain, and nowSyria, are on the cusp of clerical control. LikeIran,Turkey,Iraq, andAfghanistan; the political prospects for Muslims today are largely theocratic.

 

All of this seems to be a kind of pandering with junk science. Indeed, the decline of a Euro-American vision that made creativity, art, science, and democracy possible has been underwritten by the worst possible political “science” that borrowed money can buy. Insh’allah!

 

 

 

The author is a former Senior USAF Intelligence Research Fellow at RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. This essay is an excerpt from a longer treatment of the think tank phenomenon, and political pandering, to appear In the New English Review later this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Israel; Canary in the Mid-East Coal Mine

March 6, 2012

 

“Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear.” – Mark Twain

Every time Benjamin Netanyahu comes to America, the world is reminded that Barak Obama has never been to Israel as president. After nearly four years, the leader of the free world continues to shun the only true democracy in the Middle East. During the same period, Mr. Obama has traveled to several autocratic, if not theocratic, Muslim countries to reassure them of America’s good will. Concurrently, the president prosecutes several small wars in the Muslim world with the expressed purpose of “stability” or “nation building.”

Americans and Europeans have been dying for such ephemeral objectives for two decades now. Yet NATO armies are still charged to respect not defeat a noxious ideology. At the moment, American troops and advisers are being hunted down and summarily executed in South Asia by Muslim “allies” for real or imagined insults to a holy book which inspires the worst atrocities of a new century.

No matter the many mobs that gather in the many Muslim capitals chanting “death to America,” no matter the many Muslim theologians that use the sanctuary of mosques to preach hate in the name of “god” and jihad; a politically correct generation of timid social democrats, here and abroad, continues to assure their constituents that Muslim scripture is simply being misused by a few radicals.

Now comes a Shia theocracy whose secular and religious leaders have publicly vowed to wipe “Israeloff the face of the earth.” Should they succeed; in an instant, the heretofore impotent Sunni world majority will be displaced by a more militant and less ambiguous Shia role model.

And Persia makes no empty threat as Teheran poses on the brink of nuclear weapons capability. Here again, the apologists are deployed – including a 16 member American Intelligence Community that can not muster the integrity to make a call on yet another Muslim bomb. These are the same covert institutions who have no problem with cyber-war against the bomb makers or opening a Pandora’s box of American tactical and strategic vulnerabilities.  If the history of weapons programs in North Korea,Pakistan, andIndia provide precedents, western Intelligence might make a call on Persian nuclear capability when missiles are inbound over Tel Aviv.

Our most kinetic response to the imminent threat from the Muslim minority, and a thousand lesser barbarities, from the Muslim majority is to apologize to the Sunni and “sanction” the Shia. Indeed, American and European infidels and apostates are consistently assured by a fearful political class that the West is not at war with Islam or Muslims. And now that Israel presumes to exhibit the courage to prevent the first holocaust of the 21st Century, America and Europe advise restraint and caution. Unfortunately for Israel, the threat is potentially terminal and time is not an ally.

American policy is, at once, a flawed assumption and a cultural insult. Granting Muslim stability a higher priority than Israeli survival is the assumption; and elevating Muslim culture to parity with Jews or Christians is the insult.  Moral equivalence is the problem, not the solution to epidemic political cowardice in the non-Muslim world.Israel has no good reasons, by virtue of history or evidence, to accept any American assurances, especially from an Obama administration. Antisemitism is ever the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine.

——————————————————-

This piece was published in American Thinker and the New English Review on 6 March 2012.