Abu el Banat

Richard Cohen wrote a rather incoherent column in the Washington Post comparing Auschwitz to Guantanamo.

I believe passionately in free speech. In free debate and discussion, the best ideas are honed and improved and triumph while error quickly shows itself as such.

The comparison that Mr. Cohen makes of Guantanamo to Auschwitz certainly fits the latter category. I recently saw "Schindler's List" with a group. It was extremely difficult to watch. I had to leave the room several times to avoid being seen in tears.

For Mr. Cohen to suggest any sort of equivalence boggles the mind. How does putting panties on a prisoner's head compare to the gassing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? How does the incarceration of murderers captured on the field of battle compare to the putting of innocent people in death camps merely on the basis of their religion?

There is no equivalency; there is no basis that one even elicits a thought of the other no matter how careful one may be in saying precisely what is meant and leaving nothing to chance.
The comparison disgusts me and should disgust any reasonable person who has any concept whatsoever of the horrors of Auschwitz and what the Nazis did to 6,000,000 Jews.

How can anyone even offer such a comparison? Does partisanship so warp one's analytical ability or one's sense of judgment to such an extent that Guantanamo somehow equates to Auschwitz?

We need to take a serious look at how far we have sunk in partisan hatred when a columnist in a major newspaper can make such a comparison.

Please, Mr. Cohen, watch "Schindler's List" again and then ask yourself again if there is any equivalency whatsoever between Auschwitz and Guantanamo. One of the scenes that caused my quck exit from the room was when the Germans gathered the children together at Auschwitz to go to the gas chambers. How dare you make a comparison of that to Guantanamo.

Saudi Arabia may well be target number 1 for Al Qaeda. Taking control of the principal religious sites of Islam would provide great control for the Jihadists.

In spite of its tremendous oil wealth, the country is extremely unstable. A look at a few statistics (from Dept. of State and CIA) provides some important insights:

Per capita income - US$12,000
Unemployment - 25%
Oil - over 90% of exports, 75% of government revenues
4.7 million non-Saudis employed in economy
Non-oil industry - 8% of GDP

The State Department states that a "shortage of skilled Saudi workers at all levels remains the principal obstacle to economic diversification and development; about 4.7 million non-Saudis are employed in the economy." Thus, with an unemployment rate of 25% Saudi Arabia has 4.7 million foreign workers.

These facts suggest bases for much discontent on the part of many Saudis. Undoubtedly, they feel capable and desire to contribute to their society, but are foreclosed from doing so as a result of the high unemployment even as many foreign workers find employment.

David M. Kennedy wrote a column in the New York Times claiming that the American military are "mercenaries."

Wikipedia defines "mercenary" as a "soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations. However, when the term is used to refer to a soldier in a regular national army, it is usually considered an insult, epithet or pejorative."

Clearly, the "professor" did not use the term to advance an intellectually useful analysis of any issue but as a pejorative.

He points out that "today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify." This defeats his contention that the soldiers are mere mercenaries. Clearly, they volunteer not for reasons of private gain, but for reasons of patriotism.

As an historian should understand, the founders of this country and others feared standing armies because of their threat to democracy, their expense in peace time and the tremendous expense of war in terms of lives and treasure.
Yet, what Mr. Kennedy finds unhealthy is that "history's most potent military force can now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so" with risk to very few citizens and "no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged."

That sounds like a very well organized and efficient military that this country should be proud of rather than ashamed of. In fact, Mr. Kennedy quotes Thomas Jefferson warning of the dangers of Napoleon for "having 'transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm." Napoleon greatly enlarged the size of the military and transferred massive economic resources to it.

These are the very actions that Mr. Kennedy complains are not occurring in the US today. He complains that the US does not need to draft great numbers of its sons and daughters into the military and transfer vast sums to its support as Napoleon did and as Mr. Jefferson feared would occur with a standing army.

I fail to understand why our men and women in the military somehow lose their standing as citizen-soldiers because they volunteered for service rather than being drafted. We have the best trained, best equipped military in the history of the world.

Rather than denigrating our volunteer citizen-soldiers as "mercenaries" seeking private gain, we should be celebrating their courage and dedication to the defense of their country in a very serious war against Jihadist terrorists.

In truth, Mr. Kennedy simply objects to the war in Iraq and has generated a very transparently fraudulent argument to attempt to justify his position. In doing so, he insults our citizen-soldiers' patriotism in serving their country and the intelligence of his readers.

Bruce Jettleson contends: I understand the political motivations for tarring debate, let alone dissent, as disloyalty.

You seem to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your analysis accuses you of disloyalty. I think not. You are mistaken, not disloyal.

Egypt has no troops in Iraq. Spain arrested seven terrorists for planning to bomb the High Court after they withdrew their troops from Iraq. (Reuters, 18 October 2004) The attack of 11 September 2001 and other al Qaeda attacks occurred prior to the Iraq invasion.

Usama bin Laden and other Jihadists may attempt to justify their terrorist attacks on the basis of Iraq, the Palestinian-Israeli problems, East Timor or other issues. That is mere window dressing.

Usama bin Ladin declared Jihad on the West in his fatwah dated 23 February 1998. Christopher Hitchens captures the reasons for this Jihad against the West in an article dated 8 July 2005 in the Mirror. The Jihadists have grievances against the West. These "grievances" are seeing unveiled woment, homosexuals, music, representational art and, most of all, democracy that rejects the imposition of sharia law.

No, the Jihadists do not seek the removal of troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor. They want to destroy the West and its entire life style. They seek to impose Islam and Islam's life style on the entire world.Of course, you may well think that is impossible and a bizarre theory. However, Jihadists willingly commit suicide to murder opponents because they think they are on the right side of history and are contributing in a small way to the ultimate success of Islam.

They think that the bombings will weaken and ultimately destabilize the West and Middle Eastern countries. One question brings this into perspective. What would the West do if the bomber exploded a nuclear bomb or even a "dirty" bomb? Does anyone doubt that Al Qaeda would use a nuclear bomb if it got possession of one?

Bruce may call it "bananas," I call it war. The Jihadists want to destroy the West and all Muslim countries that do not toe the Jihadist line. The West, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries need to recognize that reality and respond accordingly.

Josh Marshall in TPM: Here he [Christopher Hitchins] claims among other things that Iraq really was interested in getting its hands on Nigerien uranium. That's based on?

Well, Josh, you obviously need to read the Senate Select Committee Report signed by such well know Democrat apologists for Republicans as Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Durbin and John Edwards. If you do you will find that the report of Joe Wilson of his trip to Niger confirmed the findings of the CIA that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Niger.

According to the portion of the Report agreed to by all members of the Committee:

"Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March, 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal..." (Report, p. 73)

"The intelligence report [based on Mr. Wilson's debriefing following his trip to Niger] indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states ... however, that in June 1999 [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." (Report, p. 43)

"[The CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the [Wilson] report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting." (Report, p. 46)

Mr. Wilson confirmed that a high level Iraqi delegation met with former Prime Minister Mayaki of Niger to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mr. Mayaki took that to mean the Iraqis wanted to discuss the purchase of uranium. The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that Mr. Wilson’s report “supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Report p. 73)

This arose from a belief in the State Department that France adequately controlled the sale of all uranium from Niger and would not allow sales to rogue states such as Iraq. State also believed that Niger would not trade with a country under UN sanctions. (Report, p. 44)

"Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador (Mr. Wilson) saying 'he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on." (Report, p. 42) Thus, INR and Mr. Wilson had such faith in France and Niger that they would prevent any sales of uranium to Iraq.

Of course, this does not speak to or contradict the CIA conclusion that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. INR and State believed that regardless of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium, Niger would not sell it to Iraq. Mr. Wilson’s report of his conversations with the Prime Minister confirmed the CIA's analysis that Iraq had, in fact, attempted to purchase uranium from Niger regardless of whether an actual sale occurred or whether Niger could deliver uranium if a contract were entered into.

The importance of Iraqi attempts to purchase Nigerien uranium far exceeds the issue of whether they were successful in doing so or whether France would have allowed such sales. Niger is not the only country in the world selling uranium. Furtherjmore, a known attempt to purchase uranium in Niger indicates a desire to acquire nuclear arms that might have led to purchases of weapons from other sources.

Captain's Quarters has an excellent post comparing Al Qaeda's ideology to that of Naziims and Mussolini's fascism as a "fantansy ideology. It is most thought provoking and shows once again the power of the internet to bring important information to readers. Everyone should read the post.

I would like to react to the post in a small way. The concept of "fantasy ideology" provides an interesting insight into Jihadist and Islamist self-understanding. They seem to look to some idealized "Golden Age" of Islam in the the 7th or so century when Moslems had conquered a great empire.

While Mussolini created a fantasy empire by invading Ethiopia for non-economic reasons, Hitler created a more traditional empire based on a fantasy ideology.

It seems to me that Jihadists do not kill as some sort of "death cult" but in a real effort to destabilize countries they deem enemies to Islam. We may view their efforts as Quixotic or even less realistic, an ant attacking an elephant. This leads to a conclusion that the attacks are merely a "death cult."

My view (I claim no expertise at all) has always been that September 11 was an attempt to get American troops withdrawn from Saudi Arabia as the first step in overthrowing the House of Saud and putting Usama bin Ladin in power there.

"Each of these grand targets was chosen for its symbolic value to Moslems around the world, making them believe that the ummah was just about to be restored with Allah's direct divine help. So long as there was little response from the West but surprise and shock, it would seem like an unbroken line of great 'victories' for the jihad."

Along this line, revolutionaries in Judah reinacted the crossing of the Jordon River to recreate Joshua's original crossing that led to the original conquest of the Land. The concept was that the very act of crossing the river would lead to heavenly assistance that would overthrow the Roman army.

This may not help, but may give some insight into the symbolic attacks. The attacks may embolden and create new Jihadists that will join in the destruction of the West.

Palestinian terrorists have said that Israel's weakness is that Israelis love life too much. Jihadists undoubtedly believe this about all Western countries. Thus, Jihadists think that they have learned the achilles heel of the West.

Of course, the withdrawal of Spain encourages this belief. This provides the basis for Jihadists to persuade their young recruits that they are on the winning side of history and their suicide bombings will ultimately destroy the infidel West and reinstitute the Islamic Empire.

This suggests that the image of "war" rather than "blood feud" may be the better understanding. The tactics employed obviously would not involve massive invasions, but debilitating bombings.

If Jihadists ever get possession of WMD, the truth of the war image will be clear. At that point destabilization of entire countries may occur quickly. It is hard to imagine what might occur in such a situation.

Senators said harsh interrogation practices and the refusal to grant prisoner of war status to detainees could backfire when U.S. soldiers are captured.

"Our troops are looking at us to see whether we're going to adopt a standard that if they were captured would be acceptable," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat.

Do these Senators seriously think that Al Qaeda will treat American soldiers more leniently if the US Senate labels detainees in Guantanamo as "POWs" instead of "detainees"? Will this recognition of POW status cause Al Qaeda to change their standard practice of beheading their prisoners to providing safe accomodations with nutritious meals as the US does in Guantanamo? Simply asing these questions shows how ludicrous the suggestion is.

With due respect, we are not dealing with people imbued in the legal requirements and traditions of the West that arose out of wars in Europe. We are dealing with people who drive cars loaded with bombs into crowds of children, who set off a bomb in a pizza parlor with a dozen or more baby carriages lined up outside, who set off bombs in crowded trains to intentionally kill innocent civilians. We are dealing with people who behead their captives in front of a video camera and release it to the public.

Such people are not likely to change their treatment of prisoners regardless of how kindly we treat detainees or "POWs" in Guantanamo. In fact, they more than likely look at the present good treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo as confirmation of the weakness and inability of the US to fight them strongly.

The Senators' comments once again blame American decisions and actions for the horrendous conduct of the Jihdists. Senators, the Jihadists want to destroy the West and kill Westerners regardless of how we treat the detainees. We need to stop looking for ways to win partisan political points and start finding ways to stop the Jihadists.

# posted by Thomas A. Becket : 5:55 PM  0 comments

The New York Times reports that a suicide car bomber killed 27 people in Iraq today, 24 of them children. This attrocity joins similar ones of prior days and will be succeeded by others in the days to come. A suicide bomber struck in Israel yesterday, as they have in the past and will again. Jihadists have bombed innocent people in Spain, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many other countries.

The attack in London was horrendous just as the other terrorist attacks. The real issue is not to critique the degree of grieving we show toward the various bombings, but to find ways to end the terrorist attacks throughout the world.

The memory that most haunts me is that of the bombing of a Sbarro Pizza store in Israel because of a picture I saw of perhaps 10 or more baby carriages lined up outside the bombed out store. Excuse my saying so, but some animal intentionally walked into a pizza restaraunt to try to kill babies and their mothers who did nothing to them.

We don't need to parse the degree of our outrage and grief over the murders of innocents in London or Israel or Iraq. We need to stop the vicious killers. The war in Iraq is part of that process. It ended a safe haven Saddam had given Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and stopped his financing of them.

Some may want to invoke the niceties of our criminal justice system to find and prosecute the jihadist involved in bombings. I'm sorry. The terrorists in London, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere are not simple criminals going about their individual crimes.

They are fighting a war to destroy our way of life. The sooner we recognize that reality and respond in kind, the better. We all need to recognize the courage of Iraqis, Israelis, Londoners and all of us in facing what are truly outrageous attacks on innocents. We all need to join together in fighting the global war on terror that manifests itself in Iraq, Israel, now London and who knows where tomorrow. These truly are serious times and they require serious people to combat the evil presented by the jihadists.

The time for petty partisan backbiting and second guessing is over. Democrats and Republicans need to join together in the fight against jihadist terrorists.

Many commentators suggest that we should be seeking the roots of terrorism in order to fight it effectively. They suggest poverty and the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as the roots of that terror. Of course this ignores the various terrorist attacks prior to the invasions, such as those on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the American Embassies in 1998 as well as the one on Septermber 11.

Faces from the Front points to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, Muhammed Abduh, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi as providing the foundation for a philosophy of jihad against Western civilization. He provides chilling quotes from their writings that challenge the accepted wisdom of those who see President Bush and PM Blair as the cause of terror rather than the jihadists.

He quotes an Al Qaeda press release as saying, "We want to inform the Ummah [all Muslim believers] that your brothers in the Al Qaida organization will not stop Jihad until the Sharia of Allah is the only source of laws on earth." Al Qaeda does not merely seek the withdrawal of Western forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the West's adoption of Islamic Sharia law. As Christopher Hitchens so telling suggests (see prior posting), the veiling of women, the destruction of Jews and the conversion of the West to Islam and its social system.

Apologists for jihadists quickly argue that Islam does not seek forced conversions. However, Qutb contends that the Western system "prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and makes them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord." Qutb goes further to say that "When Islam strives for peace, its objective is not that superficial peace which requires that only that part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure. The peace which Islam desires is that the religion (i.e. the Law of the society) be purified for God, that the obedience of all people be for God alone."

Thus, Qutb's followers seek the conversion of the entire world to Islam, not merely the expulsion of infidels from Iraq and Afghanistan. That conversion can occur only after the destruction of the Western system which prevents the peaceful conversion of the West.

Qutb himself specifically proclaims that "one should always keep in mind that there is no compulsion in religion; that is, once the people are free from the lordship of men, the law governing civil affairs will be purely that of God, while no one will be forced to change his beliefs and accept Islam." Thus, once jihad has destroyed Western governments and society, no one will be compelled to accept Islam.

Qutb wrote these chilling words in 1964, long before the US intervened in Iraq or was even that active in Middle Eastern affairs. Before dismissing the ability of Qutb's words to recruit jihadists in the fight against the West, we should look at the many wars fought in the West over religious issues and the long struggle against the "religion " of Communism.

Christopher Hitchens captures the reasons the Islamist extremists hate the West:

We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are. The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

All across the left wing blogosphere one finds an obsessive interest in Karl Rove and the desire to see him prosecuted for some imagined crime. Why the vindictive, obsessive interest? At a time when London experienced a terrorist attack and more attacks may be forthcoming in England and elsewhere, war continues in Iraq, North Korea is returning to negotiations and China's economy continues to challenge the world, the left obsessives over President Bush's political advisor.

In all of the right wing's passionate attacks on President Bill Clinton, never did it sink so low as to look to imprison his political advisors. This obsession against Mr. Rove simply shows the "not ready for prime time" nature of the left today. This country faces serious security, economic, social and political issues and the left wants to focus on "what did Karl Rove know and when did he know it?" How bizarre!

Now Josh Marshall even attacks Mr. Rove's lawyer, trying to dig up dirt on him. He asks breathlessly, "Did Karl Rove compound his troubles when he hired Robert Luskin as his attorney in the Plame case?" The answer, besides "Que loco," such a stupid question, is a simple "No." How desperate must the left be to descend to such depths to attempt to attack the President of the United States. Not merely personal attacks on the President's political advisor but the advisor's lawyer.

Isn't it time to get back to the real issues facing the country rather than phony personal vendettas against a person whose only "crime" consists in helping the President to win elections against a self-destructive Democratic Party?