Herschel Smith and I have had some lengthy conversations about this current war, the disposition of the enemy, their relationship with the civilian populations amongst whom they operate, and the substance of the religion they all claim to adhere to.
Fundamentally, we agree. We have had some minor disagreements about strategy selections from time to time but agree that an unintended consequence of “giving the nod” to the “innocent population” in the AO (Area of Operation) is more dead American servicemen. For me, that is intolerable! As far as I am concerned, the number one responsibility of an American administration, American elected “servants”, Sec Def, the Pentagon, and the entirety of upper echelon military circles is to declare the security of the United States, its citizenry, and its Warrior community as primary before choosing which strategy to employ and govern our use of force in the AO.
To that end, it has been my contention that this administration, the past administration and the entire upper end structure of the military machine has failed miserably. Not only have they chosen the wrong strategy to achieve a definable victory for their nation, they chose one that has been disproportionately brutal for our forces while providing cover for the enemy and the population that has proven over and over again to be untrustworthy.
History has defined and will continue to define only a miniscule number of opportunities for a theater-wide application of the precepts of Counterinsurgency Doctrine to have been efficacious. Even a casual glance at the human terrain in either Iraq or Afghanistan, with Syria and Iran to possibly follow, should have given the critical thinker everything they needed to adequately keep COIN under lock and key in the vault of terrible ideas.
But rather than heed history, a bevy of analysts, or common sense, and like undisciplined children discovering a new toy, the Generals and their civilian counterparts pounced on COIN and hitched their violated consciences, their personal legacies and the lives of hundreds of thousands of trusting American warriors to it.
The fruit of their arrogance is measured in the thousands of American Servicemen who have been sacrificed at the altar of pride and the tens of thousands more who have suffered life-altering wounds.
In the latest piece from the Captain’s Journal, Glen Tschirgi does a masterful job in recounting the disastrous failures in judgment, political courage and decision making which have left both operations in this larger war on the edge of failure. In fact, to bolster his points, I would say that arrogance caused by blind pride are the only things that could allow anyone to describe either theater of operation as anything but unmitigated failures. In addition, we have so bought into our own deception that we have chosen to propagate the fruit of those failures in Egypt, Libya, and I fear soon in Syria and Iran.
Glenn makes an observation about the religion of Islam, however, that I do not agree with, and that is in the parsing of factions within the Muslim community. First of all, if someone can point me toward the ongoing, public record of support for America in either of these operations or the public record of Muslim denunciation of the actions of the “terrorist” or “radicalized” Muslim or Jihad as a war doctrine, Taqiyya as a deceptive practice with the intent of keeping the enemy off balance, please show me?
The clear evidence only suggests groups as defined by those who willingly strap on bombs and those who do not. Unfortunately, we know that from within the second group comes the financial and spiritual support for the first.
Suggesting you can parse these two and do harm to one while garnering support for said harm from the “moderates” simply misses the truth about religion – all religion!
Case in point: there has been a healthy division between the Catholic Church and the so-called Reformed Church movement since the 16th century. There are understandings of certain doctrines in the New Testament which both adhere to that are, in some cases, radically different. Bridging these differences with the hope of bringing these two groups of worshipers together has proven to be an insurmountable task with both sides declaring the other is filled with the lost. However, if you bring in a piece of legislation that appears to attack Christianity or core understandings of the beginning of life or freedom of religion issues, these two seemingly polar opposite, doctrinally divided groups, come together as brothers.
The point is, regardless of our interpretations of specific doctrines, we are nevertheless bonded as brothers in unity as followers of Jesus Christ. I will say that the likelihood of a successful destruction of that bond is incalculably small.
Seeing Islam and its many fractured parts in a different light is naïve. Islam is similar to Christianity and every other great religion of the world on one point, and that is it has as its focus a unique deity. To deny the religion or to deny another Muslim is, effectively, to deny the deity that binds you.
In the piece he states, “A muslim who does not subscribe to the Wahhabist version and rejects militant Islam should be no more offended when we target the Islamists than a 1940’s German would be offended by our targeting of Nazis.” And this for me is where separating religious ideology and secular ideology is important. Even though the zeal with which some Germans supported Hitler and the Nazi Party may have bordered on worship, the fact is nobody thought Hitler was “god.” Those supporters simply acted on a perverted understanding of nationalism.
Islam, while carrying within its structure the seeds of jurisprudence which is defined as Sharia, and also containing verses which effectively call its adherents to arms, is still fundamentally teaching and admonition from their “god,” Allah. Thinking you can cause a Muslim to abandon his fellow worshiper (and then effectively placing enmity between himself and Allah) for the sake of the vision of a non-submitted, infidel force of foreigners is simply misunderstanding the dynamics of religion — the difference between the spiritual and the secular.
While we can certainly visually define the actions of some as more violent than others, we cannot see into the heart of man. What history has told us is consistent with Gen 6:5; “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” This was not a statement about a group or faction, the saved and the unsaved, Jews or non Jews. This was an indictment about the condition of the heart of mankind.
We watch the wanton destruction of human life by the forces of Islam and the associated silence from the “moderates” every day. Is it the contention of those who submit to the “two Islams” vision that we should continue to assume the best of a people whose religion is belligerent to non-believers? Are they suggesting we continue to place our sons and daughters at undue risk to preserve the lives of those who fundamentally support the destruction of those same sons and daughters? Personally, I will never submit to anything that requires our forces be sacrificed for a presumption steeped in willful ignorance of a self-defined enemy!
This country is at a crossroad. Americans are now facing the prospect of a future replete with civilian and military leadership that is hostile to the idea of security for our uniquely American documents, ideals, and citizenry. Is this what Americans want for their sons and daughters because this current vision of the world places the United States citizens en par with those who would declare us an enemy and then institutes policies that intentionally endanger American lives with the stated purpose of preserving the lives of those who endanger American lives!
It is time we stop playing with the common definitions of ideologies. We must accept Islam as what it declares itself to be, a religion and not just another doctrine of governance. Seeing it as something else forces actions that will always fall short when trying to defend against its most egregious doctrines, doctrines which were delivered to Mohammed by an entity he believed was a “god” who called himself Allah.
Originally posted at Let Them Fight.