How we lose
An important article by Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, and Linden Blue, the director of the Institute. They write about the denial of many that we are in anything like an existential conflict, and how our institutions are used against us in this war. Further, they address the fact that jihadists want to destroy us & point out the flawed reasoning of our allies and many Americans who think appeasement of Islamists is a workable stratagem. Lastly, they write about the consequence of failure.
How we lose – Commentary – The Washington Times
President Bush asserts forcefully that the United States will prevail in the war against radical Islamists. He may be right. We pray he is right. However, it is also important to understand the strength of the forces arrayed against us. There are at least five reasons why we may lose the war against radical Islam — which is in fact, a war for the Free World as we know it.
• First, the extraordinary advances in military technology we command are not necessarily advantages in an insurgency struggle. …
• Second, the United States is far more vulnerable to asymmetric warfare than are our enemies. …
• Third, the enemy has more discretionary funding than we do. …
• Fourth, radical Islam has instilled fear in the West and among moderate Muslims, which is manifested in the effort at appeasement. …
• Fifth, arguably the most significant point, is that Islamists are united, notwithstanding the well-publicized differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites. …
… Most significantly, losing means we will have defeated ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy, his purpose and his serious advantages that put the outcome of this struggle in doubt.
Bernard Lewis has said, “Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.” With more effective weapons than we have, more discretionary money, more advantages in asymmetric warfare, the power and will to strike fear in the hearts of those who do not comply and a seriously divided Free World, radical Islamists pose perhaps the most serious threat our civilization has known.
It is a long, hard slog to maintain liberty and freedom. It has been that way since 1776. We owe a debt to those who have carried the struggle for liberty and an obligation to ourselves and our posterity to carry it on again. …[Read more]
Posted on October 30, 2006, in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
There are far more “important” things to discuss than this article… it seems Herb is just jumping on the bandwagon to pick a fight… what Islamists is he talking about? Cmon… I’m sick of these people using the generalized and ambiguous terms to scare the begeezes out of you people so that Islam becomes the next Communism! Every time the write these “important” articles they lose credibility in the real world of scholasticism and intellectuals.
Let me ask you if Islam is such a threat… why is the U.S. and France selling Saudi Arabia arms and Aircraft! Does that mean that these countries are co-conspirators in their own destruction… please!
wasalaam
wasalaam
It’s not about Islam per se, it’s about jihadists. Abu, you know that the first victims & targets of jihadists are Muslims. Look at Egypt’s civil war against the jihadists where 100,000s died, then try and convince me jihadists are not the plague of the 21st century.
Answer me this: Are you OK with Ahmadinejad having nukes? Yes, Ahmadinejad’s form of Islamism is the next Communism!
Jihadists are fighting all over the world, as is places like Algeria, Assam, Kashmir, Israel, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Afganistán, to name a few.
Lastly, which of these Islamic Para-Military Groups do you think people ought not to worry about?
Al-Qaida
Europe
Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front
Turkish Hizbullah
Middle East
Al-Mahdi Army / Al-Sadr Group
Aden-Abyan Islamic Army
Ansar Al Islam
Asbat al-Ansar
Hamas
Hizballah
Islamic Task Organization
Al-Jihad
Palestine Islamic Jihad
Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula
al-Shabab al-Moumineen
Saudi Hezbollah
Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq
Southeast Asia
Abu Sayyaf Group
Gerakan Mujahideen Islam Pattani (GMP)
Moro Islamic Liberation Front
Central and South Asia
Ahl-e-Hadees
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HUM)
Hizb-i-Islami
Hizb ut-Tahir al-Islami
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Jamaat ul-Fuqra
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
Taleban
United Jihad Council
Africa
Al Sunna Wal Jamma
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Fighting Islamic Group
Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement
al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya
Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/para-islamic.htm
LDSP… I understand what you are saying I do… however, there is a gap as wide as the Nile between what you are saying (or trying to say) and what is the case. Just as in the past (WWI) American Intelligence is not that keen on foreign culture. And so like Churchill’s Britain the U.S. and people of the U.S. a trying understand by compartmentalizing and analysis. For a Muslim and Arabic speaking person… there is a lot to be explained, far too much it seems. Please take a look at this article where scholars Streusand and El-Fadl explain some of these barriers.
As for you question,
I’m not OK with anyone having nukes… if the U.S. or Israel use them on the Middle East my family dies… if Iran or Syria use them on the U.S. or Israel my family dies… I personally do not win from any of these possible threats. Now in Ahmadinejad defense, he has said time and time again that his efforts in nuclear science is for the purpose of fuel and energy development. That I believe… I also believe that the U.S. will do anything it can to prevent the Middle East from gaining more power in the industry of fuel and energy… I am more afraid of this than Ahmadinejad… much more.