‘Now we have proof’ Jihadis infiltrating D.C. : NOW WAKE UP AMERICANS

8. November 2009 by admin.

“Indisputable evidence now shows CAIR and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.” CAIR is a qualified receiver of charitable dollars or “zakat” through Islamic Charities.
WorldNetDaily
October 14, 2009
By Art Moore
Washington, D.C.
In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation by two young investigators, an even more daring and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation’s most aggressive Muslim “civil rights” organization for six months – has produced stunning revelations about the supposedly “moderate” group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents obtained during the secret op.
As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Indisputable evidence now shows CAIR and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.
Until now, CAIR has remained a powerful force in the nation’s capital and across the country, from demanding the Obama administration stop FBI counter-terrorism tactics to compelling a school district to apologize to Muslims.
That influence, many believe, may be coming to an end, as a result of the undercover investigation – which included the son of a veteran counter-terrorism investigator, who grew a beard and converted to Islam, as well as two veiled female interns.
“Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator P. David Gaubatz and “Infiltration” author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR’s ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.
The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill.
With evidence from “Muslim Mafia” in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.

“Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamist] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan,” Myrick writes in the foreword to “Muslim Mafia.”
Noting that CAIR has tried to hide its strategy, finances, membership, internal disputes and much more from public view since its founding in 1994, Islam expert Daniel Pipes lauded “Muslim Mafia” for definitively exposing the “tawdry and possibly illegal inner workings of radical Islam’s most aggressive organization in North America.”
“The revelations in this book should both put CAIR out of business and permanently discredit the Islamist cause,” Pipes said.   Undercover
The book begins as a real-life, heart-pounding thriller, with Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author David Gaubatz, preparing to go underground as an intern for CAIR at its Herndon, Va., office.   Astoundingly, the younger Gaubatz, posing as a bearded Muslim convert, ends up with a position at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building, working alongside top leaders Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor.
Along with declassified government documents, the book unveils thousands of e-mails, faxes and internal memos that were never meant for public viewing.   The new evidence shows that CAIR – already designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history – is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.   “Muslim Mafia” also exposes the inner workings of the mob-like Brotherhood and explains its broader conspiracy of infiltrating the American government and “destroying Western civilization from within.”   “The evidence found in the investigation is incontrovertible,” said co-author Sperry, noting that the book has more than 40 pages of footnotes and an appendix with more than 50 pages of exclusive confidential documents.   The Brotherhood is known within Islamist circles as the “Ikhwan mafia” because of its highly organized structure, centralized control and covert operations. CAIR, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” is one part of the network of front groups, cut-outs and shell companies that shield the Brotherhood’s criminal activities from authorities.   “These guys talk about jihad and murdering Jews like the mob talked about killing – totally casual, like they were ordering pizza,” said one FBI official in Washington quoted in the book.   Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in “Muslim Mafia” include:

• New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group, and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group recently convicted as Hamas’ top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans;
• Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets;
• CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;
• CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans; however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters;
• CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;
• CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law:
• The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.

The book also shows radical Muslims in the U.S. are working to support Palestinian terrorists, destroy Israel, gut U.S. anti-terrorism laws, loosen U.S. Muslim immigration policies and convert Americans to Islam.

The authors explain they targeted CAIR because it helps control the “religious crime syndicate from its power base in Washington, the capitol of the same government it wishes to overthrow.”   While the FBI has cut formal ties to CAIR in the wake of its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the group has virtually unfettered access to Capitol Hill and continues to wield influence in the White House.   CAIR, the book reveals, regularly reserves meeting rooms and prays Fridays alongside Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and a growing number of Muslim staffers.
The first Muslim elected to Congress and a de facto CAIR board member, Ellison predicted in one CAIR power breakfast he soon would be flanked by 15 other Muslim congressmen, “Muslim Mafia” notes.   Chris Gaubatz, in fact, once found himself praying elbow-to-elbow with Ellison during a Friday prayer gathering attended by CAIR inside the U.S. Capitol.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the book says, is totally in the dark about the threat, and so is the White House.   In fact, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” in the White House President Obama is hiring Muslims – including an adviser who advocates compliance with Shariah law – based on resumes solicited from Muslim Brotherhood fronts.   Meanwhile, the FBI is in conflict internally about how to deal with the Brotherhood, with some top officials in favor of maintaining outreach, while counter-terror case agents in the field strongly object, pointing to evidence the network is a factory for homegrown terror and is secretly carrying out activities hostile to the U.S.   “They’ve achieved outrageous penetration at senior levels of our government,” veteran FBI special agent John Guandolo warns in the book.   Until recently, the FBI engaged in outreach activities with CAIR, including forcing rookie agents to take cultural field trips to area mosques.   The “Muslim Mafia” authors obtained notes revealing the FBI even has offered to sponsor Muslim youth camps with the Boys Clubs of America.   A shortage of Arab linguists and dozens of discrimination suits by Arab and Muslim employees have prompted the FBI to recruit from Brotherhood-related groups, such as the Islamic Society of North America.   A Muslim agent who drew national attention when he refused to tape-record a fellow Muslim during a terrorism investigation was promoted and now recruits other Muslims to become agents and linguists.   ‘Hit sheets’

The book also presents evidence CAIR has prepared “hit sheets” on its critics in the news media in an effort to intimidate them into silence.   Internal memos show, for example, top officials privately met with CNN executives in Atlanta to press them to cancel Glenn Beck’s program on its Headline News network. Beck now has a highly rated afternoon show on the Fox News Channel.   CAIR’s campaign to boycott leading nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage’s advertisers cost more than $160,000, the book reveals. The authors recount how CAIR ran out of money before it could crack Savage’s most loyal sponsors.   The book also includes new revelations about CAIR’s role in the “flying imams” case in 2006 in which six Muslim leaders were removed from an airline flight in Minneapolis after passengers and crew members reported what they believed to be suspicious behavior.
“Muslim Mafia” also exposes CAIR’s secret agenda to criminalize anti-terror profiling by police and private entities.   Gaubatz is a veteran federal investigator and counter-terrorism specialist who served for more than a decade as a special agent in the U.S. Air Force’s elite Office of Special Investigations. He held the U.S. government’s highest security clearances, including Top Secret–SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), and was briefed in many so-called black projects.   Gaubatz also is a State Department–trained Arabic linguist with more than two decades of experience in the Middle East, including tours in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq. In 2003, he led a 15-man team to rescue the family members of the Iraqi lawyer credited with saving Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch.   Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is former Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and former Washington bureau chief of WorldNetDaily.com.   His bestseller “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” is being used by the U.S. military and top law enforcement departments nationwide. Many of the numerous stories he has broken on national security and counter-terrorism have been cited by the Washington Post, USA Today, UPI and the Associated Press, among others. His columns have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Houston Chronicle, American Spectator and Reason.
One FBI official quoted in “Muslim Mafia” says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida in that, while all share the same goals, they use different methods to achieve them.   “The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics,” the official explained.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Obama, Politics, Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

Nidal Malik Hasan Case Study

8. November 2009 by admin.

U.S. Army Sergeant Akbar Hasan discharged three hand grenades in the tents of his fellow soldiers, killing 2 and wounding 14.   
Motive: Defending fellow members of Islam.

  Interjection:  This author does recognize Islam to have many sects, each with varying degrees of how they interpret or even choose to recognize or not recognize many verses of the Quran. The intent of this article is to investigate motive.  The motive will tell us what kind of sect Nidal Hasan would follow.   5 November 2009, Fort Hood, Texas:  U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan sprays random burst of ammunitions into a combat readiness clinic, killing 13 and wounding 30.
Motive:  Study the case.   (Links identify the article from which information at that bullet point was drawn.)
 

• The mosque Hasan prayed daily at offers a program to assist devout Muslim men in finding a wife.  The program requires filing a form.  On that form, Hasan claimed to be Palestinian and to have been born in Arlington, Virginia.  (Demonstrative of loyalty to Palestinians)
• Nidal Malik Hasan’s parents came to the United States from a Palestinian town near Jerusalem.
• Nidal Malik Hasan is described as a devout and discreet Muslim.
• Noel Hasan, Nidal Malik Hasan’s aunt stated Nidal spent holidays and free time at her home.  He did not have many friends.
• Retired Colonel, Terry Lee describes Nidal Malik Hasan as a loner who did not company with other officers.
• A former neighbor told Fox News that Nidal Malik Hasan had lived in the community for two years, had the name ‘Allah’ on his front door and he received visits from a female whom accompanied a three year old child. (Maybe nothing.  However, note; Nidal was registered for a program at the mosque to find a wife)
• Hasan’s aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Virginia stated in an interview with the Washington Post that Nidal Malik Hasan had been harassed by members of the military due to his ethnicity and Nidal wanted to be discharged from the military.
• Nidal Malik Hasan required counseling as an intern at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, due to having arguments with his patients.  Thomas Grieger states that Hasan’s problems as an intern resulted in counseling and increased supervision due to Hasan’s interaction with his patients.  Many of his patients were being treated for post traumatic stress disorder upon return from duties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Nidal Malik Hasan was in preparation for deployment to Iraq and did not wish to deploy.  However, he did make requests to be deployed to Afghanistan.
• Nidal Malik Hasan retained an attorney to assist him in being discharged from the U.S. Army, stating he would pay the cost of his education back to the U.S. Army. (revealing conflicting loyalties? Knowing if he was deployed he would have to honor teachings of his faith?)
• At least six months ago,Nidal Hasan came to the attention of Federal law officials for alleged postings (can not be substantiated as to the identity of the poster) which glorified suicide bombers.  A formal investigation had not been opened prior to the shootings at Fort Hood regarding the postings which are alleged to have been posted by Nidal. 
• Nidal Malik Hasan would often make comments that support Islamic teaching for Jihad.  One statement, attested to by retired Colonel, Terry Lee was a statement suggesting all Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor. (This is a call to Jihad.  Jihad calls all Muslims to arms.)
• Two psychiatrist who had worked with Hasan at Walter Reed told NPR, on the condition of anonymity that Hasan was often belligerent.
• Hasan made a statement saying ‘The Quran teaches that infidels should have their heads cut off and set on fire’.  Jihad watch defining points of jihad quote from the Quran, ‘The perfect Muslim is gentle with his fellow believer and harsh towards his enemy, the infidel’
• Nidal Malik Hasan’s family speculate to his possible deployment as having been a great fear for Nidal over the past five years.

Is there enough evidence to suggest Nidal Malik Hasan had not acted out of mental illness, but in the same manner Akbar Hasan did in March 2003? 

  President Obama has asked that we not jump to conclussions.  Well, o.k., we

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

Malik Hasan Tied to 9/11 Hijackers, Radical al Qaeda Preacher

8. November 2009 by admin.

Shocking headline? Well, it’s true. As first reported at the Jawa, Hasan attended the radical Saudi funded mosque in Virginia who’s now oft quoted and shocked-and-horrified imam is also a big supporter of the ISNA.

  What we didn’t know was that Hasan attended that mosque at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers — Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour.   Did Nidal Hasan know them? Maybe, maybe not.
But the most disturbing part is that the imam of the mosque at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki (pictured right). Awlaki is an American who now lives in exile in Yemen where his website incites Muslims to jihad and who has nothing but praise for al Qaeda.
Awlaki is hands down the most cited English language preacher in the underworld of online jihad.
And what was Hasan’s view of al-Awlaki?

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.
 

Any one who knows anything about al-Awlaki knows he is as radical as they come.
A deeper terrorist plot? No indication of that. But those who continue to claim that the attack had nothing to do with a broader goal of jihad really have nothing left to stand on.
Again, let me remind the simple minded that like most human behavior murder is often motivated by many things. Sure, Hasan very well could have been distressed over an impending deployment and perhaps that deployment was a proximate cause. He may also have been bat shit crazy.

  However it is also clear that he held the same world view as the vast majority of Islamist terrorists and that this was at least one of his motivations.
Thanks to Jeffrey Imm
UPDATE: Just checked AllahP who quotes a U.S. Intel official:

There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies.”

Seriously people, WTF was this guy doing getting promoted to Major this year?

And given that friends at Malik’s mosque are calling him a “typical fundamentalist Muslim”, perhaps Dar al-Hijrah is where we should be looking to find Khadeejah Nuur?
 
Update by Barbarossa: Yes, that would be the same Anwar al-Awlaki praised by the New York Times just weeks after the 9/11 attacks as “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West”:

Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation’s largest, which draws about 3,000 worshipers for communal prayers each Friday, said: ”In the past we were oblivious. We didn’t really care much because we never expected things to happen. Now I think things are different. What we might have tolerated in the past, we won’t tolerate any more.” ”There were some statements that were inflammatory, and were considered just talk, but now we realize that talk can be taken seriously and acted upon in a violent radical way,” said Mr. Al-Awlaki, who at 30 is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West: born in New Mexico to parents from Yemen, who studied Islam in Yemen and civil engineering at Colorado State University.

 

To show you how fu**ed up the judgment of the Times is on these matters, take a look at this quote from today’s Telegraph article:

Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.  

What a great bridge between East and West, don’t you think?
Awlaki’s name has come up recently in connection with the Toronto 18 terror case.

  http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199504.php

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Texas, Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

“Revolution Muslim”: Yousef al-Khattab and Younes Abdullah Mohammed

7. November 2009 by admin.

In light of so much deception from CAIR, ISNA, the media, and other groups, you have to respect the honesty of these men. Anyone care to guess their view of yesterday’s terrorist attack?

Muslims Claim Victim Status . . . Again

The day after a Muslim killed thirteen and wounded thirty in a vicious terror attack, Muslims once again portray themselves as victims. But is it Muslims who are really in danger in this country? Since yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan’s family has been claiming that people made fun of him for his Muslim faith (as if this justifies the violence he committed). Indeed, such reports have been splashed across the major media outlets, in a rather obvious effort to build some sympathy for this poor, poor terrorist. Unfortunately for Hasan’s family and supporters, there’s no evidence of such an anti-Muslim bias in the military.

Fox News–A Muslim veteran affairs organization says it has not received reports of harassment from Islamic soldiers, contrary to claims by a relative of the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Abdul-Rashid Abdullah, deputy director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, told FoxNews.com that the nonprofit group has not received a single report recently of a U.S. soldier being harassed “simply because he was Muslim.” “That kind of report is inconsistent with what we’ve heard,” Abdullah said prior to a press conference in Washington to denounce Thursday’s shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 dead and 30 wounded. Source.

But the mythical Muslim persecution doesn’t end there. Muslims are calling for extra protection of their mosques in the aftermath of the Muslim attack against the American military.

Following the shootings at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas on Thursday, those at the Islamic Center for PEACE in Fort Myers have requested additional police patrols, though there have so far been no threats to the center. Alibaba Lumumba, president of the center, said anytime there is a crime allegedly committed by a Muslim, the whole Muslim community suffers. “But when there is a Christian who commits a crime, we don’t get into his religion or whether he wears a cross or not,” Lumumba said. “It’s a lack of knowledge about what Islam is and what it is not. Such acts of violence, especially if there were women, children or elderly who were hurt, are not condoned by Islam.” Source.

When a Christian commits a crime, he’s acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus. When a Muslim kills non-Muslims (especially those who will be fighting against Muslims), he’s perfectly in line with the teachings of Islam. But the media will never say such a thing.

So why are Muslims claiming to be victims when non-Muslims are being killed? As Robert Spencer notes,

CAIR knows well that victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for Muslims in the U.S., they can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. Source.

Indeed, CAIR has often resorted to fabricating hate crimes and statistics in order to mislead people into believing that hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry give the actual statistics in their new book, Muslim Mafia:

After 9/11, CAIR cited an explosion in anti-Islamic hate crimes in demanding more outreach with the FBI and special rights and protections for Muslims. “Unlike any other past crisis,” CAIR claimed, “the post-September 11 anti-Muslim backlash has been the most violent.” But the latest Justice Department data on hate crimes reveal CAIR has been crying wolf. Not only are anti-Islamic hate crimes way down, but they’re a fraction of overall religious hate crimes. The overwhelming majority of such crimes target Jews, something CAIR and other Muslim groups don’t seem all that concerned about. In 2007, a whopping 69 percent of religiously motivated attacks were on Jews, while just 8 percent targeted Muslims–even though the Jewish and Muslim populations are comparable in size. Catholics and Protestants, who together account for almost 9 percent of victims, are subject to as much abuse as Muslims in this country. In the most recent year, anti-Islamic hate crimes totaled 115. While just one hate crime is one too many, that’s a 26 percent drop from 2006 and a 76 percent plunge from 2001. And the number is minuscule compared with the 969 offenses against Jews. For every attack on a Muslim in this country, there are nine against a Jew. (pp. 141-2)

When are people going to catch on to the fact that Muslims are lying about what’s in their sources, lying about the motivation behind terrorist attacks, lying about persecution against them, lying about their true allegiance, and lying about their ultimate goals in the U.S.? When are reporters going to turn to Muslim sources and realize that such lying is allowed in Islam?

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

Fort Hood is not Columbine, Jihad is not to be Dismissed

7. November 2009 by admin.

Jihadi Columbine: We are all Nidal Malik Hasan?

  What Part of “Allahu Akbar” Do You Not Understand?   It is an insult of criminal magnitude, to the intelligence of the American people, that the Media and Military collectively present the Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack at Fort Hood, resulting in the slaughter of American Soldiers and civilians, as anything but what we all know it to be.   Any journalist or Military authority who “needs to study the situation to ascertain motive for the shooting,” needs to be instantly fired, perhaps prosecuted for endangerment of America.
 
So, Army, you were literally preparing soldiers to send them to fight “Terror,” and you don’t know why the man yelling “Allahu Akbar,” tried to murder a roomful of American Soldiers? I am concerned that you won’t know who to shoot at, when you do get to Afghanistan.   Hint…it will be the Muslims shouting “Allahu Akbar.”   We know that Hasan is a radical Muslim Jihadist. A former fellow officer told Shepard Smith, of Fox NEWS, that Nidal had often spoken of the need for Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan to rise up against “American invaders.” The fact that this “little red flag” went unnoticed by anything with a brain-stem in Post-9-11 America defies credibility.   So, the Islamic Cleric who knew him did not notice any “signs of extremism.” The story here is not that Hasan wasn’t, therefore, an extremist, but rather, the American Cleric’s definition of “extremism.”   We are not all Nidal Malik Hasan. Yehuda Bauer said, “Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Thou shalt not be a victim. And thou shalt never, but never, be a bystander.”
Which one are we going to be, Media and Military, and President Barack Hussein Obama, and Anita Mao Dunn, and you, dear reader, and me? Perpetrator, by harming our Country? Or more likely a victim or bystander? Would we really rather die at the hands of Jihadis among us than speak the truth about the War waged on Americans by Radical Islamic Americans? Can we justify sending soldiers to die on foreign soil, fighting an enemy we are spineless to destroy here, in Texas?   I do not know how to avoid being a victim, because I cannot take up a weapon to defend myself against the next Radical Muslim who decides Allah wants me to die. But, even if it is only with a silly keyboard, I can, at least for now, refuse to be a bystander and be silent about the War.   I am not Nidal Malik Hasan, and Texas was not Columbine, it was the World Trade Centers, it was the Pentagon, it was a field in Pennsylvania. And Nidal Malik Hasan was not a member of the Trench-Coat Mafia – he was just another missionary of the Religion of Peace.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Texas, Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

“Sudden Jihadi Syndrome” Strikes: Muslim Army Psychiatrist Kills 13 Soldiers in Texas

7. November 2009 by admin.

A Muslim army psychiatrist burst into a bout of Jihadi fit, shooting at soldiers lined up for signing for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing 12 and wounding 31. It appears to another perfect case of the familiar “Sudden Jihadi Syndrome” among Muslims…

---

We have heard too often from Muslim public relations czars in the West that Muslims are peaceful patriotic people. Muslim American citizens would tell you that they are patriotic; they love America; America is their home. President Obama would tell you that America is a Muslim nation, that Muslims have made great contributions to the making of America. So, when a Jihadi attack occurs or a Jihadi terror plot is busted, the so-called moderate Muslims would go around shrilling that the entire Muslim community should not be maligned for the actions of a few bad apples. While it is undeniable that most Muslims go about their business on most days like any other peaceful citizen, it also becomes clear that quite often an otherwise-most-peaceful Muslim give in to the teaching and the urge to carry out Jihad, his holy duty to Allah/Muhammad and his faith. This well-established pattern, the ‘Sudden Jihadi Syndrome’, it seems, has struck in America once again. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, trained as army psychiatrist, had his day on Thursday, Nov. 5. Stricken by a bout of Sudden Jihadi Syndrome, he went on rampage of shooting and massacring his colleagues at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, killing 13 and wounding another 30.
While some papers, like Huffington Post, are trying to raise doubts as to whether Major Hasan is a Muslim at all, Hasan’s cousin, told ABC News that he was “a pious lifelong Muslim”. Born in Virginia to Jordanian parents and single with no children, Hasan had worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington for 6 years before he was reassigned to Fort Hood July. In 2009, according to ABC News, he completed a fellowship in Disaster and Preventative Psychiatry at the Center for Traumatic Stress there. One is left to wonder whether Hasan was a marginalized extremist, although some Muslim public relations and media mouthpiece may portray him as one to be so. It was a perfect moment for Hasan to carry out his pious duty of Jihad, which according to Ghazzali, Muslims should do at least once a year, while Muhammad and his companions did it continuously while in Medina. And the moment was: Army recruits had lined up to sign up for going to Iraq and Afghanistan; these are infidels readying themselves for defiling the Muslim lands and kill his Muslim brethren; there’s no better way to do Jihad for his faith than taking these infidel murderers down; he took two handguns to work; and as the recruits lined up in columns to sign up, Hasan took his loaded handguns out in his two hands and started shooting into the column to soldiers to take down as many as possible. The end-result of Jihad effort was astounding: 12 infidel soldiers dead; 30 others wounded. He has outperformed Muhammad’s stellar performance at the famous victory at Badr, where there were 15 Muslim casualties against 49 opponents. Go here to source at Islam Watch

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Texas, Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

Talk-radio’s Boyles: ‘Political correctness’ to blame for Fort Hood killings

7. November 2009 by admin.

Argues PC policies facilitated suspect’s rise in the military; anti-discrimination expert dispels myths surrounding suspect identifying as Palestinian

 http://bit.ly/Ftgmq” title=”Tweet this!” target=”_blank”> By Joseph Boven 11/6/09 5:56 PM

Friday afternoon KHOW talk-radio host Peter Boyles, referring to the shooting-spree murder of 12 soldiers and 1 civilian at Fort Hood in Texas Thursday, proclaimed that Islam is at war with America.
Boyles also said the suspect in the shooting, a U.S. Army officer, had benefited from “political correctness” in his military career and should have been the subject of suspicion for writing that he was of Palestinian descent at his mosque.

KHOW’s Peter Boyles

“The Bush administration on into the Obama administration continues to say, ‘You know, we are not at war with Islam.’ Well, you know what? I am convinced that Islam is at war with you,” Boyles said. “What is it that you want to do? We have a president of this Christian nation, as they say, saying that we are not at war with Islam. I think that Islam is at war with us. I think that smart people know that.”
On Thursday 13 people were murdered and 31 others injured at Fort Hood after a gunman opened fire. Suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a military psychiatrist and practicing Muslim, was shot multiple times. He is now in custody.
Boyles, discussing the tragedy, told listeners that political correctness facilitated Hasan’s rise in the military and his access to weaponry. He also suggested that Hasan, who was born in Virginia, had no business being in the U.S. military because he was Muslim.
“[We’re] fighting Islamic terrorists without and within. This guy [Hasan] had no business being in the service. He had no business being in. I am sorry. I don’t care. Why is it that all of these people who come here legally and illegally seem to have a problem identifying with this country? I am sick and tired of it. This guy was a time bomb waiting to happen for the good of Allah. Born in the United States of America but puts himself down in nationality as Palestinian. Islam is a religion but it is much more. It is a culture. It is a way of life…
“I am telling you today that political correctness has gone so far that we allow a guy who openly had sympathies for the very people we are at war with to be promoted to an officer in the military. Given access to our troops. Access to weapons. Can you imagine a Nazi sympathizer accepted in the United States Army in the second world war. …”
Abed Ayoub, legal adviser to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, told the Colorado Independent that since news of the Fort Hood shootings broke, his organization has been in “crisis mode” monitoring and responding to tirades like Boyles’ as well as hate speech and threats.
“It’s just the blogosphere, the radio… Something like this sets it off. Where do you begin with the ignorance like this?” he asked.
“Muslim-Americans have been serving honorably in the U.S. military since the Civil War, literally for generations. Three Arab-Americans have received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Colin Powell referenced a mother at the grave of her deceased son, an American soldier who gave his life in what we used to call the War on Terror. We have to just keep repeating the facts.”
Ayoub went on to address Boyles’ statement that Hasan “lists his nationality as a Palestinian,” apparently a reference to news reports that Hasan had filled out a form at a mosque in Maryland in which he listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian. Ayoub said there was nothing unusual or suspect in that. Hasan listed his ethnicity with his mosque the same way that millions of practicing Muslims do in this country.
“You go the the church and list your country of origin, your background. It serves to connect the communities. I list my background as Syrian or Lebanese. It’s like Christians in America attending an Irish Catholic church [because of their Irish heritage]. There’s nothing more than that to read into this.”
In fact, he said, much of the discussion surrounding Hasan’s self-description as a Palestinian assumes certain stereotypes.
“We see people equating ‘Palestinian’ with terror and violence. That’s simply not the case. It doesn’t make you a bad or violent person that you or your parents were born in Palestine, that you’re Palestinian.”
The salient fact, Ayoub said, is that attacks on military bases have been escalating for a decade.
“The issue is what these soldiers are going through. That’s what we have to be looking at. The shooting in Orlando today, no one is asking about the ethnicity or religion of the suspect.”
In an exchange with a caller, Boyles said political correctness was the cause of the shooting and will be “the demise of this country.” He argued that political correctness forced the University of Colorado Boulder to install a Muslim prayer room at the student center — an apparent reference to plans for a non-denominational space for prayer and meditation in the new Center for Community.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Texas, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

OBAMA’S AF-PAK TROIKA FAILS TO DELIVER

6. November 2009 by admin.

By B.Raman

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers32/paper3186.html US policy-makers had hoped that the taking-over of Gen. David Petraeus as the commander of the US Central Command, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the US Commander in Afghanistan working under Gen.Petraeus would bring about a more proactive strategy to weaken the Taliban and create a divide between it and the Afghan people. The two had earned a reputation in Iraq for reversing the fortunes of Al Qaeda and the former Baathist soldiers of Saddam Hussein, creating a divide between the two and enlisting the support of different tribal leaders and through them their followers for the US military operations. The improvement in the ground situation in Iraq—-though not yet irreversible— was largely due to their thinking, planning and execution. 2. Hopes in Washington that the two Generals would bring about similar results in Afghanistan have been belied so far.The Af-Pak troika of the administration of Barack Obama—- Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special representative for the Af-Pak region, who handles the political and diplomatic angles, and the two Generals— has not been able to come to grips with the problem almost six months after the new Af-Pak policy of the Obama adminstration was launched in March last. The present ground situation favours the Pakistan-based Neo Taliban. Since the two Generals took over, the Neo Taliban has been able to increase and strengthen its presence in the north too. The situation is still one of a bleeding stalemate, but the prospects of the US-led forces breaking the stalemate and prevailing over the Neo Taliban are not any the brighter since the two Generals took over. 3. The dilemma posed by the worrisome ground situation is reflected in the growing impression that Obama’s Af-Pak strategy has failed to take off and is unlikely to take off and that the time has come to think of a new strategy in which the key to success would be in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan.Vice-President Joe Biden seems to favour a change of focus from a Neo Taliban-centric strategy in Afghanistan to an Al Qaeda-centric one in Pakistan. 4.Presently, the political pressure is on Pakistan to act against the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements operating from sanctuaries in its territory and on the Hamid Karzai Government in Kabul to improve governance, reduce corruption and pay better attention to the problems of the people in the areas controlled by the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the US-led Western forces. 5. Neither of these pressures has worked. Nor have the never-ending incentives offered by the US to Pakistan—the latest of which is the expected passage by both Houses of the US Congress of the Kerry-Lugar Bill making a long term commitment of US$ 7.5 billion to Pakistan in the form of non-military aid over a period of five years. The military aid, which too continues to increase, will be in addition. Original expectations when Obama assumed office in January last that strict benchmarks would be laid down for the periodic disbursements of this aid in order to ensure that Pakistan does act sincerely and firmly against the terrorists have been belied.The more Pakistan is pampered, the less it acts against the terrorists. That has been the lesson since 9/11 and this lesson has not been learnt by the officials of the Obama administration.This is evident even from the grim Assessment dated August 30,2009, prepared by Gen.McChrystal, on the basis of which he is reported to be planning to ask for another surge of 21000 US troops— a request over which Obama is reportedly not enthusiastic. 6. The pressures on Karzai to improve governance have not worked either. This is partly due to the difficult ground situation, which would pose a dilemma to any ruler—however democratic and however competent. Moreover, instead of strengthening the position of Karzai, US officials have done everything to weaken his credibility in the eyes of his own people as well as the international community through allegations—some true, many unwisely inspired— regarding his inability or unwillingness to act against corruption and narcotics production and rigging in the Presidential elections. Even if he wins the elections in the first round itself—-as he is expected to— the importance of that victory has already been diluted by these allegations. US officials take a lot of care not to say or do anything, which might weaken the position of the Pakistani leadership, but they do not take similar care in respect of Karzai. 7.In the existing gloomy scenario, there are only two positive factors, which provide some cheer. Firstly, the improvement in the flow of human intelligence to the US intelligence community from sources in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, which has led to some significant sucesses in the form of eradication of some middle-level leaders of Al Qaeda and even senior leaders of the Pakistan Taliban known as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) by US drone strikes. After having eliminated Baitullah Mehsud, the Amir of the TTP, the Drone strikes are now focussed on eliminating the Haqqani network consisting of the old Soviet era mujahideen warrior Jalaluddin Haqqani and his sons. If the US succeeds in eliminating the Haqqani network— I hope it will— the pressure on the US forces in Afghan territory could lessen— at least in the short term. As against this, the impact of the elimination of Baitullah on the ground situation in Afghanistan would be minimal. His elimination was more a boon to the Pakistani security forces grappling with terrorists of their own creation in their territory than to the US-led Western forces in Afghanistan. 8.The second positive factor is the role of India as a force for stability in Afghanistan. Any objective analyst has to concede that the various road construction, democracy-promotion and people-oriented programmes undertaken by India in the areas controlled by the Government of Afghanistan have benefitted not only the people of Afghanistan immensely, but also the long-term Western objective of a democratic, modern Afghanistan. 9. One would have expected the US policy-makers not only to recognise the importance of retaining the role of India as a force for stability, but also encouraging India to expand further its people-oriented role in Afghanistan. In his assessment, McChrystal recognises — though somewhat grudgingly– the beneficial role of India and the support for that role from the Karzai Government, but one is surprised to find that he shows understanding for the Pakistani concerns over India’s role and hints that these concerns have to be taken into consideration while formulating any revised strategy. He himself says that no strategy will work unless it is people-oriented, but at the same time wants something to be done to address Pakistani concerns over India’s people-oriented role. 10.The Afghan people—whether Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbecks or others— distrust and hate the Pakistanis after seeing the role played by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the creation and fattening of the Taliban since 1994. One saw the extent of the hatred for the Pakistanis when the American and Northern Alliance troops entered Kabul in 2001 under Operation Enduring Freedom. Pakistanis assisting the Taliban Government in Kabul were hunted, killed and their dead bodies thrown into the gutters of Kabul. 11. Gen.McChrystal’s ideas, if implemented, would provide an environment for the re-assertion of the hated Pakistani role by paying attention to Pakistani concerns over India’s positive role.This shows how short-sighted US policy-makers and military-officers can be.The General’s assessment is disappointing because it fails to put its finger on the crux of the dilemma being faced by the US-led Western forces, similar to the dilemma which the Soviet troops faced in Afghanistan in the 1980s before they decided to quit in 1988.This dilemma arose in the case of the Soviet troops and has now arisen in the case of the US-led Western troops from the absence of a counter-sanctuaries component to the counter-insurgency strategy. 12.The reluctance of the Soviet troops to take their fighting to the sanctuaries of the Afghan Mujahideen in Pakistani territory led to a situation where the Soviet troops kept bleeding till battle fatigue and public disenchantment with the war set in. Similarly, the absence of an effective counter-sanctuaries component is leading to a situation where the US and other Western forces as well as the ANA are bleeding more and more. There are already the incipient signs of a battle fatigue as cound be seen even from the General’s assessment and the beginning of a public disenchantment with the involvement in Afghanistan. This disenchantment is already pronounced in West Europe and Canada and one could see the beginning of it even in the US. Instead of allowing the Neo Taliban to infiltrate in increasing numbers from its sanctuaries and recruiting grounds in the FATA and the Pashtun majority areas of Balochistan and then fighting or countering their ambushes in Afghan territory, the US should take its counter-insurgency operations to the camps of the Neo Taliban in adjoining Pakistani territory—-whether in the FATA or in Balochistan. 13. The US already has an air-mounted counter-sanctuaries strategy in the FATA with the help of the Drones, which provide a deniable way of hitting at the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and the Neo Taliban. This strategy has had its successes, but, despite them, has proved inadequate. Initially, these strikes were concentrated on the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda and its allies in North Waziristan. Earlier this year, when there was a danger of the TTP expanding its presence to the non-tribal areas and posing a danger to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the focus of the Drone strikes shifted to South Waziristan against the sanctuaries of the TTP.During the last six months or so, the objective of these strikes became not protecting the NATO forces and the ANA in Afghanistan from attacks mounted from the Pakistani territory, but assisting the Pakistan Army in reversing the advance of the TTP into the non-tribal areas. After killing Baitullah in the first week of August, the US has again changed the direction and is now focussing on the Haqqani network, whose threat is more in Afghan territory than in the FATA. The US has not been able to mount a full-scale operation against Al Qaeda sanctuaries in North Waziristan due to the dispersal of its resources to South Waziristan for use against the TTP. 14. Even this limited success has not been there against the staging grounds of the Neo Taliban in Balochistan.The US continues to depend on the Pakistan Army for action against the sanctuaries of the Neo Taliban. The ISI-sponsored Neo Taliban is the only asset left with the Pakistan Army for regaining its primacy in Afghanistan if and when the US and other Western troops leave Afghanistan. Pakistan wants to regain this primacy without the direct deployment of its own army as it did in the 1990s. If the US is waiting for the Pakistan Army to act against the Neo Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistani territory, this is not going to happen. The US has only two alternatives—either itself act against the sanctuaries in Balochistan and destroy the Neo Taliban leadership in order to restore the damaged image of the US forces in Afghanistan, thereby paving the way for an honourable exit or keep its operations confined to Afghan territory, thereby continuing to bleed and face the prospect of an exit forced on the US by the Neo Taliban under humiliating conditions. 15.The role of the Drones—even if extended to Balochistan– may not be as effective as their role in the FATA. The places in the FATA where the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda,the TTP and the Haqqani network are located are far from inhabited areas. The dangers of civilian fatalities are not large. In the Quetta and adjoining areas of Balochistan, the sanctuaries of the Neo Taliban are located in inhabited areas. It would be very difficult—almost impossible—to avoid large civilian fatalities. Deniable ground operations would, therefore, be necessary to eliminate the sanctuaries of the Neo Taliban. The US has the capability for such ground operations, but does not have the political will to use it lest it add to the already high anti-US feelings in Pakistan and affect even the limited co-operration which it has presently been getting from Pakistan in the FATA. 16. This danger of adverse reaction in Pakistan has to be faced if the US wants to bring about better ground conditions, which would enable it to contemplate withdrawing from Afghanistan with honour and with some confidence that Afghanistan will not revert to its pre-9/11 position of being the rear base for Al Qaeda. Before contemplating withdrawal, the US has to destroy Al Qaeda sanctuaries, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, in the FATA, the Haqqani network and the Neo Taliban sanctuaries in Balochistan. It has to come to terms with the hard reality that this is something which the US has to do without depending on Pakistan.Pakistan and Al Qaeda are biding their time hoping that after the US withdrawal, they can move into Afghanistan once again. This should not be allowed to happen. 17. Instead of discussing the various options available in this regard,McChrystal’s report skirts the crux of the dilemma and discusses other issues having little relevance to a counter-sanctuaries strategy. His assessment reads more like one prepared by a senior officer attending a joint staff course than a recommendation for action prepared by an officer in charge of command and control. It is possible there is a classified part of the Assessment in which McChrystal discusses a counter-sanctuaries strategy. If not, his thinking doesn’t bode well for the ultimate success of the US operations in the Af-Pak region. 18. This may please be read in continuation of my earlier paper of May 13,2009, titled “The Af-Pak Situation–An Update”, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers32/paper3186.html (27-9-09) (The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Afganistan, Politics, Pakistan, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

Future of Pakistan

6. November 2009 by admin.

http://watching-history.blogspot.com/2009/10/future-of-pakistan.html

Recent history in Pakistan seems to bear a similarity to events in Iran during the rule of the Shah. The recent leadership of Pakistan has been similar in several ways to that of the Shah. In both countries the leaders were strongly backed by the United States. Both were involved in repressing or attacking their own people. In Iran, this led the revolution of 1979 which created an Islamic Republic. Could something similar happen in Pakistan? In 1953, the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq, was replaced by the Shah in a US and British led coup. The US and their CIA provided funding and support to the Shah during his resign, and helped to establish the dreaded SAVAK secret police force. SAVAK tortured and executed thousands during the Shah’s rule, and imprisoned many more. 1n Pakistan, the democratically elected leader, Nawaz Sharif was deposed in a military coup in 1999 by General Musharraf. While the US was not involved in this coup, the Bush administration strongly supported Musharraf after 9/11 and provided him with significant funding. Musharraf was pressured to resign in 2008 and Pakistan did elect a new leader, Asif Ali Zardari, though he has maintained close ties to the US and has continued similar policies. Under the Obama administration, the US has remained a strong backer of Zardari and is continuing to provide aid to his government. After 9/11 Musharraf was threatened by the US to side with them against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under pressure from the US, and worried about closer ties between India and the US, Musharraf agreed and provided the US with the use of three airbases, as well as other support. In the following years, the Pakistan army took an active role in the war, with forces operating at the Afghan border and well as pursuing domestic al-qaeda and Taliban militants. In recent years, Pakistan has supported and permitted (though sometimes reluctantly) the United States use of unmanned drones to bomb suspected militant sites within Pakistani territory. This bombing has escalated considerably in the past couple years. For nationalistic reasons, and concern over civilian casualties, the Pakistani public has been very critical of these attacks and many consider them attacks on Pakistani sovereignty or even acts of terror. In a recent visit to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sharply questioned over these attacks. Earlier this year, the Pakistani military began a major escalation in their fight against the Taliban with an assault on the Swat Valley region. This resulted in the displacement of over 2 million people, and many casualties among militants, army and civilians. More recently, there is an offensive underway in South Waziristan, which has triggered large bombings and civilian casualties. All schools across the nation have been closed for an indefinite period of time. A recent poll by Gallup Pakistan was undertaken to gauge public sentiment. The results should not be too surprising given the above. Only 9 percent of Pakistanis support the drone attacks, while 67 percent oppose. More people support dialogue with the Taliban than military action (43 percent to 41). President Zardari has the support of only 11 percent of the population (with his party having only 20 percent support). Perhaps more telling, only 11 percent consider the Taliban the greatest threat to Pakistan, while 59 percent consider the United States the largest threat. Clearly, the US is deeply unpopular in Pakistan, and the vast majority of people do not support their government’s alliance with the US. Another issue is that of US aid. The US congress has passed an aid package for Pakistan, which imposes several conditions, including one which critics suggest results in US oversight of the Pakistani military. Pakistanis have responded with street protests and claim this is a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. It is possible the US will modify the bill to improve the language, but the damage is already done. Pakistanis are distrustful of any aid from the US. Another large complaint is that US contractors are operating with impunity within Pakistan, and that they are carrying weapons illegally. There are many differences between Iran and Pakistan, of course, and one situation can never parallel another completely. Also, even when there are similar situations, the outcome can sometimes be different. Still, there are lessons to be learned from history. A government supported by a foreign power most citizens do not like or identify with, that represses and kills its own people, is not in a stable situation. There are many examples in history of such situations others than Iran, and many of them have had similar outcomes. Pakistan’s alignment with the US and US interests appears to be the largest factor causing instability within that country. The majority of Pakistanis do not support this role nor any domestic government that follows it. I will predict that unless there is an election in Pakistan of a government that follows the will of its people more closely, the likelihood of a revolution, coup, or breakup will increase over time. Eventually the situation will become untenable, and one of these outcomes will come to pass.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Pakistan | Print | No Comments »

Has America reached turning point in Afghanistan?

6. November 2009 by admin.

by Rupert Cornwell

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090929/edit.htm#6 Six months after proclaiming a new commitment to the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama is under growing pressure to make what would amount to a U-turn in US policy and scale back America’s commitment to a conflict that many experts – and a majority of the public – now fear may be unwinnable.
The debate, which divides Mr Obama’s most senior advisers, was thrown into stark relief by the leaked report of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan, warning that the war might be lost within a year without a further boost in troop strength and a major change in strategy to combat the spreading Taliban insurgency.
General McChrystal’s bleak assessment coupled with Washington’s frustration with the Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and the fraud-ridden election over which he presided, has reignited a rift between Vice-President Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, over how the war should be waged. It has also left Mr Obama facing a fateful choice: whether to go along with his generals and send yet more troops, or stand current policy on its head.
Spoken or unspoken, behind the debate lurks the shade of Vietnam. It emerged that The Washington Post, the first to report General McChrystal’s devastating 66-page memorandum, agreed to delay publication by 24 hours, omitting elements relating to future tactics that the Pentagon and White House said might endanger American troops on the front lines in Afghanistan.
Bob Woodward, the paper’s investigative reporter, who broke the story, compares the document to the secret history of the Vietnam war that caused a sensation when it was obtained in 1971 by The New York Times. The so-called Pentagon Papers “came out eight years too late,” Mr Woodward says.
The stakes are now huge – so huge that the President barely mentioned Afghanistan in his address to the United Nations General Assembly. If Washington is perceived as opposing a further troop build-up, or leaning towards a reduction, then other countries in the coalition, where the eight-year-long war is even more unpopular than here, will rush for the exits.
Hitherto, the issue of the war in Afghanistan has seemed straightforward. In contrast to Iraq, Afghanistan has been the “good war” – a war of necessity, fought to make sure that a repeat of the 9/11 attacks, directed from Afghanistan by an al-Qa’ida sheltered by the Taliban, would never occur again.
Underlining this reinvigorated commitment, Mr Obama authorised an increase in US strength in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of the year, and named General McChrystal, previously in charge of US special forces, as his new commander on the ground. But the latter’s recommendation of a boost of 30,000 to 40,000 confronts this president with a dilemma akin to that facing his predecessor over Iraq three years ago: to surge or not to surge? And views within the administration differ sharply.
Essentially the choice, in strategic jargon, is between counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. The latter, implying a broad war against the Taliban to prevent it returning to power, seems to be what General McChrystal has in mind, and has long been backed by Mrs Clinton. Only this week, she had scathing words for those who argued that al-Qa’ida was no longer a factor in Afghanistan. “If Afghanistan is taken over again by the Taliban, I can’t tell you how fast al-Qa’ida would be back.”
The Vice-President, on the other hand, wants a narrower focus on al-Qa’ida itself, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where security forces have scored some important recent successes against the terrorist organisation and its Taliban allies. Under this approach, the US would require fewer forces in the field.
Instead of trying to protect the general population from the Taliban and operating a “hearts and minds” policy to win over civilian support, it would concentrate on targeted strikes on al-Qa’ida operatives, relying on umnanned drones, missile attacks and the special forces where General McChrystal is an expert. Simultaneously the training of Afghan government forces would be speeded up.
A third faction advocates a compromise, either scaling back the requested troop increase, or even starting to reverse it, while at the same time ensuring that the country does not collapse into chaos.
The White House and Pentagon are now studying the report, and it will be “weeks” before a decision is made, administration officials say.
But Mr Obama, once so trenchant on the subject, is now hedging his bets. All options are on the table, he indicated during his blitz of the Sunday talk shows last weekend. “The first question is, are we doing the right thing?” he told CNN.
As it is, public support for the conflict is dropping sharply, too. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll yesterday, 59 per cent of those surveyed were now “less confident” that the US could achieve a successful end to the war. More than half opposed an increase in American forces, while a third wanted an immediate pullout.
This growing pessimism is visible on Capitol Hill, too. Earlier this month, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, warned that neither Capitol Hill nor ordinary voters are in the mood for sending more soldiers to a war that has already taken almost 900 American lives – and 51 in August alone. Then Michigan’s Carl Levin, chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, declared that the US should send no more troops before a “surge” in Afghan security forces. But as even Pentagon officials concede, training Afghan forces up to the required standard of competence – not to mention loyalty – will be even more difficult than it was in Iraq.
Complicating matters further, Congressional leadersare now demanding a personal accounting from General McChrystal on how the war is going. For the moment Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary, has resisted the pressure, insisting the commander will only appear on Capitol Hill when a new policy has been decided. But if US casualties continue to grow, he may have little choice in the matter. In the meantime, Mr Obama is increasingly in a corner.
As Republicans constantly remind him, for the US to wind down its commitment would send a message of weakness and inconsistency to friends and foes alike. But to press on with a long, inconclusive war in a distant corner of Asia carries well-known and equal perils.
Once again, events are bearing out the famous aphorism of Mark Twain, that “while history doesn’t repeat itself, it rhymes”.
— By arrangement with The Independent

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Afganistan, Obama, Politics | Print | No Comments »