PostHeaderIcon Ending Jihad

Most Americans were rather naïve regarding Jihad when we were blindsided by 9/11. Sure, we knew that Muslim Arabs hated Jewish Arabs to the point of irrational suicide bombers attacking Israel’s pizza parlors and such, but we had been taught to believe that conflict was essentially an ancient dispute over territory, which had essentially been going on since Moses led the first invasion of Palestine.

Yes, we would occasionally experience a terrorist attack in the region ourselves, and just assumed it was because we were allies and supporters of Israel. 9/11 changed everything in my mind. Not only was it a dastardly sneak attack on our homeland, I just couldn’t get my head around what could possibly motivate a score of well-educated Saudi Arabians (ostensibly our second-best ally in the region) to deliberately commit suicide, while flying four hijacked planes into our iconic buildings killing thousands of ‘innocent’ civilians. I remember immediately buying and reading Thomas Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” followed by “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” to try to acquire a better understanding of Middle East politics and religion, and what their real grievance might be with us.

Like most red-blooded Jacksonian Americans, I was ready for some serious retribution against whoever was responsible, regardless of their motive. Our resident swaggering Texas cowboy in the White House, was more than willing to step up to the challenge, and initially won a lot of respect when he did. Yet, since it appeared that we were not attacked by another country; but by a shadowy international NGO of fundamentalist religious fanatics, who and where were they? Our smart bombs needed coordinates.

In our naiveté, we had to rely on our government to name the enemy we needed to fight and vanquish. This is where Bush & Co. let us down, because he declared war on ‘terrorism,’ which is a tactic, not an enemy or his address. Although Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda openly claimed they were on a Jihad for Allah, Bush went out of his way to try to convince us that Islam was a peaceful religion, which was being ‘hijacked’ by ‘extremists.’ In my subsequent research and studies of it, I have concluded that it is pretty near the opposite. The so-called moderate Muslims try not to take the Quran too literally, and ignore much of its teachings calling for violent Jihad. The Jihadists are on firm ground claiming to be the true followers of the explicit teachings of Muhammad, their revered prophet.

I need not bother to comment on what a disaster Barack Husein Obama has been, to our now paltry efforts to defend Americans from the hordes of deranged, barbarous, Jihadist, fanatics, now bent on conquering the entire world for Allah. I think by now it is more than fair to conclude that his name, his Marxist and Black Muslim roots, and the Marxist anti-colonial dreams he inherited from his African Muslim father, which he articulated in his autobiography, are indicative of his obvious sympathy for the cause of the Jihadists.

WWIV, is the existential struggle currently being waged between Modernity, promoted by Western civilization, and the retrograde savagery of the proponents of… call it Jihadism. This avoids the pointless argument over the current nature of Islam, which is more than just a religion, it is a complete governing system and ideology. This war is going rather badly at this point, because Western civilization is decidedly losing. All Americans, who are sufficiently independent of Washington’s teat for their livelihood to be able to think for themselves, are desperate for a regime change of our own.

They are so fed-up with the Incumbrepublocrat establishment, that the consummate outsider Donald Trump has been leading the polls for months. One would think it would be a great opportunity for a libertarian to have a shot. Unfortunately, too many politicos of a libertarian persuasion seem to have a knee-jerk anti-war, anti-military stance, which alienates conservatives and anyone inclined to a strong national defense posture. Can you picture Ron or Rand Paul donning the arguably necessary swagger to lead the charge like Bush after 9/11? Me neither. How about Trump or Carly? Me too. 🙂

Libertarian thinking has made serious inroads into conservative minds since the TEA Party came on the scene. We generally agree on the Constitution, limited government, fiscal restraint, and free market capitalism. We often disagree on so-called ‘social issues’; but this is not necessarily a deal killer for many. The two issues that do stop conservatives cold, from seriously considering libertarian philosophy, is drugs and national defense, particularly the latter. Most regrettably, to most social conservatives, a pot-smoking, anti-war, ‘hippy’ is a Lefty, whatever their fiscal persuasion. 🙂

Thus, I was delighted to read a new article, written in response to the Paris attack, by our old friend Professor Biddle from the Objective Standard. Entitled, “Ten Steps to End Jihad Against the West,” the above not so subtle picture of a B-2 was included with it. It was extremely well done, and his analysis is right on the mark in my opinion. Unfortunately, it won’t be read by many, and few understand the link between objectivism and libertarianism anyway.

I fully understand and embrace the libertarian inclination to mind our own business and not go about the world in search of evil dragons to slay. We would do well to tend to our own problems, and leave the rest of the world free to do deal with theirs. Yet, Biddle makes a really valid point in his first step:

I and other contributors to The Objective Standard have written extensively about what Americans and the United States must do to end the jihad against America. But, as is increasingly clear, the target of this metastasizing jihad is broader than America. The target is the West as such. So I’d like here to consider some actions that Westerners and Western nations in general must take if we want to end this murderous assault on the civilized world.

“Western,” in this context, refers not to a geographic location but to a philosophic and cultural disposition. Western people and nations are those that substantially (if imperfectly) embrace and uphold certain Enlightenment values, including: the principle that reason (i.e., observation and logic) is man’s means of knowledge; the principle that individuals have moral rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the principle that political freedom—including freedom of conscience and expression—is essential to civilized society. These are the basic ideas denoted by the concept of “Western,” and the West’s implementation of these ideas is the basic reason that jihadists are attacking us.

What must we do to put an end to this jihad? Although each Western nation has its own specific political context, governmental structure, and legal requirements for going to war, there are a number of general actions that all Westerners and/or Western nations can and should take if we want to end this barbarous assault. Here are ten essential steps.

  1. Acknowledge that we are at war.

Westerners must acknowledge that we are at war with Islamic states and jihadist groups that have attacked our countries and killed our countrymen. We are at war regardless of whether our political leaders have declared war, regardless of whether Western intellectuals admit we are at war, regardless of whether anyone acknowledges the fact. Our alternatives do not include whether to go to war. Our alternatives are whether to win the war that is being waged against us, or not to do so. Our alternatives are: victory or submission.

How could any rational person argue with that logic? Defense is not aggression. Take away National Defense, and I see little justification for the very existence of a Federal Government or any of its politicians. If Rand Paul and others truly wish to be taken seriously by those on the Right, they should publicly adopt Biddle’s defense strategy as a ‘libertarian foreign policy’ toward any entity inclined to attack us. Do read the whole thing, and consider broadcasting it far and wide. It is that good… and important. ◄Dave►

11 Responses to “Ending Jihad”

  • Troy says:

    I will most certainly read the entire document. From the snippet you posted, it seems Professor Biddle is on the right track. I will comment further after I have digested his work. Thanks for posting this.

    Troy

  • Troy says:

    OK — initial read is done, full digestion to follow.

    To the extent that I understand what Professor Biddle has said, I totally agree and praise him for saying it so simply and eloquently.

    However, there is an essential first step (Step 0 ??) that is either missing or that I somehow overlooked: We must take back CONTROL OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Our nation is partially led by people who are (at a minimum) in sympathy with the Jihad (although I suspect worse). So long as these people retain any power whatever, executing Professor Biddle’s 10 steps is impossible.

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Of course, I concur Troy. My purpose for sharing this was not some unrealistic hope that it could ever actually be implemented. As you suggest, it would require an unlikely sea change of revolution among the sheeple, to first eliminate the morally corrupt oligarchs controlling the Incumbrepublocrats. Rather, it was my glee at it actually having been articulated by a respected Objectivist of some repute.

      When one seems surrounded by libertarian thought espousing anti-war rhetoric, one can come to question one’s own Jacksonian warrior proclivities for desiring to righteously eliminate such vermin as Jihadists. Just knowing someone of Professor Biddle’s stature and expertise at articulating rational thinking, is in agreement with my own instincts in this matter is most comforting. 🙂 ◄Dave►

  • Mark Martinson says:

    I think the article wss horrible. No mention of immigration.

    Bombing Saudi Arabia would not have prevented Boston, Chatanooga, San Bernadino, etc.

    Also, Biddle supports unlimited Islamic immigration, even into Israel which will destroy Israel.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Thanks for the comment, Mark. While I fail to see what the subject of immigration has to do with his recipe for ending Jihad, you provided the impetus for me to investigate Biddle’s perspective on Immigration and Individual Rights in general. Then his associate, Ari Armstrong offered an important clarification of it in Rights-Respecting Immigration Policy and Muslims. I found both their arguments rather persuasive; but then I am an Objectivist. 🙂

      Yes, permitting open immigration would do to Israel what is has done for America – create a melting pot of ethically diverse citizens, where Jews might ultimately no longer be in political control. Whether such would ‘destroy’ Israel, or perhaps save it from eventually being annihilated by its neighbors, is a matter of opinion. If they followed the Objectivist model proposed by Biddle and Armstrong, I would expect it to be the latter. ◄Dave►

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Oh, and I meant to reply that in my opinion, had we stopped Iran and Saudi Arabia from fomenting and supporting Jihad and Jihadi NGO’s, whether by bombing them or just threatening to do so if they didn’t, back around the time of 9/11, ISIS and all of these Jihadists would have never existed in the first place. Ergo, the San Bernardino et al terrorist attacks would have almost certainly been prevented. ◄Dave►

  • Mark Martinson says:

    How do you know San Bernadino wouldn’t have happened?

    There are millions of Muslims in the US and Europe. Their religion teaches Jihad. Some angry Muslim gets a gun a decides to shoot up a building because he hates the west. Even if some Muslims are guided by Saudi Arabia or Iran, it doesn’t take brains to come up with a way to kill people. Or, are you saying they wouldn’t have the interest. I don’t know about you, but if somone attacked my religion (if I had one) I’d be pissed and want to kill whoever did it.

    Think about it. The US bombs Saudi Arabia. Muslims will burn down all the cities of Europe.

    It’s important to remember that Biddle believes that there should be almost unlimited Islamic immigration into the US, Europe and Israel. So major cities would be majority Islamic.

    Of course Biddle won’t talk about this, or how Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe thanks to immigration.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      How do you know San Bernadino (sic) wouldn’t have happened?

      Conjecture, of course; but such is by no means unfounded. Jihadism was not yet a metastasizing worldwide phenomenon prior to 9/11. Had our response been to unleash our military to utterly and ruthlessly eradicate Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it is unlikely that it ever would have. Done right, without all the hand-wringing over ‘innocent’ Muslims and collateral damage, we might not have even needed to bomb and depose the regimes supporting Jihadism in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

      Iran’s modern largely secular population was more than ready to revolt against the Mullahs, and the last thing the Arab playboys in the House of Saud wanted, was to lose their precarious perch atop their nation’s oil wealth. Had Bush’s “If you support a terrorist…” rhetoric been believed, because we actually meant it, soon it would have been obvious that advocating or supporting Jihadism was very risky behavior.

      Had, at the same time, PC nonsense been set aside, and well-armed rednecks had been free to publicly speak their minds about Jihadists, I reckon few American Muslims would have ever dared to become ‘radicalized.’ As it is, they pretty much are constrained to choose soft targets in the ‘gun-free zones’ found in Progressive governed metropolises. Personally, I have recommended that intelligent citizens stay the hell out of such foolish places, where they might be in violation of local statutes for being armed therein.

      No, if I had a religion, I would hope I had the good sense and manners to keep quiet about my irrational beliefs, not pester others with them, and certainly not try to force others to accept or adopt them. I would further hope that I would be secure enough in such beliefs that I would not have to take it personally when others disagreed with them. Really unkind and stupid sheeple say offensive things in my presence rather frequently, particularly on TV, without my ever once experiencing an urge to decapitate them for it. If I ever did, I expect that I would have no difficulty whatever suppressing it. 🙂

      It’s important to remember that Biddle believes that there should be almost unlimited Islamic immigration into the US, Europe and Israel.

      You are still hung up on the Objectivist position on open immigration. I have already refuted this erroneous assertion. In order to convince yourself to cease repeating this libel against Professor Biddle, I suggest you read the TOS articles I linked to above. They make it clear that it is proper for our government to vet potential immigrants and reject the obviously dangerous ones.

      Both contain the Biddle quote:

      Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.

      It is unclear whether he would classify Jihadists as enemies of America or contagious diseases. After reading the current ‘Ending Jihad’ article itself, it is a safe bet that he would consider them disqualified under one or the other… probably both. 🙂

      The second article by Ari Armstrong ends with:

      What a rights-respecting immigration policy does not do is punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. Although some people who wish to immigrate from Muslim countries are barbarians and should be kept out (or killed), many are rights-respecting people who simply want to come to America to live better lives. Many people wish to immigrate precisely to escape the faith-based or collectivist barbarism of their native lands, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ayn Rand, and countless others have done. And some of these immigrants, Ali and Rand included, are among the greatest freedom fighters in history.

      The notion that a rights-respecting immigration policy would tolerate rights-violating behavior on the part of immigrants, either before or after they move here, is false, and advocates of rights-protecting government would do well to grasp the contradiction involved.

      I reckon that pretty good advice… 🙂 ◄Dave►

      • Mark Martinson says:

        I’m not misrepresenting Professor (is he one?) Biddle. He believes that any Muslim who can pass a screening test (and doesn’t have a disease) should be allowed into the US, Israel and Europe. Since most people could I assume pass such a test, I think saying he supports “almost unlimited Islamic immigration” is accurate.

        The female member of this team was screened.

        Unfortunately Biddle won’t allow contrary posts on his blog, so I am unable to ask him to clarify his position.

        We didn’t have a problem (for the most part) with Islamic terrorism prior to large Islamic immigration. If the man’s parents hadn’t been allowed into the US and his wife hadn’t been allowed into the US, how would this attack have happened?

      • Mark Martinson says:

        Incidentally, it’s not an “Objectivist principle” to support open immigration. While many prominent Objectivists support it, many don’t (Leonard Peikoff doesn’t). Ayn Rand wrote barely a word on immigration.

        http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnImmigration.htm

        And I think you could argue that open immigration is contrary to Objectivism:

        http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2015/07/objectivism-and-immigration.html

  • Mark Martinson says:

    I submitted this to TOS as a comment, but it wasn’t posted:
    ________

    I think the analogy with Shintoism and Nazism is off base. These two ideologies were tied to Germany and Japan. Once you defeated these countries the idelogies were defeated. Islam is different. There are over 4 dozen countries in which Islam is the majority. Defeat one country and the Jihadists will move somewhere else. And if you could defeat all Muslim countries, you would still have to deal wit the fact that Islam is a universalist ideology not tied to any specific country. In this respect it’s closer to Communism. The utter failure to Communism hasn’t meant the end of communism.

    The Romans defeated the Jews and destroyed their temple, 67-73AD. They had to engage in another war against the Jews in 135.

    We also have to deal with the fact that there are millions of Muslims in the west. When they see Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. threatened they will torch the cities of Europe.

    Large scale Islamic immigration to the West I fear has resulted in a permanent Jihadi underclass that is impervious to military action. (Consider the phenomenon of Sudden Jihadi Syndrome which would only increase should the West take military action. It doesn’t require funding or advice from some Mullah in Iran to shoot up a building or run people over with a car, as has happened in Canada.)

    _________

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►