JOHN GALT
February 5, 2014
Part I Can Be Found - Here
Unlike in the areas of
economic and political restructuring of the old USA, where the president
is so faithfully following the teachings of his ideological
predecessors, in dealing with the issue of terrorism his policies are
full of strategic blunders and tactical inconsistencies.
In Egypt, President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood
and president Mohamed Morsi from the outset. Even after Morsi was
ousted, Obama continued efforts to reinstate the Muslim Brotherhood to
power. Why? As his argument goes, the Egyptians had an election and the
Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected. Therefore, it is a
legitimate government and we must support a democracy. I hate to point
out to the constitutional scholar that he is confusing elections with
democracy. We should have learned by now that elections do not
necessarily result in democratic institutions. Elections are only an
instrument of democracy, no more, no less. This instrument of democracy
in many instances has malfunctioned and provided legitimacy to
oppressive and totalitarian regimes. There are number of examples of
where democratic elections failed to produce a democracy: Hamas in the
West Bank, Salvador Allende in Chili, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and
Adolf Hitler in Germany, to name just a few. We see the almost identical
development in Syria, where the United States finds itself on the side
of terrorists.
To be fair, Obama is not the first president of the United States to
actively support terrorists; it would seem that supporting terrorists
has been a long-standing policy of the United States government and
cuts across party lines.
President Carter supported Ayatollah Khomeini and called
him a "peaceful and holy man." In August 1982, Ronald Reagan sent
Marines to Lebanon to save the Palestine Liberation Organization from
complete annihilation when the Israelis cornered terrorists in Beirut.
Just think about this utterly obscene picture-American Marines
protecting PLO terrorists. America paid a heavy price for the
involvement when 241 U.S. Marines died in a terrorist attack on their
compound at Beirut International Airport in October 1983.
President Clinton turned down at least three offers by foreign governments to help seize Osama bin Laden.
When Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Jr., Obama's "spiritual
mentor," proclaimed in a sermon that "America's chickens are coming home
to roost," although it was a reprehensible statement, he may have had a
point. Decades of frolicking with terrorists bears a heavy price, and
it's an interesting mental exercise to play "if only." If only President
Carter had not betrayed the Shah of Iran, contemporary Iran would not
be run by ayatollahs. If only President Reagan had not sent the Marines
to Lebanon, the Israelis would have eliminated the PLO once and for all
and thousands of Israelis and 241 brave Marines would still be alive. If
only President
Clinton had killed
Osama bin Laden, 9/11 might never have happened.
If only America was more prudent, our leaders more determined. If
only...our presidents and the American people had learned from history.
The president, by practicing the politics of appeasement,
has a difficult time coming to terms with the teachings of his
ideological mentor and the father of modern terrorism, Vladimir Lenin.
Lenin, who both perpetrated terrorism and was on the receiving end,
taught that
"Terror can be conquered only with greater terror."
Obama's failure to call our conflict with Islam a war has
resulted in wide-spread confusion. On the one hand, the president never
misses a chance to release captured terrorists back into their
environment, so they can continue killing. On the other hand, American
drones are killing terrorists with deadly precision in Afghanistan,
Yemen, and other parts of the world so efficiently that they cannot
replace their commanders fast enough. At one point the administration
decided to prosecute Al Qaeda leaders including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
as civilians in domestic U.S. courts even though there was a good chance
that the terrorists would beat the rap on technicalities, just like
Bill Ayers (another terrorist who is also Obama's friend), and walk
free. Later, the president approved a raid in Pakistan to kill Osama bin
Laden. It seems Obama is torn between his sympathies for Islam and the
realities of war.
Once again, the president appears to be caught in
conflicting currents. He insists that acts of terrorism are legal issues
and must be dealt with by our legal system. Despite the fact that Obama
refuses to call this conflict a war, he is sending drones abroad to
kill people (even Americans) without due process. If this is indeed a
war, no American civil or criminal law applies, and the president's
actions are fully justified. However, if this is not a war, then how can
the president execute people, including Americans, without due process?
Although Obama does not call this conflict a war, he nonetheless
personally chooses the drone "kill" targets, as recently revealed in the
New York Times. Although deciding who lives and who dies may
play well into the president's feeling of eminence; it is neither legal
nor does it do much to win a war.
Just as in domestic politics, the president may choose to
ignore reality, but he cannot change it. The reality is that we are in a
state of war: the Third World War. In order to win a war, we have to
understand the enemy and its objectives. Napoleon once said, "If you do
not understand your enemy, you have lost." His words should be taken as a
warning, in effect, of worse to come. To say most Muslims are moderates
and have nothing to do with the fanatical Islamic terrorists is like
saying the Germans were a highly cultured, peaceful people and that the
mass murder of Jews was perpetrated by National Socialist extremists.
There are many striking similarities between Nazi Germany and today's
Muslim world, all of which this current administration and the Left have
chosen to ignore.
The Nazis' doctrine called for supremacy of the Aryan race and
extermination of the Jews. I am sure that the Left (which has many
Jewish supporters) would consider those policies "extreme." However, the
Left fails to recognize that, like the Nazis' doctrine, the Koran
segregates the human race into two groups: Muslims and infidels; and
just like the Nazis' doctrine, the Koran calls for the killing of
infidels and, more specifically, the killing of Jews. The Muslims' view
of the world is that they alone possess absolute knowledge and the
God-given supreme right over the infidels. In both instances we are
dealing with a sector of society that claims superiority over the rest
of the human race and seeks to have them destroyed or enslaved. Make no
mistake: Islam is not just a religion; it is also a political
totalitarian movement, just like communism and fascism. The movement
embraces a fanatical agenda that includes racial supremacy and a
Marxist-type utopian/egalitarian standard of virtue. However, unlike
communism and fascism, which were adopted by countries that could be
defeated, Islam is represented by unlimited human resources around the
globe that cannot be defeated in strictly military terms.
The Muslims of the world are united in the epic struggle to
provide moral, financial, and logistical support to those who are on the
front line of war with the infidels. That silent but effective network
of support allows terrorists to avoid security forces, survive, plan,
recruit new members, and provide training.
Part III will continue tomorrow
No comments:
Post a Comment