Saturday, February 11, 2006
Cartoons, Nukes & Sun Tzu, Jihadist?
Over 2,000 years ago, Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War and it is still studied as a classic of military insight. Two key points are: that deception is vital to success in a war or an attack; and that a great general wins a war not by fighting battles but by overcoming the enemy's will to fight. These points are still valid today - and even more critical in an age when Information and WMD (or their threat) are primary components of conflict. Our military understand this; I'm not so sure about some of our politicians and news-media pundits.
But the real question is - are our militant Islamist enemies using Sun Tzu's precepts effectively against us? Recent events and analyses about the Danish Cartoons issue indicate that the answer is 'Yes'. Or, at least, that they are trying to do so on two levels - an immediate tactic and a longer term strategy.
The immediate tactic, as I've posted before, is to use the cartoon protests as a publicity diversion to deflect world attention and pressure away from Syria's involvment in murder of leading Lebanese officials and from Iran's nuclear program. Two recent items indicate that Iran knows how to play the deception angle.
First item: This AP article in the Washington Post, reports the Islamic World is Ready for Change: "The Islamic world is fed up with violence and extremism in the name of religion and is ready for an era of progressive, democratic Muslim governments, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Friday.
Khatami said current conflicts between the West and Islam have create a situation that "can only see ever-escalating violence, whether in the form of war and occupation and repression, or in the form of terror and destruction."
"After about two centuries of dispute between tradition and modernity in the world of Islam (there is) a high level of mental preparation for the acceptance of a major transformation in the mind and lives of Muslims," Khatami said in a speech at an international conference on Islam and the West."
Well, if the former Iranian President and well-repected Iranian representative to a major Islamic Conference is speaking so softly and reasonably, things can't be too scary. I guess we should relax and resume talking to them.
OH! but then there is this other Second 'Action' item happening back home in Iran at the same time: Last Monday, this ThreatsWatch Brief noted that: "In a move that parallels North Korea before they announced they had nuclear weapons, Iran has told the IAEA to remove its cameras, monitoring equipment and seals from Iranian nuclear facilities. Ali Larijani, the secretary of the High Council of National Security of Iran and former presidential candidate (2005), gave the IAEA until the end of next week to have the equipment removed."
Today,the UK newspaper, the Telegraph reports that Iran plant 'has restarted its nuclear bomb-making equipment': "Iran's controversial Natanz uranium processing plant has successfully restarted the sophisticated equipment that could enable it to produce material for nuclear warheads, according to reports received by Western intelligence."
"This crucial development follows Iran's decision to withdraw its co-operation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna after the body decided last week to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
Iranian officials have moved quickly to obstruct the work of the UN nuclear inspectors still working in the country's nuclear facilities."
OK, maybe the soft words are like the cartoons; just a cover and deception tactic to buy time to get those nukes. But what happens if Iran gets some nukes? We have a lot more nukes and ample delivery means, so can't we just rely on deterrence? Perhaps so; perhaps not. Depends on culture values and intentions - the longer term strategy.
One scary view is that Ahmadinejad truly believes in the Coming of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. His coming is preceded by global catastrophe; he then leads the people to a reborn world of Islamic peace and dominance. Some posit that Ahmadinejad views his mission is to pave the way for the Mahdi - and a nuclear war would provide the requisite catastrophe. Not all Muslims believe in the imminent apocalyptic coming of the Mahdi. Others see a different path to the same goal. Their alternate strategy follows Sun Tzu's advice about supreme generalship winning without fighting.
That view is expressed by Olivier Gutta, who argues, in the Weeky Standard, that we are facing a long term threat of Islamist domination of which the The Cartoon Jihad is only a first major step. He writes "(the) protests over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper last September were anything but spontaneous. The actions of Islamist agitators and financiers have deliberately drummed up rage among far-flung extremists otherwise ignorant of the Danish press. The usual suspects--the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran--have profited from the spread of the disorders, and even the likes of tiny Kuwait has reportedly offered funds to spur demonstrations throughout France. More important, however, and perhaps less widely understood, the cartoon jihad is tailor-made to advance the Muslim Brotherhood's long-term worldwide strategy for establishing Islamic supremacy in the West.
A new book published by Le Seuil in Paris in October may further Western understanding of this reality. Written by the Swiss investigative reporter Sylvain Besson and not yet available in English, it publicizes the discovery and contents of a Muslim Brotherhood strategy document entitled "The Project," hitherto little known outside the highest counterterrorism circles.
"The Project" is a roadmap for achieving the installation of Islamic regimes in the West via propaganda, preaching, and, if necessary, war. It's the same idea expressed by Sheikh Qaradawi in 1995 when he said, "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not by the sword but by our Dawa [proselytizing]."Thus, "The Project" calls for "putting in place a watchdog system for monitoring the [Western] media to warn all Muslims of the dangers and international plots fomented against them." Another long-term effort is to "put in place [among Muslims in the West] a parallel society where the group is above the individual, godly authority above human liberty, and the holy scripture above the laws."
I do not know whether the "The Project" is a real actionable plan or just a set of desirable goals (wish list). But that strategy tracks well with the very detailed analysis and insights of Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis . The conditions of Muslim enclaves in Europe seem well suited to that strategy. The European Muslim immigrant residents are not integrated into the broader national community. It's easy to see them forming their own self-regulated Islamic areas, under Sharia rules, and requesting "tolerance" from national governments that value diversity. In practice, this is already happening in some places. If demographic trends continue, there would be no need for a real war. High Muslim birth and immigration rates, combined with low European birth rates, will suffice.
And if Old Europe's residents wake up and start serious resistance ? Well, then, those Iranian nukes would present a strong argument to just go along with a gradual encroachment. The threat of nukes is a more effective policy weapon than their detonation.
If one side can enlist Sun Tzu, so can the other. The counter to cultural absorption, ala "The Project", is cultural integration without surrender of primary values; and that's the "winning without fighting" path America has always followed with immigration. As for other countries, the answer is tougher. They need to find their own will for national cultural survival and the policies that will work for them . We can offer them a useful template for integrating immigrants and can support their efforts to assert the values of their (really, our shared) Western civilization including a renewed emphasis on individual freedom under consensual law.
Most importantly, we must recognize that we are engaged in a serious conflict, whether we wish it or not, and that the opponent is not the religion of Islam, nor all Muslims. The opponents are a number of (connected, often cooperating but not monolithic) regimes and terrorist organizations that seek to impose their fundamental religious vision as a political rule over other Muslims and us. Their vision can not succeed while America stands as a shining counter example of the power of freedom to improve people's lives. This contest of wills can not be avoided. And the opposition can not be allowed to operate under cover of their nuclear umbrella.
Consequently, we must maintain our national policy of forward engagement that involves both the use of military force and the advancememt of democratic forms of governance as a means to open up new economic, cultural, and political opportunities to the Islamic world.
Iraq is a key demonstration model for this policy and seems to be providing a good regional example of the viability (and attractiveness) of democracy working with secular and religious interests. The Iraqi's are forming their own government their way with our help. I think the policy is succeeding and that the intensity of the Syria's and Iran's reaction is a good indicator of that success and of fear that the Iraq democratic model may spread to their less free people.
But the real question is - are our militant Islamist enemies using Sun Tzu's precepts effectively against us? Recent events and analyses about the Danish Cartoons issue indicate that the answer is 'Yes'. Or, at least, that they are trying to do so on two levels - an immediate tactic and a longer term strategy.
The immediate tactic, as I've posted before, is to use the cartoon protests as a publicity diversion to deflect world attention and pressure away from Syria's involvment in murder of leading Lebanese officials and from Iran's nuclear program. Two recent items indicate that Iran knows how to play the deception angle.
First item: This AP article in the Washington Post, reports the Islamic World is Ready for Change: "The Islamic world is fed up with violence and extremism in the name of religion and is ready for an era of progressive, democratic Muslim governments, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Friday.
Khatami said current conflicts between the West and Islam have create a situation that "can only see ever-escalating violence, whether in the form of war and occupation and repression, or in the form of terror and destruction."
"After about two centuries of dispute between tradition and modernity in the world of Islam (there is) a high level of mental preparation for the acceptance of a major transformation in the mind and lives of Muslims," Khatami said in a speech at an international conference on Islam and the West."
Well, if the former Iranian President and well-repected Iranian representative to a major Islamic Conference is speaking so softly and reasonably, things can't be too scary. I guess we should relax and resume talking to them.
OH! but then there is this other Second 'Action' item happening back home in Iran at the same time: Last Monday, this ThreatsWatch Brief noted that: "In a move that parallels North Korea before they announced they had nuclear weapons, Iran has told the IAEA to remove its cameras, monitoring equipment and seals from Iranian nuclear facilities. Ali Larijani, the secretary of the High Council of National Security of Iran and former presidential candidate (2005), gave the IAEA until the end of next week to have the equipment removed."
Today,the UK newspaper, the Telegraph reports that Iran plant 'has restarted its nuclear bomb-making equipment': "Iran's controversial Natanz uranium processing plant has successfully restarted the sophisticated equipment that could enable it to produce material for nuclear warheads, according to reports received by Western intelligence."
"This crucial development follows Iran's decision to withdraw its co-operation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna after the body decided last week to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
Iranian officials have moved quickly to obstruct the work of the UN nuclear inspectors still working in the country's nuclear facilities."
OK, maybe the soft words are like the cartoons; just a cover and deception tactic to buy time to get those nukes. But what happens if Iran gets some nukes? We have a lot more nukes and ample delivery means, so can't we just rely on deterrence? Perhaps so; perhaps not. Depends on culture values and intentions - the longer term strategy.
One scary view is that Ahmadinejad truly believes in the Coming of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. His coming is preceded by global catastrophe; he then leads the people to a reborn world of Islamic peace and dominance. Some posit that Ahmadinejad views his mission is to pave the way for the Mahdi - and a nuclear war would provide the requisite catastrophe. Not all Muslims believe in the imminent apocalyptic coming of the Mahdi. Others see a different path to the same goal. Their alternate strategy follows Sun Tzu's advice about supreme generalship winning without fighting.
That view is expressed by Olivier Gutta, who argues, in the Weeky Standard, that we are facing a long term threat of Islamist domination of which the The Cartoon Jihad is only a first major step. He writes "(the) protests over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper last September were anything but spontaneous. The actions of Islamist agitators and financiers have deliberately drummed up rage among far-flung extremists otherwise ignorant of the Danish press. The usual suspects--the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran--have profited from the spread of the disorders, and even the likes of tiny Kuwait has reportedly offered funds to spur demonstrations throughout France. More important, however, and perhaps less widely understood, the cartoon jihad is tailor-made to advance the Muslim Brotherhood's long-term worldwide strategy for establishing Islamic supremacy in the West.
A new book published by Le Seuil in Paris in October may further Western understanding of this reality. Written by the Swiss investigative reporter Sylvain Besson and not yet available in English, it publicizes the discovery and contents of a Muslim Brotherhood strategy document entitled "The Project," hitherto little known outside the highest counterterrorism circles.
"The Project" is a roadmap for achieving the installation of Islamic regimes in the West via propaganda, preaching, and, if necessary, war. It's the same idea expressed by Sheikh Qaradawi in 1995 when he said, "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not by the sword but by our Dawa [proselytizing]."Thus, "The Project" calls for "putting in place a watchdog system for monitoring the [Western] media to warn all Muslims of the dangers and international plots fomented against them." Another long-term effort is to "put in place [among Muslims in the West] a parallel society where the group is above the individual, godly authority above human liberty, and the holy scripture above the laws."
I do not know whether the "The Project" is a real actionable plan or just a set of desirable goals (wish list). But that strategy tracks well with the very detailed analysis and insights of Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis . The conditions of Muslim enclaves in Europe seem well suited to that strategy. The European Muslim immigrant residents are not integrated into the broader national community. It's easy to see them forming their own self-regulated Islamic areas, under Sharia rules, and requesting "tolerance" from national governments that value diversity. In practice, this is already happening in some places. If demographic trends continue, there would be no need for a real war. High Muslim birth and immigration rates, combined with low European birth rates, will suffice.
And if Old Europe's residents wake up and start serious resistance ? Well, then, those Iranian nukes would present a strong argument to just go along with a gradual encroachment. The threat of nukes is a more effective policy weapon than their detonation.
If one side can enlist Sun Tzu, so can the other. The counter to cultural absorption, ala "The Project", is cultural integration without surrender of primary values; and that's the "winning without fighting" path America has always followed with immigration. As for other countries, the answer is tougher. They need to find their own will for national cultural survival and the policies that will work for them . We can offer them a useful template for integrating immigrants and can support their efforts to assert the values of their (really, our shared) Western civilization including a renewed emphasis on individual freedom under consensual law.
Most importantly, we must recognize that we are engaged in a serious conflict, whether we wish it or not, and that the opponent is not the religion of Islam, nor all Muslims. The opponents are a number of (connected, often cooperating but not monolithic) regimes and terrorist organizations that seek to impose their fundamental religious vision as a political rule over other Muslims and us. Their vision can not succeed while America stands as a shining counter example of the power of freedom to improve people's lives. This contest of wills can not be avoided. And the opposition can not be allowed to operate under cover of their nuclear umbrella.
Consequently, we must maintain our national policy of forward engagement that involves both the use of military force and the advancememt of democratic forms of governance as a means to open up new economic, cultural, and political opportunities to the Islamic world.
Iraq is a key demonstration model for this policy and seems to be providing a good regional example of the viability (and attractiveness) of democracy working with secular and religious interests. The Iraqi's are forming their own government their way with our help. I think the policy is succeeding and that the intensity of the Syria's and Iran's reaction is a good indicator of that success and of fear that the Iraq democratic model may spread to their less free people.
