Dec 19 2006

The War For The Heart Of Islam Rages

Published by at 9:37 am under All General Discussions

The ME is now, finally, taking its future into its own hands and deciding whether they will live under the brutal oppression of Islamo Fascism or in the modern world. There is a role for the devoutly religious in our world of consumerism, me-first, and what-ever-turns-you-on media driven society. From the open civil war in Palestine to the trouncing in Iran that Ahmadinejad took at the polls, to the counter demonstrations in Lebanon, the signals are clear. The ME is taking this choice on and not simply letting the Islamo Fascist take the field without a fight. The counter balance this moment offers the world could be helpful. The more conservative and religous views are necessary to illustrate the ideas of sacrifice and honor and dedication, but they must be presented at the table of democracies and free economies in order to be productive and useful.

27 responses so far

27 Responses to “The War For The Heart Of Islam Rages”

  1. Ken says:

    Wednesday, December 20, 2006

    Broken Army, Broken Empire

    by Patrick Buchanan

    The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far
    cost fewer U.S. lives than the Filipino insurgency of
    1899-1902. Yet Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter
    Schoomaker warned Congress last week the U.S. Army
    “will break” without more troops.

    We started this war “flat-footed,” with 500,000 fewer
    soldiers than we had before the Gulf War, says the
    general, who wants 7,000 soldiers added yearly to the
    507,000 on active duty.


    The Army is “about broken,” agrees Colin Powell, the
    former chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Powell believes
    we “are losing the war” in Iraq, but opposes any
    “surge” of 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops, as urged by
    Sen. John McCain.

    “There are no additional troops,” says Powell. “All we
    would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were
    there, there longer, and escalating or accelerating
    the arrival of other troops.”

    CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid lately told an
    audience at Harvard, “This is not an Army that was
    built to sustain ‘a long war.’”

    Retired Gen. Kevin Ryan agrees: “Today, the 37 combat
    brigades of the active Army are almost totally
    consumed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all
    units either deployed, returning from deployment or
    preparing to deploy, there is none left to prepare for
    other contingencies.”

    Yet, adds Ryan, “Our published defense strategy
    requires a military that can defend our homeland,
    sustain two major wars, be present in key regions
    abroad and fight a global war on terrorism. With
    Marine and Army ground forces barely able to fight the
    two major wars, the other security tasks are left to
    flyovers and ship visits from our Air Force and Navy.”

    What these generals are saying is ominous. Not only is
    the United States “losing” the war in Iraq, the Army
    is breaking and we do not have the troops to meet the
    commitments America has made all over the world. In
    short, U.S. foreign policy is bankrupt. We cannot meet
    all the IOUs we have outstanding if several are called
    at once.

    What kind of superpower is it whose army can be
    “broken” by two insurgencies that have required only
    half the number of troops we sent to Korea, and a
    third of the number we sent to Vietnam?

    If our Army is “about broken” now, how do we propose
    to defend the Baltic republics and, if Bush and the
    neocons get their way, Ukraine and Georgia from a
    revanchist Russia? How could we fight a second Korean
    war, the first of which required a third of a million

    If our Army is “about broken,” has our commander in
    chief lost his mind when he issues bellicose
    ultimatums to Tehran? And if our Army is not built to
    “sustain a long war,” are not those people insane who
    talk wildly of fighting “World War IV”? In World War
    II, we had 12 million men under arms on V-E Day.

    Our Army, says Abizaid, is not “built to sustain a
    long war.” Yet we are committed by NATO to defend
    Central and Eastern Europe—including the Baltic
    republics and the eastern Balkans, against a resurgent
    Russia. We are committed to defend Israel, Kuwait,
    Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states from Iran. We
    are committed to defend Afghanistan from the Taliban,
    South Korea from North Korea, and Japan and Taiwan
    from China.

    Who do we think we are kidding? America today is like
    an auto insurance company with the cash on hand to
    handle one or two fender-benders, but anything beyond
    that means Chapter 11.

    In the Reagan decade, writes national security analyst
    William Hawkins, the United States had 18 Army
    divisions. Clinton cut it to 10. Yet, since Reagan, we
    have not cut commitments, but added to them: in
    Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Gulf and the Taiwan

    The American Imperium is hollow. We have nowhere near
    the troops to sustain the security commitments and war
    guarantees we have ladled out. Like the Brits in 1945,
    ours is an overstretched empire with a sinking
    currency, whose enemies are salivating at the prospect
    of being in on the kill.

    America may need a larger Army. More imperative is the
    need for a radical reduction in treaty and war

    While the U.S. Navy and Air Force remain supreme, the
    Army and Marines are, as Abizaid says, too small a
    force to fight a long war. We must adjust our
    commitments to reflect our capabilities and, beyond
    that, to defend only what is truly vital to the
    national security.

    While our armed forces are more than adequate to
    defend us, they are insufficient to defend an empire.
    Rather than bleed and bankrupt the nation endlessly,
    we should let go of the empire.

    Americans must learn how to mind our own business and
    cease to meddle in other nation’s quarrels. Iraq was
    never a threat to the United States. Only our mindless
    intervention has made it so.

    To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read
    features by other Creators Syndicate writers and
    cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at


    got that, FE? “Islam’s war” will have to be viewed on the sidelines by the crumbling Empire, AJ.

  2. Ken says:

    FE –everyone worth worrying about sees through Strata’s parroting
    “al Qaeda” –and your parroting AJ’s “al Qaeda” boogeyman as well.

    Which is why your parroting it in the form of a question to me after a comment on Shia anti-American activity in Iraq is ineffectually

  3. Ken says:


  4. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, if I understand you, your point is Buchanan is a “nationalist conservative” and that’s what you think you are? and you think that’s moronic? Ok, I’ll agree.

    Gee, you might be right one time. But ONLY if I understood you correctly.

  5. Ken says:

    Senility does hamper one. Again , YOU’RE moronic in believing
    throwing out al Qaeda as a scare tactic works with any more than
    about 20% of the American public according to Bush’s latest
    war approval ratings and the results of the last election. You’re also moronic for throwing it out directly after I depicted SHIA anti-American factions, whihc have nothing to do with al Qaeda.

    See, other than senility your problem is America has so many varied enemies in the Middle East you have difficulty keeping score.

  6. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, you said:you have difficulty keeping score.

    It may be difficult, but at least I can, unlike one French guy I know.

  7. Ken says:

    You were unfamiliar with the term “neoconservative” until I mentioned it–don’t they allow political literature in the rest home?