Sons of Darkness, Sons of Light...

There are a number of fallacies surrounding the current War on Terror-- a misnomer, I might add, since wars are conventionally waged on nations and armies, not emotional states or the methods that produce them. One such fallacy is that President Bush hyped or otherwise lied about the case for war in Iraq. This simply isn't true. Instead it's more the case of having heard a lie often enough that it's become accepted as truth. Which is where we are politically in this nation today. One faction knows the truth but refuses to publically address it, while the other faction consistently fails to defend the truth... until recently. One faction suffers from selective-- and disingenuous --gaps in memory, while the other faction consistently fails to call them on it, despite the mountain of evidence at their disposal... until recently.

Another such fallacy is that the war in Iraq, and the reasons for the war, were widely opposed, when in fact one political faction demanded the right to vote on a resolution supporting the war-- an obvious political move. Everyone wanted to be on record supporting the war, at least until the 2004 Presidential election, at which time, in another obvious political move, everyone wanted to go on record as denouncing the war.

I've presented the image a number of times, and it bears repeating: While we bicker like dogs over a dry hollow bone, our attention is diverted from the cat eating at our food dish. The old maxim that 'all politics stops at the shoreline' has been shattered. President's Carter and Clinton feel no shame in denegrading the U.S. on foreign soil to foreign audiences. In fact, it seems to have become a badge of honor among one political faction. Lying and acts of treason, too, have become commonplace and accepted as the norm.

So where does that leave the United States in this current political and diplomatic crisis? The New York Times can now release any classified material they please with impugnity because they know that no one will do anything about it; no one will hold them accountable. The hypocrsy of one political faction is so blatantly obvious it boggles the mind to wonder how the general public could fail to see it and not demand their elected officals do something to cut it off like the gangreous limb that it is. How is it one political faction can demand a special counsel to investigate the leaking of the name of a not-so-secret secret agent, and not demand the same for the New York Times? How it that one political faction can be so morally outraged that a CIA operative's life was put at risk, condemning the wrong persons for political reasons, and yet applaud the courage of a newspaper that actively works to undermine the U.S. government in the prosecution of this so-called 'War on Terror'? How is it this political faction can applaud treason?

Moving on... I was given a link to a story at The New Yorker today-- The Master Plan, by Lawrence Wright. The posit for the link was to 'get beyond th[e] tit-for-tat crap,' that is "liberals are bad, conservatives are good." Now, I reject that notion, but fine, let's look at the article and see what we can see. Eleven pages of print is a hefty read for someone who has to read between commercial breaks, and between newscasts, but I managed it--even finding time to use the trusty highlighter. What I found in Mr. Wright's piece was a very instructive, in depth look into the Jihadist's history-- specifically Al Qaeda --and the thinkers, movers and shakers of the Wahhabist movement. Much of the first eight pages is history; who met who and how. But nothing to support any notion that the war in Iraq in not essential to winning the War on Terror, or that one select line leaked from the NIE by the New York times and taken completely out of context. Returning the hypocrisy of one political faction; how dare they, our elected officials, make broad accusations and level condemnation on our current war strategy based on a New York Times leak, when these same elected officials have already read the complete NIE-- at least those on the Intellegence Committee? And yet none have seen fit to speak out against the New York Times.

Moving on... It's not till you get to about page 7 that the really interesting stuff comes along. The whole purpose of this article is to tell the world that Al Qaeda is simply the beginning of a larger, bolder plan. The article further reveals that these whack-jobs are not as whacked as they've been made out to be. They are thinking, planning, and wondering what will be needed should their jihadist dream be realized.

After coalition forces overran Al Qaeda compounds in Afghanistan in late 2001, they seized thousands of pages of internal memoranda, records of strategy sessions and ethical debates, and military manuals, but not a single page devoted to the politics of Al Qaeda. Alone among Al Qaeda theorists, Naji briefly addresses whether jihadis are prepared to run a state should they succeed in toppling one. He quotes a colleague who posed the question "Assuming that we get rid of the apostate regimes today, who will take over the ministry of agriculture, trade, economics, etc.?" Beyond the simplistic notion of imposing a caliphate and establishing the rule of Islamic law, the leaders of the organization appear never to have thought about the most basic facts of government. What kind of economic model would they follow? How would they cope with unemployment, so rampant in the Muslim world? Where do they stand on the environment? Health care? The truth, as Naji essentially concedes, is that the radical Islamists have no interest in government; they are interested only in jihad.
[Emphasis mine]

No interest in ruling nations, only in killing or subjugating others. Pretty much the same things the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan. But the Islamist writer and theorist known as Naji is asking the right questions.

The crux of the entire article however are the six well-thought out phases of Islam's plan to rule the world.

"Al Qaeda drew up a feasible plan within a well-defined time frame. The plan was based on improving the Islamic jihadist action in quality and quantity and expanding it to include the entire world."

--Fouad Hussein, Author of "Al-Zarqawi: the Second Generation of Al Qaeda"

Which is as follows...

One-- Al Qaeda’s twenty-year plan began on September 11th, with a stage that Hussein calls "The Awakening." This first stage, says Hussein, ended in 2003, when American troops entered Baghdad.

Two-- The second, "Eye-Opening" stage will last until the end of 2006, Hussein writes. Iraq will become the recruiting ground for young men eager to attack America.

Three-- "Arising and Standing Up," will last from 2007 to 2010. Al Qaeda's focus will be on Syria and Turkey, but it will also begin to directly confront Israel, in order to gain more credibility among the Muslim population.

Four-- Attacks against the Middle East petroleum industry will continue, and America's power will deteriorate through the constant expansion of the circle of confrontation. "By then, Al Qaeda will have completed its electronic capabilities, and it will be time to use them to launch electronic attacks to undermine the U.S. economy." Islamists will promote the idea of using gold as the international medium of exchange, leading to the collapse of the dollar.

At which point an Islamic caliphate can be declared, inaugurating stage...

Five-- Lasting until 2016. "At this stage, the Western fist in the Arab region will loosen, and Israel will not be able to carry out preëmptive or precautionary strikes," Hussein writes. "The international balance will change." Al Qaeda and the Islamist movement will attract powerful new economic allies, such as China, and Europe will fall into disunity.

Six-- a period of "total confrontation." The now established caliphate will form an Islamic Army and will instigate a worldwide fight between the "believers" and the "non-believers." Hussein proclaims, "The world will realize the meaning of real terrorism." By 2020, "definitive victory" will have been achieved. Victory, according to the Al Qaeda ideologues, means that "falsehood will come to an end... The Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness."

If there was ever any doubt as to the jihadi's purpose in attacking the U.S. and their sanity-deprived willingness to throw away the lives of dedicated soldiers in suicide missions, this should dispell any such illusions; that Islam, as system of religion, is dangerously non-peaceful. I see nothing in the article, as a whole, to dissuade me from desiring complete confrontation with Islam... on foreign soil. It may sound cliche, but we ARE in a struggle for western civilization, and the greatest military power this world has ever known will undoubtedly lose-- and the rest of the world with it --if one political faction in particular wins meaningful power in either of the next two election cycles.

The Murtha idiocy must be prevented at all costs. This was never a battle between America and Afghanistan alone; between the U.S. and Bin Laden alone. The scope and nature of this new war is beyond anything this nation-- and much of the world --has ever faced, and it will take steadfastness and the courage of titans to earn victory. This war will not be over in two years, not even in ten. According to Fouad Hussein, we're in the midst of a twenty year war that began on 9-11. A plan which, seemingly, is right on course.

In closing, allow me to make an observation. People are commanded to turn the other cheek, not nations, and only for personal affronts. When fighting for survival and the freedom to worship God one will be called upon to do what one might not ever choose to do... given a choice. And while it's true that those who live by the sword often die by the sword, let's not forget that in order for someone to die by sword, someone else must wield a sword. If there was ever a reason to go to war, the potential for loss of liberty, and freedom to worship the one true God, to an enemy that neither knows God, nor believes in God, is that reason.

Rosie O'Donnell thinks radical Christianity is dangerous? Christianity doesn't want to put her in a burqa, force her into a subservient role, and stone her for being a homosexual. Radical Islam most certainly will. This new war is not for the faint of heart.