David J. Jonsson
March 31, 2007
In order to understand the issues faced by the West it is necessary to review history and look at the many factors that are currently leading to the almost intractable solution to the crisis developing worldwide.
The future enemies of Europe and the United States will be a mutation of current and past foes both domestically and internationally. In confronting these forces, knowledge of their ideaologies, objectives and determination will make all the difference. The domestic foes may be either sympathizers or via actual operatives. In the period following the downfall of the Soviet Union, this is the first time that favorable conditions have emerged on the side of the Leftist and Islamists around the world to challenge the hegemony of the West.
The USS Nimitz and its support ships will be departing San Diego Monday, April 2, to join the John C. Stennis Strike Group in the Persian Gulf. The nuclear carrier is due to relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, but military sources in the Gulf believe all three US carriers will stay put if tensions continue to climb or if fighting breaks out involving American, British and Iranian forces. The mighty American armada is further supported by the USS Bataan and USS Boxer strike groups. See: DEBKA File of March 30: US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave.
The Iranian hard-line faction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Gen. Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards whose naval wing performed the seizure of the British Sailors have gained the upper hand after British premier Tony Blair’s initial passive, semi-conciliatory response. The escalating row has pushed oil prices higher and hence increased funding to Iran and their alliance – a win for the enemy. The U.N. Security Council agreed to a watered down statement expressing "grave concern" and calling "for an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 personnel. Britain had wanted a tougher stance, but after hours of negotiations, Russia blocked a statement that would have demanded an immediate release of the British crew.
Washington has refused to risk of a full-scale war confrontation with the Revolutionary Guards for the sake of the British sailors. The actions of the Pelosi Democrats in the U.S. Congress actions on Iraq funding has also emboldened the Iranians and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia making an unprecedented public attack on America, condemning the "foreign occupation" of Iraq by his oldest ally. In the article: Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs: published in Spiegel online March 29, “Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, a new survey shows, with only 31 percent believing the opposite. Germans' fundamental hypocrisy about the US suggests that it's high time for a new bout of re-education…The German political establishment, which will no doubt loudly lament the result of the poll, is largely responsible for this wave of anti-Americanism.” On the Iranian’s wish list is the annihilation of Israel. See also: Will Arab Muslim "Allies" Support the West in a Time of Crisis?
The lack of attention to plan and address the dangers of dependence on imported oil from the Middle East and Venezuela has allowed the transfer of enormous financial reserves to these countries to fund their development for control. Europe’s nightmare is further compounded by the potential for a world natural gas cartel. The Leftist/Marxist — Islamist Alliance through joining together a global cabal of nations for the control of the world’s energy infrastructure, finance, media and transportation assets present a real and current danger to the West.
Russia has effectively created a noose around Europe controlling their import of natural gas. The threat is as equally potent as their nuclear weapons. It is important to recall the events leading to the Euro-Arab Dialog (EAD), Oil Embargos, and European appeasement of the Islamic world following the Yon Kippur War in 1973 which lead to export of Islamization to Europe. See: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad – The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance by David J. Jonsson pg. 204-210.
The world’s natural gas exporting countries will gather in Doha on April 9 for a forum that may set the grounds for a new natural gas cartel built on the rules of OPEC. The cartel, which for a start would bring together Russia, Iran, Algeria, Qatar and Venezuela, aims at becoming the most important energy player worldwide. See: Europe's nightmare: A world natural gas cartel.
The most important supporter for such a cartel is Iran, the world’s second largest natural gas producer, which is forced especially by political reasons to create a mechanism of control over the international resources market. Iran and Russia can form an OPEC-like organization because these countries hold some half of the gas reserves in the world; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was recently quoted as saying.
Without diminishing the threat posed by the near term events in the Middle East, it is important nonetheless to recognize that they are a distraction, a deliberate provocation designed to keep our eyes focused on the wrong enemy. The true threat is and always has been the worldwide communist movement joined by Islamists, spearheaded by Russia, and Communist China. While the Iraq and Iran crises continues, the strategy of the Grand Chess Masters—Russia the bear and China the dragon, along with their pawns the Leftists, Marxists and Islamists, continue to develop and put in place their strategy for the ultimate goal of world domination. See my article: The Grand Chess Masters—The Bear and the Dragon.
We have lived for some years of peace following the “End of the Cold War” and we are now facing the prospect of moving to a disordered world from which the West cannot hide.
All of us would prefer years of repose to years of conflict. But history will not allow it. And so it once again rests with us to do what we have done in the past: it is our duty. We must win and we will win.
1. What do you the people of Europe and America want our future to be?
2. What do you leave behind?
3. Who are the potential enemies?
4. What are the goals of our enemies?
When we have answered these questions, we can then discuss a strategy to maintain our faith, culture, freedom, liberty and Western Democracy as we know it.
Samuel Huntington wrote the popular book The Clash of Civilizations a few years ago. He spoke of the coming conflict between the West and Islam. As I see it we are now facing an even greater threat with the clash of ideologies. The conflict of ideologies extends beyond the conflicts with Islam and extends to the battles we are facing even within our own culture.
The Clash of Ideologies is often overlooked in both our political conflicts here in America as well as within the Jihadist movement.
The Jihadists drive to instill Islamic law into Muslim society, and ultimately recreate that society under their interpretation of the law, which often translates into an endorsement for violent jihad as practiced by bin Laden and others. Ideology is often overlooked and is considered separate from the strategic and operational aspects of Islamist militancy. The ideology of this movement is similar to, or even worse than, the Nazi ideology, and that it should be dealt accordingly. Therefore, I still believe that one of the primary missions of the international community today is to repeat its experience with Nazism and to deal with this dangerous barbarian culture exactly as it dealt with the Nazi culture. If this does not happen, the near future is liable to bring many events, the consequences of which will be far more severe for all of humanity than the consequences of World War II. See also: The War Against Global Jihadism by Peter Wehner deputy assistant to the President and director of the White House’s Office of Strategic Initiatives.
Now let’s go to the ideological movements in the U.S.
Dinesh D’Souza the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution commented in the article Pelosi’s crew and Osama bin Laden share common goal “The Pelosi Democrats sometimes appear to be just as eager as Osama bin Laden for President Bush to lose his war on terror. Why do I say this? Because if the Pelosi Democrats were seeking Bush’s success, then their rhetoric and actions now and over the past three years are pretty much incomprehensible. By contrast, if you presume that they want Bush’s war on terror to fail, then their words and behavior make perfect sense. From the point of view of new House Speaker Pelosi and her fellow liberal Democrats, bin Laden today is, well, a small problem…Listen to Pelosi and her colleagues on the left speaking about Bush, however, and it’s clear they regard him as a very big problem.”
“Sen. Robert Byrd compares Bush to Hermann Goering and the Nazis. Hillary Clinton accuses him of “turning back the clock on the 20th century ... systematically weakening the democratic tradition. ... There has never been an administration more intent upon consolidating and abusing power.” Sen. Ted Kennedy charges that “no president in America’s history has done more damage to our country than George W. Bush.””
“Whether it realizes this or not, the Bush administration is facing a kind of liberal-Islamic alliance: a sympathetic relationship that leading leftists in America have with Islamic radicals around the world. I’m not suggesting the two groups actually like each other. Actually, they despise each other. Leftists like Pelosi, Barney Frank and Michael Moore despise bin Laden and his fellow radicals because they are religious fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic [Shariah] holy law. That means goodbye to women’s rights and gay rights and, in all candor, goodbye to people like Pelosi, Frank and Moore. By the same token, Islamic radicals like bin Laden detest the American left because, as they see it, the left is the party of atheism, family breakdown and cultural depravity. The left is in the vanguard of imposing secularism and libertine social values not only in America but also abroad.”
“But the man who threatens the Islamic radicals and the American left even more than either group threatens the other is Bush. Leftists don’t like radical Muslims like bin Laden but they absolutely hate Bush. Why?
“Because from the Cultural left’s point of view, bin Laden threatens to impose Shariah in Baghdad but Bush threatens to impose Shariah in Boston. Bin Laden is the far enemy but Bush is the near enemy.”
To quote Dinesh D’Souza in the introduction to his book: THE ENEMY AT HOME:
“What they hate is conservative America. [They] are fiercely loyal to the American values that they cherish, and it is in the name of those values that they are ready to take on the Bush administration. The lesson of these examples is that the cultural left is unwilling to fight a serious and sustained battle against Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism because it is fighting a more threatening political battle against American conservatism and American fundamentalism. The left cannot support Bush’s efforts to promote liberal democracy abroad because it is more important for the left to reverse the nation’s conservative tide by defeating Bush and his socially conservatives allies at home. In other words, the left’s war is not against bearded Muslims who wear long robes and carry rifles; it is against pudgy white men who wear suits and carry bibles. While the left is certainly not comfortable with Islamic mullahs, it is vastly more terrified of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia, James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh.”
See also Michael Medved’s article of March 21 The Essence of Liberalism: Embracing Life’s Losers which described what constitutes the essence of modern liberalism.
Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned an “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” on February 1, in the letter he commented:
“Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.”
“Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby’s brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.”
“Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.”
Why? From the vantage point of many cultural liberals, Christians are as dangerous as Islamists, and President Bush is no less a threat than Bin Laden.
There was a time after 9/11 when the release of an al-Qaeda videotape would create a major stir among Americans and would be covered by the major news networks. These days, many dismiss the tapes as little more than propaganda.
The voice of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two individual in al-Qaeda, is featured in a new twenty-one minute speech titled: “Palestine is Our Concern and the Concern of Every Muslim”, which was issued by al-Qaeda’s multimedia production arm, as-Sahab, on March 11, 2007.The SITE Institute has some relevant excerpts from the new tape.
In the tape Zawahiri argues “… for physical jihad [and] that American strength is waning and is suffering from defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan… Continuing to build a case against Western moral bankruptcy in its relationship with Muslims, Zawahiri cites hypocrisy in trials involving the International Criminal Court, particularly as it relates to genocide in Bosnia and war crimes in Darfur. He questions: “Who gave these murders the right to appoint judges to interfere in the affairs of Muslims? What right does the Security Council have to interfere in the affairs of Muslims, and set up the courts which acquit this one and condemn that one, when the hands of its criminal members drip with the blood of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Algeria, Chechnya and East Turkistan? How can America refer the case of Darfur to an international court which it itself doesn’t recognize and refuses to be subject to? What sort of tyranny is this world ruled by?”
Zawahiri calls upon Muslims to reject politics and engage in jihad against the enemy. He states: “they must continue their Jihad in Allah’s path until the liberation of every land of Islam invaded by the infidels, from Spain to Iraq, and until the Word of Allah is supreme and the Caliphate returns to protect the sanctuary of Islam and spread its Shariah.”
President Bush’s plea for more patience with the Iraq war on March 19, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the nation has lost confidence in the president’s “failed approach.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added that Democrats won’t give up on efforts to bring an end to the war. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the despicable John Murtha announce to the nation that we are losing the war, and moreover, can’t possibly win it. You really have to hate America and its people to lust after the defeat of your own country. Yet aside from Osama bin Laden and his crews of merciless killers, the people most dedicated to seeing the United States defeated in a battle for the future of the world are the liberal Democrats now feebly trying to run the Congress.
Decades from now, historians will discover that the United States, the West and the international community were being targeted by global ideological movements which emerged in the 1920s, survived World War II and the Cold War, and carefully chose the timing of its onslaught against democracy.
Pacifism, Self-hatred, and Complacency
If one looks at the military strength of the West compared to Iran, victory would seem to be inevitable, even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Iran does not have the military machine that the Axis powers had in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the cold war. The Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance may be more effective than the earlier totalitarian movements operating individually. They could even win. That’s because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them – pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency combined with the Oil Weapon could provide needed horsepower to succeed. See also: How the West Could Lose by Daniel Pipes December 26, 2006.
“It’s always amazed me how quickly the American left managed to twist the 9/11 attacks into a club with which to beat their own country. I recall watching the smoke from the towers late in the day, exhausted from stress and emotions I could scarcely identify, and thinking,” They’ll never be able to defile this.” It was the end of the postwar flirtation with apostasy, I thought, the end of political frivolity, the birth of a new kind of patriotism, one annealed by fire, one that would become part of framework of the country, one that would last.” See: Breaking the Hold of Hegemonist Doctrine by J.R. Dunn writing in Real Clear Politics.
“But after what in retrospect appears to be a pitifully short period, they were back, and in force, and they have never retreated since. Contrary to consensus belief, it didn’t begin with Iraq. It began with Afghanistan, starting only a month after the attacks, and built up from there. The Leftists Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, Durbin, Murtha... The list could go on for page after page, all of them speaking in identical terms, all repeating the same code words - Halliburton, blood for oil, Abu Ghraib - all tearing into their country in a fashion unseen even in the Vietnam era.”
Dennis Prager writing on Townhall on July 6, 2004 Michael Moore and the Problem of American (And Jewish) Self-Hatred commented:
“Many on the American Left loathe America (they love the Constitution and their vision of what America could be) and have contempt for the average American. That is why most of the Left has such admiration for Michael Moore… Elsewhere, he speaks of America as bringing immeasurable misery and sadness to the world and as essentially deserving attacks on it.”
I would add that the supporters with the three fatal bugs have joined forces in the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance and further they have joined in the supporting the apocalyptic ideologies. See: Iraq, Iran, Global Warming and The Apocalypse by David J. Jonsson. Both the Green and Islamist movements seek social transformation of society. The Islamist in seeking to establish the “Islamic kingdom of God on earth,” not necessary though military might but through gradual Islamization including economic means as described in the paper: Islamic Economics and Shariah Law: A Plan for World Domination by David J. Jonsson.
Iran’s push for nuclear weapons is accompanied by its development of ICBMs. The threat of a nuclear armed Iran is no longer just a problem for Israel and their Arab neighbors. Iran’s development of ICBMs that could reach Washington DC brings the threat home with added urgency. The nuclear Iran is not just a local issue.
Iran has just completed conversion of a powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. But the 25-30-ton rocket could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing to test longer-range Iranian missile technologies. The Bush administration will likely view the vehicle as a rogue rocket developed in a cabal of Iran and North Korea. The new launcher has recently been assembled and “will lift off soon,” says Alaoddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.” Said Aviation Week in their article of January 17, 2007, Shia Islamic satellite set for liftoff on ICBM cloaked as space booster,. And Iran did it!
An Iranian ICBM with a range of nearly 2,500 miles could reach as far west as Central Europe and well into Russia, China and India. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency has told Congress that Iran in fact may be capable of developing a 3,000-mi.-range ICBMs by 2015.
It is also troubling that Russia has provided $700 million in surface-to-air missiles to Iran and eight new aerial refueling tankers to China, according to a new Congressional study. A major strength of the U.S. military establishment is our ability to refuel our aircraft in flight and ships at sea. Russia is also providing weapons to Venezuela. The sales to improve Iran’s air-defense system are particularly troubling to the United States because they would complicate the task of Pentagon planners should the president order air strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. The Russian weapon sales to improve Venezuela’s air-defense system are also troubling.
We can talk about ICBMs and all the other weapons being provided by Russia and China around the world. At the bottom line, the involvement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian’s close relations with Chavez in Venezuela, his relations with Cuba and Nicaragua, places the threat just 90 miles from the shores of America. And, this relationship is supported by the Leftists with the likes of Chindy Shaheen and the anti-war activist organizations including Code Pink and United for Peace and Justice, and radical environmental organizations including Oxfam, Global Exchange and the RainForest Action Network. These groups have intent of destroying America from the inside.
As Americans enjoyed their Independence Day fireworks last year, Lieutenant General Trey Obering, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency chief, was watching the pyrotechnics display that Kim Jong-il was providing thousands of miles away in North Korea.
The air force general thought the launch by Pyongyang of its previously untested Taepodong-2, an intercontinental ballistic missile with the potential to reach the US, could even provide the first live use of America’s ballistic missile defense system.
“We had turned the system on before but it was the first time that there was a credible threat,” says Gen Obering. The North Korean authorities “had put a missile out there that we felt was capable of reaching the U.S., and they were not telling us what was on top of that missile”.
The Taepodong-2 failed just seconds into flight. But eight months on, what refuses to die down is the controversy over the Pentagon program itself, in particular its roll-out to Eastern Europe. Despite enduring doubts about the scale of both the threat facing the US and the efficacy of missile defense, Washington’s wish to place interceptors for the system in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic has provoked a furious response from Russia and signs of cracks within NATO.
While the US argues that missile defense is essential to deal with the 21st century prospect of rogue states - such as North Korea or Iran - becoming armed with weapons of mass destruction, Moscow protests that the Pentagon’s scheme amounts to a remilitarization of Europe.
The Chinese strategy is control of space and sea-lanes. Therefore, it requires a sea-lane-denial strategy.
In January 2007, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, citing U.S. intelligence sources, has reported that China has successfully tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) system. According to the report, which U.S. officials later confirmed, a satellite was launched, intercepted and destroyed a Feng Yun 1C weather satellite, also belonging to China, on Jan. 11. The weather satellite was launched into polar orbit in 1999. The precise means of destruction is not clear, but it appears to have been a kinetic strike (meaning physical intercept, not laser) that broke the satellite into many pieces. The U.S. government wants to reveal as much information as possible about this event in order to show its concern -- and to show the Chinese how closely the Americans are monitoring their actions. This event opens up the totally new front to defend against. It is of the utmost concern to the United States military establishment. It is huge!
The Jan. 17 magazine report was not the first U.S. intelligence leak about Chinese ASAT capabilities. In August 2006, the usual sources reported China had directed lasers against U.S. satellites. It has become clear that China is in the process of acquiring the technology needed to destroy or blind satellites in at least low-Earth orbit, which is where intelligence-gathering satellites tend to operate.
What is difficult to understand is that after the severe danger of nuclear war during the long decades of the Cold War, we are still only 30-minutes or less from nuclear incineration. The reason is that included among the 27,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled in the world, thousands of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads are on hair-trigger alert. The RAND Corporation reports these weapons could be launched in a few minutes notice destroying both countries in an hour.
Russia’s defense minister Sergei Ivanov on February 7 laid out a plan that aims to surpass Soviet-era military might. A rising tide of oil revenues has enabled Russia to boost defense spending following a squeeze on the military in the 1990s. Sergei Ivanov’s statements appeared aimed at raising his profile at home ahead of the 2008 election in which he is widely seen as a potential contender to succeed President Vladimir Putin. But they also seemed to reflect a growing chill in Russian-U.S. relations and the Kremlin’s concern about U.S. missile defense plans. See also the article: The Grand Chess Masters—The Bear and the Dragon by David J. Jonsson.
While Moscow has confronted fundamentalists at home head-on, it nonetheless pursues a policy of support for Iran and Syria—and, by extension, Hezbollah. In doing so, Russia’s foreign policy has become antithetical to its own national security.
The risk nuclear miscalculations is further increased by the expansion of the number of nuclear powers with the means available for delivery and transnational organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah acquiring nuclear materials.
Although some of the potential new entrants into the Nuclear Club are considered friendly, future regime change may make them unstable and future foes as occurred in Iran. Such a doomsday scenario could result from an accidental missile launch, an early warning system error, terrorism, miscalculation or simply desire for world domination.
The threat still posed by these stockpiles and the new entrants into the Nuclear Club, particularly in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, is so dire that Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS)--the keepers of the Doomsday Clock cited the issue as among their chief concerns last month when they moved the iconic measure of global security forward from seven to five minutes before midnight. The increasing danger is the proliferation of nuclear weapons states, now numbering eight or nine, along with the prospect of others joining this macabre club in the near future.
Nuclear arms races might emerge in regions other than the Middle East as well. Nuclear Armed Countries are arising in Asia. The Asian countries are becoming more nationalistic. Asia has many countries with major territorial or political disputes, including five with nuclear weapons (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia). Japan and Taiwan could join the list. Most of these countries would have the resources to increase the size and quality of their nuclear arsenals indefinitely if they so chose. They also seem to be nationalist in a way that western European countries no longer are: they are particularly mindful of their sovereignty, relatively uninterested in international organizations, sensitive to slights, and wary about changes in the regional balance of military power.
Many of the components of the worldwide war with jihadism are concentrated in Pakistan. So far, Pakistan’s radical Islamists have been able to block their government from taking back control of the country’s western tribal areas and uprooting the fundamentalist organizations in its east. But potentially even more dangerous is the possibility that jihadists could take control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. In this context, the most serious threat to the United States would be the collapse of the Musharraf government and the Pakistani military at the hands of radical Islamists. Should this happen, the U.S. would be under direct nuclear threat from a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda regime—one that would have tremendous control over many other Muslim countries. See: The Truth About Talibanistan, Time August 2, 2006.
Asia might well be, “ripe for rivalry”—including nuclear rivalry if the United States were to stop serving as guarantor of the current order. In that case, the region would raise problems similar to those that would be posed by a nuclear Middle East.
If and when the U.S. is able to lift its attention from the Middle East, it will be finding itself a much better placed and more formidable China.
Six states—Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency are planning to go nuclear. In all six cases, they are talking only of developing civilian nuclear energy programs, as international law permits that. But no one doubts that this sudden interest in nuclear power has military implications.
Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies assumes these states want a “security hedge” vis-à-vis Tehran. “If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush.” It also marks an abrupt reversal among states which until very recently had called for a nuclear-free Middle East, and for Israel to disarm.
Up to 30 more countries may develop atomic weapons if the proliferation of nuclear technology is not stopped, the IAEA—the UN’s nuclear watchdog has warned.
On February 6, 2007 according to the Burma Digest, Burma: A Potential Nuclear State (part-2) , the Foreign Minister of Burma claimed his support of nuclear proliferation of Iran. This is not the first time that the military regime of Burma openly mentions about its favor in nuclear technologies. It has announced to join the nuclear club since 2002.
Although its claims are based on civil use and medical research facilities, its actions to seek nuclear technologies and possible nuclear weapons are more obvious by means of sending the military engineers to Russia to study nuclear science and establishing the secret nuclear plants inside Burma.
While we have addressed the buildup of weapons and military strength in the usually identified countries, the suppliers such as China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are providing weapons to the Non-Aligned Nations. Of particular importance to the United States is the buildup in Venezuela and Cuba.
While the Iraq crisis continues, the strategy of the Grand Chess Masters—Russia the bear and China the dragon along with their pawns the Leftists, Marxists and Islamists continue to develop and put in place their strategy for the ultimate goal of world domination.
“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power…For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia—and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained….How America manages Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75% of the world’s people live in Eurasia and most of the world’s physical wealth as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”
The U.S. faces potential conflict in Eurasia, the Mediterranean/Iraq/Iran, and the Horn of Africa and also in the Pacific with events in North Korea. With the backing of Venezuela and Cuba by Iran/China/Russia, conflicts could also erupt in the Caribbean.
Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer Staff Writer for the Council on Foreign Affairs on November 1, 2006 wrote in the article Russia-Iran Arms Trade: “Last year, Russia surpassed the United States as the developing world’s leader in arms deals, according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). But Russia has increased military shipments to anti-U.S. states like Iran and Venezuela, not to mention potential adversaries like China, which concerns U.S. policymakers far more. Experts say Iran—as well as Syria—may have transferred some of these small arms to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Also, Russia’s arms relationship with Iran, the thinking goes, further complicates efforts to impose punitive sanctions against Tehran for its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
Russia, in addition to control of gas shipments to Europe from Central Asia, has also signed on to supplying weapons and security alignment with the Collective Security Treaty Organization, (CSTO). CSTO countries include Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Armenia. CSTO has also formed a military cooperation agreement with India. India and Russia have signed on August 20th, a far-reaching military cooperation agreement. Although not officially directed against the U.S., the purpose of this agreement is understood. The two countries have “agreed to focus on joint war games in services-to-services interaction, joint development of new weapons systems and training of Indian military personnel”, (Press Trust of India, 21 August 2006). Military-technical cooperation between Russia and India is worth $1.5 billion a year. The MiG Corporation is also taking part in an Indian tender to deliver 126 fighter aircraft valued at $6.5 billion. See also the article in Global Politician: Nuclear Proliferation — Options In A Perfect Storm by David J. Jonsson.
Beijing plans to build three aircraft carriers by 2016 and is putting the finishing touches with Rosoboron export for the supply of 12 more SU-33s fighters, Ria Novosti reported. The contract can grow to 48 aircraft that would increase costs up to 2.5 billion dollars.
Transnational entities such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and their related organizations are gaining strength worldwide. They may achieve their goal of ultimately obtaining and ultimately using WMD. In some cases they are intimately linked with the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance. The mode of operation is to use terrorism, threats of terrorism, political action and participation in the “democratic process”. Their goal is to create a totalitarian new world order. The actions are occurring worldwide as seen in the elections in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even in Spain.
Transnational Jihadist groups are operating worldwide. An example of such an organization is Hizb-ut-Tahrir -- Literally translated as “the party of liberation.” Reference: Critical Mass: Hiib rrt-Tahrir al-Islami and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan byDon Rassler at Columbia University December 3, 2006.
HT aims to reestablish an Islamic caliphate, which would be modeled after the unified Islamic State established by the Prophet during the seventh century. The method, “the only way to reestablish the kind of Islamic society promulgated by the Prophet,” al-Nabhani argued, “was to liberate Muslims from the thoughts, systems, and laws of kufr (nonbelievers) and replace the Judeo-Christian-dominated nation-state-system with a borderless ummah [community of believers] ruled by a new caliph.” [Creating the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth.]
Founded as a more nationalistic alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood by a Palestinian judge named Sheikh Taquiddin al-Nabhani the group defines itself as a nonviolent political organization, but allegedly “denounces all existing political systems."
The party’s general goal is to "resume the Islamic Way of Life and convey the Islamic call to the world. On a more specific level, however, HT aims to reestablish an Islamic caliphate, which would be modeled after the unified Islamic State established by the Prophet during the seventh century. The method, "the only way to reestablish the kind of Islamic society promulgated by the Prophet," al-Nabhani argued, "was to liberate Muslims from the thoughts, systems, and laws of kufr (nonbelievers) and replace the Judeo-Christian-dominated nation-state-system with a borderless ummah [community of believers] ruled by a new caliph.” See also: Caliphatism - Establishing the “Islamic Kingdom of God on Earth by David J. Jonsson.
Although authors differ about HT’s approach and commitment to a gradual and nonviolent process, it is clear that HT is dedicated to a radical goal: the destruction of the existing international order. In order to obtain their goal, the establishment of the caliphate and eventual Muslin rule, the leaders of HT believe they must follow three precise steps:
· First, the group must build the strength of the party by “cultivating individuals” through recruitment, propaganda and the establishment of study groups.
· Secondly, through more robust recruitment and encouraging “the ummah to embrace Islam” the group aims to covertly infiltrate government institutions and increase their efforts to create tension between society and those in power.
· The third and final step is the establishment of an Islamic state based on Shuria, which would unite the Islamic world, enabling it to spark a worldwide Islamic revolution.
The London website about Hizb ut-Tahrir is < http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/ht-britain.html>. On March 19, HTB launches Iraq report-exposing myths of occupation & charting new way forward for the Middle East. The report is being widely circulated amongst thinkers, academics, journalists, columnists, politicians and think tanks.
“The report also argues that “any discussion of withdrawal from only Iraq will not serve to end the legacy of Western colonialism in the Middle East” because“for the long term stability of the region it is essential that foreign troops withdraw from the entire region, for their meddling has led to almost a century of tyrannical rule, brutal occupation and instability.””
“The report advocates the withdrawal of all foreign military personnel in Iraq and the wider region, an end to the West’s support of dictatorial leaders in the region, allowing the Muslim world to decide its own political destiny without interference, freeing the region’s vast energy reserves from the control of monarchies and multinationals, recognition of the illegality of the occupation of Palestine and an end to double standards over nuclear power in the region.”
“In the light of this report, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and the Muslims of Britain call for the return of the Islamic Caliphate which will end the cycle of foreign occupation, dictatorship and war which has ravaged a region that previously prospered for over a thousand years under the stability of Islamic governance.”
According to Heritage Foundation in the article: Hizb ut-Tahrir: An Emerging Threat to U.S. Interests in Central Asia by Ariel Cohen, Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a “totalitarian organization, akin to a disciplined Marxist-Leninist party, in which internal dissent is neither encouraged nor tolerated.” A candidate member undergoes two years of indoctrination, becoming a full member only after he “melts with the Party.” Members belong to compartmentalized cells and know the identities of only the others in that cell. “When a critical mass of cells is achieved,” writes Cohen, “according to its doctrine, Hizb may move to take over a country in preparation for the establishment of the Caliphate.”
“HT is not itself a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists. It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations. By combining fascist rhetoric, Leninist strategy, and Western sloganeering with Wahhabi theology, HT has made itself into a very real and potent threat that is extremely difficult for liberal societies to counter.”
The original Columbus Free Press grew out of the anti-war movement on the campus of Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio in October 1970. Inspired by the activism against the Vietnam War and the senseless killings at Kent State, the underground paper was published for a 25-year tumultuous history (1970-1995). Like other underground alternative publications around the country, the Free Press went through many changes through the years. It served as the voice of the students in the early 70’s, reporting on social justice issues such as sexism, racism, peace activism, corporate misdeeds, politics and the counterculture. Constantly struggling to survive on a shoestring budget, it encountered opposition from without and within. Internal ideological struggles were compounded, for example, when police arrested four of the editors in 1971 for “inciting riot.””
On March 7, 2005 they published an article Senator Byrd is correct to equate Bush with Hitler.
“Bush now holds some 2.2 million prisoners in the US gulag, the world’s biggest prison population since the Nazis both by absolute number and by percentage of population. At least 800,000 Americans are held for victimless “drug” crimes, including marijuana. Thousands die each year from torture, rape, suicide and treatable disease. The system is designed to remove from the political process and, in many cases, exterminate people of color, alternative life style and political dissidence.”
“Is this worthy of the Nazi label?”
“Fascism has long been clearly and simply defined as corporate control of the state, with strong totalitarian, militaristic, anti-feminist and anti-gay characteristics.”
“Both Mussolini’s Fascists and Hitler’s Nazis used acts of terror and alleged terror to grab absolute power. Ranting at Bolshevism as the GOP now does against Islam, the Nazis used the burning of the Reichstag much as the GOP has capitalized on the terror attacks of September 11.”
Senator Byrd’s invocation of the Nazis to describe the Bush regime may be considered impolitic. But it’s folly to ignore the important parallels.
“By all accounts American democracy is hanging by a thin thread which Bush/Rove is laboring mightily to cut.”
“Sen. Robert Byrd is a conservative, uniquely learned man. When he equates Bush with Hitler, he speaks with great sadness and scholarship -- and must be heeded.”
It is important to look at some of strikingly similar with banners displayed in the March along Edgware road to US Embassy, London, on 19 August 2006. See the photographs displayed in the article: HIZB UT-TAHRIR PROTEST AGAINST AMERICA <http://moonbatmedia.com/hizb_ut_tahrir_190806/> Here we see the banners also proclaiming “Bush is the real Fascist”, “America – Stop Your Warmongering”, Neo-Conservatives are the New Fascists”, “and Stop Israel’s Terrorism” and “Cut all ties with Israel.”
The Rhetoric For Political Gain Has Global Implications.
Just as the Hizb ut-Tahrir report advocates the withdrawal of all foreign military personnel in Iraq the US House of Representatives voted for the first time Friday to link funding for the Iraq war to a timeline for withdrawing combat troops by August 21, 2008, defying a veto threat from President George W. Bush. Are not these events are creating tension between society and those in power as called for in the strategy above?
On March 23, 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif said “The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.” “It’s a historic moment for our party and a historic moment for our country,” “If you want peace, stop funding this war,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Democratic Representative John Murtha, a passionate advocate of a US withdrawal from Iraq, said: “We are going to bring those troops home; we are going to start changing the direction of this great country.”
Conflicts over the control of natural resources will be a driving force in the world geopolitical events in the future. The major powers will seek control at any cost. The disordered spaces in the world are where states have lost the monopoly of force needed to sustain order and the rule of law, where poverty and disease are endemic, centers of extremism, insurgency and political violence, those regions with young and mobile populations and finally in the series delineates rich concentrations of natural resources - oil, minerals and the rest.
.And, yes, these troubled parts of the world are places upon which we, the inhabitants of ordered and prosperous countries depend for the raw materials to feed our economies. Unsurprisingly, the Middle East and Africa loom large.
The leading players seeking the natural resources include the United States, Europe, Russia, China and India. The events will result in potential wars and at the very least destabilizing the world.
The U.S. and Europe are reliant on imported energy and critical raw materials; we are living in a time of interdependence. The reliance on interdependence requires the defense of potential suppliers and most importantly the delivery systems and the transport lanes – sea lanes. The cost in monetary terms is huge, but the potential in terms of life may be even greater.
The companies seeking foreign supply of new sources are major investors in the countries that are potentially the greatest threat to the West, such as Iran. These investments will result in the countries using these funds to build nuclear weapons potentially to cause a nuclear holocaust.
We commonly only think in terms of oil and fuel for automobiles, but we are also importing energy in the form of the materials we commonly use such as plastics, aluminum, copper, steel and most importantly fertilizer. The U.S. currently imports over 50% of their ammonia—urea used to grow our crops. Increasing the production of ethanol jeopardizes both our energy and our food supply.
The U.S. also needs materials and metals, such as rare earths from China and titanium from Russia to maintain our weapons program. Unless we have plans for our security, we are at risk for defense. Shutting down a mining operation for Rare Earth in the U.S. because of an environmental concern can be just as devastating to security as the transfer of nuclear material to a rogue nation.
Similar conditions also exist for other basic materials.
For 60 years the transatlantic alliance had been the pillar of European security, the bridge uniting the two great centers of Western civilization. Four years ago this month it nearly collapsed amid the diplomatic traumas that preceded the Iraq war. Diplomats on both sides say, and many even seem to believe, that the transatlantic partnership has been brought back from the brink, and is once again playing a central role in global security. They speak of progress in transatlantic efforts to defuse Iran’s nuclear program, to bring a lasting peace to Lebanon, and to move the Balkans steadily toward a lasting stability.
Last month in Seville, Spain, NATO’s defense ministers met to discuss an urgent request to commit more troops and equipment to the war in Afghanistan from General Bantz Craddock. The ministers heard a sobering assessment from Gen. Craddock of the stalled progress in Afghanistan and of the probability of a spring offensive against the United States and NATO forces by the Taliban and al Qaeda. The response, according to one official present, was negative. “They don’t share our view of the scale and nature of the threat that Afghanistan represents,” says a U.S. official who was there. This, remember, is not Iraq, which many European governments opposed, but Afghanistan, “the good war,” the fight against the people who gave us September 11. This is the struggle that was prefigured when the NATO governments invoked for the first time in the alliance’s history Article V, the collective defense clause, pledging to do what was necessary to defend their allies.
This gulf applies not just to Afghanistan. Consider European responses to the deteriorating situation in Russia. Last month Vladimir Putin marched into the very cockpit of the transatlantic alliance, the annual Munich Security Conference, and flipped a frosty Moscow finger at the assembled Europeans and Americans.
He attacked the United States as a bullying unilateralist that was tearing up international law. But just as the Europeans in the audience were nodding in approval, the Russian president turned on them too. He denounced NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders and even found time to insult the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, the stately body that has been aiding and promoting democratic reform in the former Soviet bloc, as a “vulgar” institution. The carefully structured world imagined by the west’s leaders after the collapse of communism has proved a mirage.
The initial reaction, even from Europeans, was hostile. But on reflection, they seemed to decide that a supportive cringe would be more appropriate. A senior German official commented that there was much in what Putin had said that would resonate in Europe. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, a supposedly sober newspaper, blamed the United States for the new Cold War atmosphere, saying it had created “the opportunity for Putin to set himself up as the powerful voice of the growing number of countries and peoples who are stricken by doubt in the wisdom of Western policies.” This, sadly, for all the continent’s boastful claims of a new transatlantic partnership, is the true voice of modern Europe: a Europe that refuses to fight a war, to which it has pledged itself, against terrorists in Afghanistan; a Europe that declines to stand up to a Russian president who condemns its efforts to spread democracy even as his KGB friends eliminate their critics in European capitals. The transatlantic partnership may be back together again. Whether it stands for anything is much less clear.
Later the German government hosted celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the covenant that marked the birth of the institution that became the European Union. Chancellor Merkel and her 26 fellow heads of government used the occasion to launch the Berlin Declaration, a document intended to serve as the signposts for the future evolution of the E.U. The final details of the declaration are still under negotiation but the outlines are clear.
After the usual self-congratulatory preamble paying stirring tribute to the E.U.’s role in preserving the peace and generating prosperity over the last 50 years, the document will address the challenges of the future. What challenges are these? Terrorism, perhaps nuclear proliferation, the spread in Europe and the Middle East of Islamist ideology? Wrong on all counts.
On its 50th birthday, the E.U. will commit itself to fighting global warming, the economic dislocations caused by globalization and, most courageous of all, the institutional shortcomings of the union itself. This last means, by the way, at least in the German view, a resurrection of the European constitution, the blueprint for a nascent federal European state that was, you may remember, roundly rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands two years ago. Europeans will try hard to continue believing that they can huddle in their comfortable corner against the storms.
Opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of European voters and a growing percentage in Americas believe “peace” comes before all else. Nothing wrong with that -- except when the inference is that Europe’s eternal role is that of the concerned bystander; and sometimes even Americans are not even overly concerned. Thoughtful policymakers have been struck, and dismayed, by apparent public indifference towards the plight of Darfur. As depressing, is a visible weakening in the resolve of European governments and Americans to defeat the ‘defeat of forces’ threatening to destroy Western civilization.
The Islamic radicals we are fighting know they are far less wealthy and far less advanced in technology and weaponry than the United States. But they believe they will prevail in this war, as they did against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, by wearing us down and breaking our will. They believe America and the West are “the weak horse”—soft, irresolute, and decadent. Al-Zarqawi once said Americans are the most cowardly of God’s creatures,”
The war against global jihadism will be long, and we will experience success and setbacks along the way. The temptation of the West will be to grow impatient and, in the face of this long struggle, to grow weary. Some will demand a quick victory and, absent that, they will want to withdraw from the battle. But this is a war from which we cannot withdraw. As we saw on September 11th, there are no safe harbors in which to hide. Our enemies have declared war on us, and their hatreds cannot be sated. We will either defeat them, or they will come after us with the unsheathed sword.
They will discover otherwise. The west’s interests as it navigates this rugged geopolitical terrain are as they have ever been: to export security, prosperity and, yes, liberal democratic values beyond its frontiers. On this, moral impulse, and hard headed interests are one. As it happens, the rising powers will discover over time that they have the same stake in an ordered world. But getting from here to there will not be an easy journey.
“With every passing year following the events of 9/11 the rise of Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance has increased global instability. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients–far bigger in scale than those leading to World Wars I and II and the Gulf Wars of 1991 or 2003–were in place.”
All of us would prefer years of repose to years of conflict. But history will not allow it. And so it once again rests with us to do what we have done in the past: it is our duty. We must win and we will win.
David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon Press 2005. His new book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance (Salem Communications (May 30, 2006). He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and personal encounter. David can be reached at: email@example.com
BACK to America At War - Salem The Soldier's Homepage