Saturday, September 30, 2006

Rome Getting It Wrong on Islam

I have previously written two posts (Part 1, Part 2) on "Rome Getting It Right on Islam", praising the shift in official Vatican policy regarding Islam from Pope John Paul II to Benedict XVI. Just when it looked like it was safe to loudly cheer Benedict's recent comments regarding Islam at a conference in Regensberg, Germany - comments that have rightly inflamed the Muslim world - it seems that what he has given on one hand, he has taken away with the other.

Daniel Pipes reports that in the wake of violence and condemnations in the Muslim world in response to Benedict's Regensburg address, the Roman Catholic pontiff has this past week acknowledged Islam's filial relationship to Christianity as a member of the Abrahamic faith. In his address to the Ambassadors to Rome from Muslim countries, Benedict reaffirmed the Second Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate Declaration, which equates the Islamic Allah with the Christian God:
The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God.

Benedict went so far as to cite this conclusion as "the Magna Carta of the Muslim-Christian dialogue." This is clearly a step in the wrong direction, though he is following in the path of his predecessor, who said regarding Christians and Muslims while visiting Morocco in 1995, "we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God."

As we are engaged in the most recent phase combatting the 1400 year-long defense of the West against violent and aggressive Islamic imperialism, it is tempting to lose our nerve. In this case, Pope Benedict has lost his. The furor by Muslims over his recent comments has prompted him to retreat into the institutional complacency that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church for the past two hundred years. Benedict has shown signs of breaking this habit. He has made some bold steps to break with the policies of JPII in a short period of time. But this is a time for leadership, not safety.

Islam is not a step forward for monotheism, but is a retreat into paganism. This has been the unmistakable message of the Christian Church since the 7th Century. Benedict is in an unparalleled position to provide leadership the world by proclaiming Christian truth in the face of the Islamic threat to global civilization. He only squanders this opportunity by mau-mauing to the political correctness endemic to the Vatican diplomatic mandarins.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Al-Qaeda's 20-year Plan

For anyone that is interested in the war on terrorism, and article in last week's issue of The New Yorker is must reading. Lawrence Wright's, "The Master Plan," discusses the development of al-Qaeda's strategy since 9/11, gives an overview of their primary strategists, including Abu Musab al-Suri (who I wrote about here back in July, "The Architect of the New Global Jihad"), Abu Bakir Naji (author of The Management of Savagery, now available in a translation by William McCants at the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point), and a critical analysis by Jordanian author Fouad Hussein, who outlines al-Qaeda's 7-step 20-year plan in his book, Al-Zarqawi: al-Qaida's Second Generation. Hussein's book is based off a number of interviews with al-Qaeda leaders and his time in prison with Zarqawi.

The German daily Der Speigel covered Hussein's book last August. They summarized al-Qaeda's 20-year plan:
In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.
  • The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."
  • The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
  • The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
  • The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The ultimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
  • The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
  • The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
  • The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.
Douglas Farah at Counterterrorism Blog asks, "Islamists Have a 20-year Plan: Do We?". According to Wright's New Yorker article, our policymakers have unwittingly played into al-Qaeda's strategy because they refuse to learn from the terrorists themselves:
Although American and European intelligence communities are aware of the jihadi texts, the work of these ideologues often reads like a playbook that U.S. policymakers have been slavishly, if inadvertently, following. “The data don’t get to the top, because the decision-makers are not looking for that kind of information,” a policy analyst who works closely with the American intelligence community told me. “They think they know better.”

It would be suicidal for us to ignore what al-Qaeda is willing to tell us directly. I'll have more on this issue in coming weeks, including some material never made public in English before. Stay tuned.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Hometown Jihad: Citizen Salah Sultan

My newest article, Hometown Jihad: Our Newest Citizen?, is headlining this morning at FrontPage Magazine. Follow the links to my previous articles on this topic, Hometown Jihad, the initial exposé published back in April, and Hometown Jihad: Blowback, which came out in late May.

The newest revelation is that Salah Sultan, the individual who has been the subject of these articles that lives here in my hometown of Hilliard, Ohio, is set to get his US citizenship within the next few weeks. This despite extensive connections and close relationships to terrorists, terror sympathizers, apologists and financiers. He is also the protégé of HAMAS spiritual leader Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, who the Anti-Defamation League has characterized as the "Theologian of Terror".

For those who have asked me what can be done to prevent Salah Sultan from receiving US citizenship, my suggestion would be to contact Rep. Deborah Pryce , our local congressional representativewho is looking into the matter (be sure to be polite), and Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, who is in a tight race for re-election. Also be sure to contact your own Congressman and Senators. They are the only people who can apply the pressure to the idiots at the USCIS to put the kabosh on this deal.

I'll be sure to post any updates as I receive them.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Agence France Presse Pushes CAIR's Fake Hate Crime Numbers

UPDATE #1: It seems from information gleaned from Ms. Oberman's personal website that she is the sole reporter in AFP's Chicago Bureau. AFP's North American Regional Office is located in Washington DC.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to The American Thinker, Little Green Footballs, Miss Kelly and Solomonia for picking up this blog entry. Apologies if I missed anyone else.

UPDATE #3: A hearty Bonjour! to all of our friends joining us from France, Belgium and the Francophone world, courtesy of Bureau audiovisuel francophone.

UPDATE #4: I finally received a reply from Mira Oberman, the reporter who wrote the AFP article, who informed me that she had received the numbers directly from CAIR and that she wasn't aware of the statistics' dubious authenticity. I appreciate her response. But will the story be corrected? I'm not holding my breath.

I was catching up on the holiday weekend news by visiting Little Green Footballs a few hours ago and noticed an entry from Sunday, CAIR's 9/11 PR Push Continues. It references an article by Mira Oberman of Agence France Presse, "US Muslims plagued by discrimination after 9/11 attacks", that makes the following claim advanced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

CAIR has seen a steady increase in the number of complaints of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment over the past five years. In 2004, complaints rose 49 percent to 1,522, of which 141 were reports of actual and potentially violent hate crimes.
These numbers are taken from CAIR's May 2005 report, Unequal Protection: The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2005:

In 2004, CAIR processed a total of 1,522 incident reports of civil rights cases compared to 1,019 cases reported to CAIR in 2003. This constitutes a 49 percent increase in the reported cases of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2003 and marks the highest number of Muslim civil rights cases ever reported to CAIR in our eleven year history.

In addition, CAIR received 141 reports of actual and potential violent anti-Muslim hate crimes, a 52 percent increase from the 93 reports received in 2003.
(p. 5)
Just one problem: a week after CAIR published the report, Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha revealed ("CAIR's Hate Crime Nonsense") that this report included "a pattern of sloppiness, exaggeration, and distortion", especially that it included incidents that CAIR reported as hate crimes when it was known that the "hate crimes" they cited were perpetrated by the Muslim "victims" themselves. In one case in McAllen, Texas included in the CAIR report, even the New York Times had debunked CAIR's "hate crime" claims seven months prior to the CAIR report's release. In another case reported by CAIR in May 2005 as a "hate crime", an Everett, Washington grocer had been charged with setting fire to his own store in August 2004 - a full eight months prior to CAIR's published report. The Seattle Times reported CAIR's "hate crime" as a hoax in August 2004 when the charges were filed against the owner.

If you read the CAIR report that's posted on their website today you will find that all references to these hate crime hoaxes have been scrubbed, but CAIR has never changed the 2004 statistics in the report to account for these fraudulent incidents. Those statistics remain completely unchanged since the original publication of the report, and these are the very same stats parroted by AFP in the article from this weekend.

CAIR was clearly aware enough of this problematic information to scrub any mention of these incidents from the current version of the report available on their website, but careless or deceptive enough not to change the statistics. Regardless, CAIR nowhere indicates that the report has been corrected. And they are still peddling this fraudulent information to their old media allies, who appear to take any information received from CAIR at face value.

How was I able to catch this fakery by CAIR and their useful idiots in the mainstream media? I mentioned the problems with CAIR's report last week in an article for The American Thinker, "Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots". My American Thinker article concerned CAIR's promotion of yet another staged "hate crime" this past July in Xenia, Ohio where two Jordanian restaurant owners hired a former employee to vandalize their store and later were severely injured in a blast when one of the owners lighted a cigarette while standing in a pool of gasoline they had spread intending to set fire to the shop later that evening. As of this evening, CAIR still has an uncorrected post on their website, "Blast at Arab-American Restaurant 'Suspicious'", containing false information about this latest incident. As I mentioned in my American Thinker article, it was reported by the local news media, including the Cincinnati Enquirer, that the owners were themselves responsible for the blast a week before CAIR posted the erroneous information on their website.

But I'm still not finished. Remember those two faked hate crime incidents in McAllen, Texas and Everett, Washington I mentioned earlier? A CAIR press release and news brief continue to tout these faked hate crimes almost a year and a half after the Pipes/Chadha exposé was published.

This raises some serious questions:
  • The most serious is that CAIR - the most prominent Islamic organization in the US today - is deliberately floating fraudulent information to the media despite CAIR's awareness that the information is bogus. That notwithstanding, they are still the darlings of the old media and inside-the-Beltway establishment elites and cited as a reliable source of information.
  • Another concern is that the May 2005 CAIR report has been scrubbed to conceal this problematic information without any notation whatsoever that the report has been changed.
  • In all likelihood, Mira Oberman at AFP was unwittingly duped by CAIR, who probably provided her with these stats (see UDPATE #4 above). But has she ever heard of FACTCHECKING or a Google search?
  • When the CAIR report was debunked by Pipes and Chadha just a week after its release, none of the mainstream media who covered the report's release corrected their stories. I have emailed Ms. Oberman this evening and informed her of the bogus information included in her report. Will AFP correct it and note the fraud? We'll see...
It should be clear to any informed observer that CAIR consistently and deliberately purveys false and fraudulent information (as the numerous instances cited in this blog entry confirm). They are aided in their deception, wittingly or unwittingly, by their go-to people in the mainstream media, much like Ms. Oberman, who take CAIR's propaganda and run with it without the slightest reservation, disregarding a mountain of evidence that should scream "CAUTION! HANDLED BY CAIR!".

As Pipes and Chadha note at the end of their exposé of CAIR's report:

But why do journalists report the results of CAIR’s survey – as though it came from a source without a viewpoint bias, as though past studies had been reliable, as though its polls are scientific, as though it has not been party to threats against an American Muslim dissident, and as though it has not protected Osama bin Laden’s image, as though five of CAIR’s staff and board members have not already been associated with terrorism, and as though it is not named as a defendant in 9/11 terror lawsuit?

One wonders what it will take for old media to ignore CAIR’s unreliable research and instead start reporting
the words of Steven Pomerantz, a former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section, that CAIR's activities “effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

Those are excellent points to ponder...

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Notes on Beethoven

"... there begins in my head the development in every direction ... the fundamental idea never deserts me - it rises before me - grows, I see and hear the picture in all its extent and dimensions stand before my mind like a cast ..."

- Beethoven on composing, to Louis Schlösser, 1822.

Over the past few days I have been viewing the 3-part BBC docu-drama broadcast in June 2005, Beethoven, presented by composer and conductor, Charles Hazlewood. To say that the series is worth the viewing would be an understatement, and to try to summarize it would be foolish. Watch it for yourself.

What impresses me about Beethoven is that his music is intensely personal. As Hazlewood shows, you can chart the progress of his music by what was going on in his life. Beethoven was an absolute egoist self-consumed with his art and his talent. This is hardly unique in the post-modern era where everyone is consumed with themselves and when contemporary art is rarely more than masturbating the artist's ego resulting in absolute drivel; but in his day, it was extraordinary when music was written strictly for patrons and discriminating audiences.

But Beethoven's music also reflects the spirit of his times. Since his life bridges the Enlightenment and the beginnings of Romanticism, it is hardly surprising to find his music both revolutionary and romantic. And he is self-conscious about integrating the philosophy of his day with his music, as seen in Movement 4 in Symphony No. 9, incorporating Schiller's "Ode to Joy" - the first time that choral had been matched with a symphony. As such, Beethoven is full of the contradictions of his day: he is democratic and a humanist, but can't stand people. His paradoxical sentimentality and overbearing fortitude are best expressed in his 5th and 6th Symphonies, which were composed at the same time. The 6th (Pastoral) is light, airy and somewhat nostalgic; whereas the 5th is nothing short of kick-you-in-the-balls brutality. How could I not love Beethoven?

There is much in his tumultuous biography that I can appreciate and identify with, as I am sure is true with many others: his constant financial struggles; his crass and rude behavior that was a defense mechanism to keep others away; his ill fortunes in the area of love; the broken relationships with his family; others taking advantage of his talent for their own purposes. The themes that Hazlewood identifies in Beethoven's music are tension and reconciliation, creativity out of chaos, and integration and creative freedom - all reflective of Beethoven's own experience.

And then there is his deafness. I have pondered as to why Providence would decide that one of the greatest musicians in history should go deaf. We will never know. It would be as if Shakespeare were unable to write. It is a seeming tragedy. But is it? What better testament to the fact that it was God's gift that inspired Beethoven than the faculty through which Beethoven's art was expressed and received by others was the very one denied to him. Who else but God could have allowed the music to dwell in him such that he never needed to hear the music, but just simply had to think it? Those are not talents that are self-developed. They must come with the package.

In contrast to Mozart who expressed his genius within the boundaries and confines of convention, stretching them in the process, Beethoven is about the business of destroying boundaries, breaking rules, shattering and rending worlds. In many respects, Beethoven is the point of no return for music in the West. After him, there was no way to go back and examining the classical age without carrying the baggage and perspective of Modernity. Beethoven is the prism through which we see his predecessors, whether we know it or not. He is much like Kant in philosophy.

As I have been watching the series, I have also been listening to Beethoven's symphonies (the Deutsche Grammaphone collection directed by Herbert von Karajan and played by the Berliner Philharmoniker), as well as several additional pieces. Beethoven's music is still a special challenge to musicians today - think of how difficult it was for the musicians in his own day. The technical demands on the pianist in his piano concertos (think No. 4) are stunning. And then there is the vast range of the music itself in his corpus. Amazing!

The series does an excellent job of demonstrating the meaning of Beethoven's music within the context of the life of the man. It is worth the viewing if you can get ahold of it. Paul Rhys (do the Brits not have vowels?) does as excellent job as Beethoven. Getting a handle on Beethoven's music, however, is not so easy. It has taken me more than a decade to begin to digest his music. The first place I started a number of years ago was a 2-disc set called "Beethoven: The Greatest Hits", which is still in print and available at most music stores. It is a pretty broad selection (including my favorite, the Moonlight Sonata), but most of the work would be familiar to the average listener. That collection is a good jumping-off point before diving into his symphonies, sonatas, concertos, etc. You can only eat the elephant one bite at a time, but the meal is worth the effort!

What's next on the viewing list? BBC's The Genius of Mozart, also presented by Hazlewood, and The Romantics, presented by Peter Ackroyd. The Beeb might be filled with moonbat Leftists, but they sure make good documentaries. Something Americans could learn from.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

CAIR's Kafir-phobia

If you're here visiting from my article today in The American Thinker, Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots, welcome! Feel free to put your feet up and look around a while! For my Islam-related posts, check the sidebar to the right.

Ya'll come back again!

UPDATE (09/01/06): Thanks to WorldNetDaily for linking to the article on their Commentary page.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Remembering the St. Bartholomew Day Martyrs


A contemporary portrait of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre

It was on this date in 1572 that one of the most tragic episodes in the history of the Christian Church occurred. The slaughter of tens of thousands of Protestants began in Paris at 3am on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24th to the sound of church bells. One of the first victims was Gaspard de Coligny, the Admiral of France and the leader of the French Calvinists, the Huguenots. Admiral Coligny was arguably the most powerful man in France at the time and one of the closest advisors to Charles IX.

Paris was full of thousands of French Calvinists who were in the city to celebrate the marriage of Henry, King of Navarre, a Protestant, to the Princess Marguerite, the sister of Charles IX. The wedding was held on August 18th much to the dismay of Charles' mother, Catherine de Medici - the she-wolf of European politics and a staunch Roman Catholic. The marriage was intended to resolve tensions between the competing religious factions in France.

When an assassins bullet struck Coligny as he walked the streets of Paris on August 22nd, taking off one of his fingers, Catherine de Medici saw an opportunity to strike against the Protestants while their leader was recovering from his injuries. She pressured her son, Charles, with the help of the Duke of Guise and the Duke of Anjou. She convinced Charles that a Calvinist revolt was imminent. The Huguenot leadership must be eliminated, she argued. She threatened to leave her 23-year old son and return to Italy if he refused to act. Finally, Charles cracked, shouting, "By the death of God, since you choose to kill the Admiral, I consent! But then you must kill all the Huguenots in France, so that not one shall be left to reproach me...Kill them all! Kill them all!"

With that, the butchery began. The king's Swiss Guards were summoned to dispatch the Huguenot leaders, including Coligny (pictured left), who was murdered in his bed by the Duke of Guise. Coligny's body was beheaded, his head presented to Charles, and his body hung up on display.

Spurred on by the Roman Catholic clergy, the masses soon seized upon any Huguenot that could be found. One Protestant witness who survived, Jacques-Auguste de Thou, who would later become a prominent Huguenot leader in his own right, described the horror:

"...the streets and ways did resound with the noise of those that flocked to the slaughter and plunder, and the complaints and doleful out-cries of dying men, and those that were nigh to danger were every where heard. The carkasses of the slain were thrown down from the windows, the Courts & chambers of houses were full of dead men, their dead bodies rolled in dirt were dragged through the streets, bloud did flow in such abundance through the chanels of the streets, that full streams of bloud did run down into the River: the number of the slain men, women, even those that were great with child, and children also, was innumerable."

Within days, 5,000 Huguenots lay dead in Paris alone. In the weeks and months that followed, the mass violence spread to virtually every region of France. In Lyon, Dijon, Tours, Troyes, Rouen, Bourges, and Toulouse, few Huguenots were spared from the savagery. The numbers of those murdered are estimated to be between 30,000-100,000.

The reaction to the massacre in Europe ranged from horror to jubilant celebration. The Spanish Ambassador in Paris rejoiced at the savagery: "As I write, they are killing all of them, they are stripping them naked...sparing not even the children. Blessed be God!" In Rome, Pope Gregory XIII welcomed the news of the massacre with a singing of the Te Deum. Pope Gregory also authorized the striking of a commemorative medal honoring the "Slaughter of the Huguenots" and commissioned the painter Giorgio Vasari to paint a mural of the massacre in the Vatican, bearing the inscription, Pontifex Colbni necent probat ("the Pope approves the killing of Coligny"). A portion of Vasari's painting is shown below to the right.

Commemorative medal struck by Pope Gregory XIII honoring the massacre of the Huguenots

The massacre had more impact amongst the Protestants across Europe. Perhaps one of the most important legacies of the event was the shift in Protestant political theory. For the next thirty years, printing presses would flow with new books contending against the "divine right of kings" and contending for constitutional monarchies. Francois Hotman's Franco-Gallia would argue that French kings were bound to follow the law and to protect their subjects. Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, argued in his The Right of Magistrates over Their Subjects (1574) from classical, medieval and contemporary history that subjects had a right to defend themselves against unbridled monarchical tyranny and that kings were not due unconditional obedience. Phillipe de Plessisis du Mornay -- another French Calvinist -- wrote in his Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos that Scripture allowed for the murder of a tyrannical monarch to defend liberty of conscience. In Scotland, George Buchanan authored a dialogue, De Jure Regni Apud Scots, dedicated to his pupil, King James of Scotland (later King James I of England). As many Founding Fathers attest to, these monarchomach treatises would play an important ideological role in the America War for Independence two centuries later.

The massacres did not have the intended effect in France that Catherine de Medici and her Roman Catholic supporters hoped for. Within two months, the French Wars of Religion flared again as Huguenots were forced by sheer survival to oppose Charles. Within a year, the Protestants had secured from Charles a guarantee of freedom of religion. In 1574, Charles IX died, which began what is known as the "War of the Three Henries". In the end, Henry of Navarre, who had survived the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre by "converting" to Roman Catholicism, became Henry IV of France. He had joined Protestant forces fighting against the Catholic League after again claiming his allegiance to the Protestant faith. When it became clear that Paris would not tolerate a Protestant king, he reconverted to Roman Catholicism in 1594, remarking, "Paris vaut bien une messe" ("Paris is worth a Mass") and was crowned King of France at Chartres on February 27, 1594. This act united the country and laid the ground for the prosperity that occurred under Henry's reign.

In 1598, Henry signed the Edict of Nantes, which granted official toleration of the Huguenots and purchased civil and religious peace for France for a century until Louis XIV revoked the edict in 1685, which prompted most Protestants to leave France forever (who were warmly welcomed by Protestant countries, including England, Germany, Switzerland, the Dutch Republic, South Africa and America).

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith

My most recent article, Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith, is up today at FrontPage. For those of you just joining us in the 21st Century, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Iran's current president and chief sabre-rattler. Here's a preview:
Ahmadinejad’s worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian President’s ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.

The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejad’s government.

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

This is an important issue. Read it all (if I say so myself).

Monday, August 07, 2006

Getting Noticed Across the Pond

Every now and then when I think that no one is listening, evidence arrives that I'm being heard. A few weeks ago, I had a piece published by The American Thinker, entitled, Radical Islamists and Western Governments, about the collusion between Tony Blair's government (America's supposed partner in the Global War on Terrorism) and the Islamist Muslim Council of Britian, and the presence of known Islamists in Blair's Foreign Office, the equivalent of our Department of State. I received suprisingly little feedback, which is unusual for an article of this sort. At least I usually get some hate mail of the "Die Zionist Pig" variety. That's the standard indicator. The absence of any feedback at all led me to believe that it got lost in the wash or ignored altogether.

Lo and behold, a week ago my American Thinker article was positively mentioned in an opinion piece in the left-leaning British Guardian/Observer. It isn't every day that you get international media attention, even if it was offered with a bit of a political jab at conservatives such as myself. But hey, you take what you can when it's offered.

UPDATE #1: Oi vey! I entirely forgot to mention earlier that my FrontPage Magazine article, The Muslim Brotherhood "Project", was recently reprinted by the Paris-based Institut pour la Défense de la Démocratie.

I have some additional articles coming out hopefully this week. Stay tuned for updates!

Friday, August 04, 2006

In Memoriam: Leon Morris (1914-2006)

I was saddened to hear last week of the death of reknowned Australian Reformed Anglican scholar, Leon Morris. In recent years, Morris' works have been the source of tremendous spiritual encouragement and education for me. It was four years ago that I first read his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, his PhD dissertation for Cambridge that is still today one of the most compelling defenses and expositions of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Covering the biblical themes of Redemption, Covenant, "The Blood", "The Lamb of God", Propitiation, Reconciliation and Justification, it is a tour de force of biblical theology.

What has attracted me to Morris' work has been the centrality of Christ's work of atonement in the Gospel. There is little room for the works of man in our salvation, as this quote (one of my favorites) found in the closing pages of The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross argues:
The people of God on the scriptural view are those who have entered into covenant with Him, and this might well be viewed as an activity of man as well as of God. But the initiative is always thought of as resting with God, and man's part is no more than the accepting of a covenant whose terms have been laid down by God. Thus the very idea of covenant, as the Bible understands it, puts the stress on the divine activity, and this is reinforced by the fact that the covenant in the New Testament is established only because the Son of God died for man and thus put away his sin. There is very little place for human activity in this way of viewing Calvary, and once again we see that atonement is essentially something wrought for, rather than in, man. (p. 300)
The theme of the centrality of the Cross as the heart of the Gospel was a theme I encountered when I read his Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom:
That the cross is absolutely central means that the keeping of the law cannot be imposed on Gentile believers. The teachers Paul was opposing apparently did not grasp this. They were insisting that all converts must keep the whole law. The law was part of revealed Scripture and they saw it as binding on all. The law was at the heart of God's purpose, they thought, and this for Gentile believers as for Jews. Paul does not denigrate the law. It was divinely given and it was regarded as a great treasure by the Israelites in general, and Paul in particular. Paul sees it as very important. But it is not the way of salvation. To see the law as divinely given and as an incomparable guide to the way we should live out our salvation is one thing, but it is quite another to affirm that anyone's salvation hangs on the way he or she keeps the law. (p. 27)
These two books are excellent antidotes to those who today want to smuggle man's work and obedience into our salvation under the guise of "covenantal obedience" and other sundry postmodern theological inventions.

It was more than a year ago that Morris' The Cross in the New Testament took a place in my reading stack. Honestly, I have still not finished it, more out of laziness than anything else. But the third that I have read (covering Matthew, Mark and Luke) are a testament to solid biblical scholarship. His footnotes alone are worth the read, for they demonstrate his masterful handling of the vast body of theological literature on the topic. And still, the dominant theme of Christ's work and his identification with sinners is central:
The revolutionary thing in the practice of Jesus was his readiness to identify Himself with ordinary men. He did not take up a position anythig like that of the general run of religious leaders. He did not blame or despise men for failing to keep the traditions. He did not regard Himself as too holy to come into contact with them. He did not thank God that he was not like other men. Instead He sought them out. He talked with them. He dined with them. He made Himself one with them... He made Himself one with sinner because His mission concerned sinners, because He came to do for them that which was vitally necessary, but which they could not do for themselves. (pp. 90-92)
About the same time as I started reading The Cross in the New Testament, I also picked up his New Testament Theology. For good reason, this is a standard theological textbook in many evangelical seminaries. This is an excellent study of theology proper - the study of the person of God. And as Morris progresses through the New Testament, he shows how each biblical writer adds to our understand of who God is.

Morris, of course, is best known for his magnum opus, his NICNT commentary on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John was a frequent stomping ground for Morris, and his lectures on John (some of which are available for free from SermonAudio) communicate his love for the topic. I hope to get to his commentary soon after finishing The Cross in the New Testament and the NICNT commentary on Hebrews by Bruce.

For me, the particular value of Morris' work has been for its clarity, accessibility, and focus on the work of Christ for us as the paramount message of the Gospel. Excepting The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, which does have some discussion on Greek terminology that might that might require some modest familiarity with the language, Morris writes without all of the flower and show that seems to be endemic with theological writers today. He is a "meat and potatoes" theologian. But it is rock solid. Even in his shorter devotional works, like The Cross of Christ, have meat enough to eat. His commentary on Galatians I cited above is an excellent example of what popular commentaries should be - engaging, informative and readable. Through his theological writings and his many years of teaching, Leon Morris has forged a lasting legacy worthy of the saying, "Though dead, he yet speaks". Blessed in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

What I'm listening to: At the recommendation of Clay Biggs, I'm listening to Maurice Duruflé, Sacred Choral and Organ Works. I've only listened to the first disc of two thus far (which includes his Requiem, Op. 9), but this is great music to soothe the soul. Very passionate and an excellent blend of organ and voice. As always, this is a good call by Mr. Biggs.

Update #1: D.A. Carson has some remembrances of Morris at Reformation21.

Friday, July 28, 2006

New documentary: Obsession, Radical Islam's War Against the West

Friends,

I wanted to direct your attention to my movie review published this morning by FrontPageMag.com of Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West. This is an absolutely MUST SEE documentary from HonestReporting.com. Sadly, this isn't something that you're likely to see on PBS or the History Channel.

I think that there are three important points made by the movie (I'm boiling this down from about 20 important points):

1) The jihad of radical Islam is a global movement. The US media does not do a good job of covering the terrorist attacks outside of the West (compare the coverage of the 7/7 London bombings last year that killed 55 vs. the coverage of the Mumbai train bomb in India that killed 200+ earlier this month). You probably don't understand how widespread the jihad really is. The first 10 minutes of this movie will correct those misunderstandings.

2) Radical Islam as an ideology is a greater threat than Communism and Nazism. The movie notes that the threat is not just to Westerns, but to Muslims themselves that do not share the views of radical Islam. The parallels between the West's lack of action in the 1930s to Nazism and the laissez-faire policies of the West today regarding Islamic extremism are strikingly similiar.

3) Pretending that the threat doesn't exist, or recognizing that the threat exists and choosing to do nothing about it, is a suicidal policy that threatens us, our children and our grandchildren. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Each one of us must decide what we will do in response to this menace.

I can't say it strongly enough that this is a movie that you, your family, your friends, your church, your civic group, your school, and your elected representatives needs to see. The film is a very balanced presentation and they do not resort to graphic images of carnage (which they easily could have done). It is a family-friendly movie. Even at 73 minutes, it moves along at a quick pace. This is not your lazy documentary. They squeeze in a lot of information in a short amount of time.

You can view a trailer or purchase a copy from the movie's website. Buy extra copies to loan out to friends and to give to others.

This film will rock your complacent Western world!

"The only thing need for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

New Article at American Thinker

Greetings to everyone joining us today from The American Thinker and Boars Head Tavern. My most recent article, Radical Islamists and Western Governments, is up this morning at American Thinker. If this is your first time here, you can also read my previous articles for FrontPage Magazine by going to my author's page. My Islam-related blog posts can be found on the sidebar on the right of this page.

Thanks for visiting! Enjoy your stay!

Monday, July 17, 2006

The Architect of the New Global Jihad

When US intelligence officials confirmed in May that Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmariam Nasar, one of the top five wanted al-Qaeda leaders and better known to the world under his nom de guerre, Abu Mus’ab al-Suri (“The Syrian”), was in US custody after being taken in a sting in Quetta, Pakistan last November, few mainstream media outlets in the US outside of the Associated Press and NBC News took notice at the time. The Washington Post finally stepped up to note the importance of al-Suri’s capture and career in a May 23rd article, Architect of New War on the West.

In fact, al-Suri’s capture may be the most significant in the Global War on Terror since that of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the Number 3 man in al-Qaeda and the operational leader of the 9/11 attacks, in March 2003. One analyst has called al-Suri “the most dangerous terrorist you’ve never heard of”. Identified by European intelligence officials as one of the operational leader of the al-Qaeda bombings in Madrid and London, al-Suri is also responsible for crafting and implementing a new terror strategy to unleash a new campaign of indiscriminate attacks at America and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. Unfortunately, despite his detention by US authorities, al-Suri’s legacy as the architect of the new global jihad will continue well into the forseeable future.

In March 2006, Brynjar Lia, a senior researcher for the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) and the author of a forthcoming book on al-Suri’s career and ideological innovations, published an extended profile on the al-Qaeda strategist (which I have relied on heavily in preparing this article), noting his impressive terrorist resume:

  • Al-Suri began his career in the early 1980s with the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, where he received extensive training from Egyptian, Iraqi and Jordanian military officials in guerilla warfare and explosives engineering. He served in the organization’s leadership in Baghdad after the Syrian Ba’ath regime suppressed a revolt by the Brotherhood in 1982, finally breaking with the group due to their growing ties to Saddam Hussein.
  • He moved to Spain in 1985 where he opened an import business and planned to continue the resistance in Syria. During this time he authored an extensive and advanced study of the strengths and weaknesses of the Syrian resistance, The Syrian Islamic Jihadist Revolution – Pains and Hopes, marking his talents in theory and strategy. He also penned a number of essays under the pen name Umar Abd al-Hakim. After marrying a Spanish convert to Islam in 1988 (thereby gaining Spanish citizenship), he left to join the muhajadin in Afghanistan, who were still fighting the Soviet occupation.
  • During his tenure in Afghanistan from 1987-1992, he quickly rose to prominence due to his extensive training in Syria and after catching the attention of Abdullah Azzam, the father of the Arab-Afghan movement, mentor to Osama bin Laden, and one of the chief founders of al-Qaeda. Al-Suri claims to have been in constant company with Azzam until Azzam’s assassination in 1989 in a struggle over direction of the Afghan resistance. He eventually was promoted to al-Qaeda’s Shura Council as Emir of the Syrians, representing the Syrian contingent in Afghanistan. In 1990, al-Suri published the first draft of his Call for a Global Islamic Resistance, which has gone through several subsequent revisions and expansions. As Lia notes (p. 6), this period is when al-Suri recognized the local emphasis of jihadist revolution needed to be expanded to a global scale.
  • In 1992, al-Suri left Afghanistan and moved back to Spain to establish an al-Qaeda cell there. As a result of his many international contacts obtained in Afghanistan and as one of the most experienced leaders in the global Islamist movement, the Spanish cell became a primary backbone for al-Qaeda operations in Europe and al-Suri became one of its most important leaders. During this time he also became actively involved in supporting the Islamists in Algeria and Bosnia.
  • In 1994, he moved to London to establish an al-Qaeda media center, the Islamic Conflicts Study Bureau, where he organized interviews for the BBC and CNN with Osama bin Laden. As Lorenzo Vidino of the Investigative Project noted in a May 2004 National Review article, al-Suri was one of the chief architects of the radical Islamic scene now referred to as “Londonistan”. He also contributed a number of articles to the UK-based Al-Ansar Magazine in defense of the murderous Algerian GIA; and his close associate, Abu Qatada, described as “Bin Laden’s Ambassador to Europe” and chief editor of Al-Ansar, issued a fatwa allowing for the killing of women and children by the GIA. Because al-Suri was suspected of being involved in the 1995 Paris metro bombing and his active contacts with bin Laden, he was briefly arrested by British authorities and released.
  • Al-Suri returned to Afghanistan in 1998 after the Taliban takeover to escape what he thought was increased scrutiny by British intelligence. He initially directed a training camp for bin Laden schooling Arab jihadists, and in April 2000 he swore bayat to Taliban leader Mullah Umar and was charged with establishing a Taliban military camp, al-Ghuraba (“The Aliens”), at the Taliban’s Kargha military base for training sleeper cells made up of Muslims from all over Europe and the US. He was also involved in WMD training at the Durunta training complex near Jalalabad.

Safely back in Afghanistan, al-Suri began producing a series of strategic studies of the global jihad movement, including a detailed and frank analysis of the Taliban regime, which, according to Lia, concluded that “despite some weaknesses, must be considered a true Islamic Emirate, and the only true Islamic State on the planet” (p. 10).

It is during this critical period in the life of the jihadist movement and al-Suri’s career that he began reevaluating al-Qaeda’s tactics and began questioning the direction of the group’s leadership. One of the most telling indicators of the shift in his thinking is an email sent by al-Suri and his associate Muhammad al-Bahayah to bin Laden in July 1999, which was discovered when a reporter covering the fall of the Taliban regime in November 2001, Alan Cullison, unknowingly purchased an al-Qaeda official’s laptop that had been left behind in the evacuation of Kabul. The email is reprinted in Cullison’s September 2004 article in The Atlantic, Inside Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive.

In al-Suri’s email, he expresses frustration with bin Laden’s obsession with international publicity and the danger that it posed to their Taliban safe haven by attracting the attention of Western authorities. “I think our brother has caught the disease of screens, flashes, fans, and applause,” the pair wrote. Disagreements notwithstanding, when suspicions were raised about a fracture within al-Qaeda, al-Suri appeared on al-Jezeera TV in 2000 to dismiss the rumors, and he still served among the highest ranking officials within al-Qaeda.

But the 9/11 attacks changed the playing field for al-Qaeda and for al-Suri’s thinking on the future of the global jihadist movement in particular. Some intelligence reports place him at the July 2001 “Tarragona Summit” in Spain when Mohammad Atta met with al-Qaeda officials to complete instructions for the 9/11 attacks. Ominously, in December 2004 after it was announced that the US government had put a $5 million bounty on al-Suri’s head and listed him as one of the top five wanted al-Qaeda leaders, he posted on his website a denial of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks and offered his assessment of how weapons of mass destruction should have been included in the planning:

I – along with millions of other Muslims – enjoyed watching the beginning of the collapse of America…if I had been consulted about this operation, I would have advised them to select aircraft on international flights and to have put weapons of mass destruction aboard them. Attacking America with weapons of mass destruction was – and still is – a difficult and complicated matter, but it is still a possibility in the end, if Allah permits us. More importantly, it is becoming a necessity…Let the American people – those who voted for killing, destruction, the looting of other nations’ wealth, megalomania, and the desire to control others – be contaminated with radiation! We apologize for the radioactive fallout.

In the wake of the American response to the 9/11 attacks and the fall of the Taliban, al-Suri’s prediction of the end of their Afghan safe haven was realized. For three years he was on the run, alternating hiding places between Iran and Pakistan before his capture last November. According to his December 2004 statement, he claimed he had not seen bin Laden since November 2001, at which time he pledged bayat to the al-Qaeda leader.

During that time in exile, he reassessed the global jihad strategy and reworked his tactical masterplan, Call for a Global Islamic Resistance. What his post-9/11 experience had taught him was that the standard tactic used against the Soviets of drawing them into a protracted conflict in a Muslim territory and waging a war of attrition was now futile. Not only had the American military learned the lessons from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan by working with indigenous opposition forces, the overwhelming US airpower decimated the ranks of the al-Qaeda fighters. The muhajadin strategy was suicidal against the US.

What the situation demanded, and what al-Suri proposed when he republished his 1,600 page revised version of Call for a Global Islamic Resistance in 2004, was a dramatic restructuring of the global jihad. According to Lia,

Al-Suri concluded that in the post 9/11 era territorial consolidation and guerrilla warfare from fixed bases in rugged terrain is impossible. A new Afghanistan is unimaginable, at least in the short term. Instead, the future jihadist war must be led by small decentalised, mobile units operating completely independently of any centralised organization. (p. 16)

The changes recommended by al-Suri in his “individualized terrorism” strategy include:

  • Identifying the weaknesses of past strategies, especially the reliance on safe havens, like Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan.
  • Understanding the vulnerability of the current hierarchical model and moving to an independent, decentralized structure for operations.
  • Reorienting the emphasis from confrontation in one particular country to a regional goal of pushing Western forces out of the Muslim world.
  • Requiring that all cells be financially self-sustaining to reduce the risk of detection.
  • Recognizing that the global jihad should no longer be the exclusive domain of an Islamic vanguard, but should be responsibility of the entire Islamic ummah. Jihad should be open to Muslims everywhere, and not limited to one group or set of leaders.
  • Expanding the operational parameters beyond the Middle East to create a global theatre of terror.

What is perhaps most important about the shift in al-Suri’s doctrine of jihad is his advocacy for jihadists to impose a “template of terror” in their actions worldwide, as Lia explains:

Al-Suri’s slogan is: nizam, la tanzim, ‘System, not organisation’. In other words, there should be ‘an operative system’ or template, available anywhere for anybody, wishing to participate in the global jihad either on his own or with a small group of trusted associates, and there should not exist any ‘organisation for operations’…The glue in this highly decentralised movement is nothing else than ‘a common aim, a common doctrinal program and a comprehensive (self-) educational program’. (p. 17)

Al-Suri’s “template of terror” and “individualized terrorism” is what has been used in the post-9/11 al-Qaeda attacks in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid and London. In the case of bombings in Madrid and London, this new strategy has been put into practice effectively in the West. Evidence indicates that these operations were under the direct oversight of al-Suri. Documents recovered after the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, which left 191 innocent civilians dead, indicate that al-Suri not only had direct control of the operation and ordered the action to immediately precede the Spanish parliamentary elections, but he also planned a second wave of suicide bombings in Spain – a plan that was foiled when Spanish authorities trapped the bombers in their hideout, where they blew themselves up rather than surrendering.

Spanish intelligence authorities also recovered evidence in the wake of the Madrid massacre that al-Suri was planning an action in the UK and reported such to British intelligence at least four months before the 7/7 bombings in London last summer. Needless to say, despite the advanced warning of al-Suri’s plans, British officials were not successful in defusing the threat. Immediately after the 7/7 bombings, Western intelligence agencies were already acknowledging al-Suri’s role in the attack, as reports from the London Times and the Chicago Tribune indicate.

The Madrid and London attacks are both textbook examples of al-Suri’s “template of terror” strategy, and probably foreshadow the kind of attacks to be launched in the future against the US. In his last public statement before his capture published in August 2005, al-Suri stated his hope to see these kinds of operations conducted in the American heartland:

We also have mujahidden living amongst you. We will unleash the mujahideen to detonate themselves amongst you so that you will all taste the death and terror that you have forced on all of our people, including targeting women and children…In short, and in a sincere way, we would like to tell the Americans and their European allies that we will never obey you…Do you really understand why so many people are so excited to become human bombs and blow you up?

Despite his capture and detention (hopefully he is experiencing the kind hospitality that the CIA is well-known for), al-Suri’s legacy as the architect of the new global jihad extends far into the foreseeable future. I suggest there are four identifiable reasons why this is so:

  1. Al-Suri has trained through his studies, manuals, sermon tapes and instructional videos, as well as his tenure directing al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, a new generation of terrorists, what one analyst has called “the Third Generation of Salafi-Jihadists”. The breadth of training he has provided this new generation is stunning in its scope: media relations, tactical operations, organizational structure, long-term strategy and planning, and individual disciplines critical for the future of jihad (guerilla warfare, explosives engineering, WMD, etc.).
  2. He has rightly identified the best method for advancing the cause of Jihad by recognizing America’s special vulnerability to his “individualized terrorism” tactics. And because of the decentralized nature of the sleeper cells that he himself has planted, most, if not all, of the details about these cells waiting for activation in Europe and the US are unknown to him and may not be exposed no matter how much interrogation he is subject to. In many respects, he prepared al-Qaeda for his own capture.
  3. When reading his writings, it is clear that in recent years his attitude towards the West – particularly Britain and the US – had degenerated into an unbalanced rage. This is reflected in the terror methods he advocates: terror is no longer a means, but an end in itself. He recommends terror for terror’s sake. It might be a difficult contention for Americans to swallow and to look at objectively, but even the 9/11 attacks had concrete strategic value beyond terror: the attacks were aimed at destabilizing our governmental, military and economic institutions, which it accomplished to varying degrees (more economic, less governmental and martial). But bombing a school bus, shooting up a shopping mall, or bombing a church in middle America solely has terror as its objective. Terrorism is no longer to change American policy, but for perceived blood vengeance.
  4. The one area that should be a concern for all Americans is the shift in al-Qaeda strategy related to WMD represented by al-Suri and the technical training he has provided. Just last year, al-Suri posted a 15-page “how-to” instructional pamphlet entitled Biological Weapons on his website. As one WMD terrorism analyst has observed, “Al-Suri, in a sense, has departed from the current strategy of al-Qaeda’s traditional leadership. Al-Qaeda’s leadership has been primarily concerned with providing the justification for jihadis to use WMD, while al-Suri advances this to actively advocating CBRN weapons as essential to the ‘end-game’ strategy.” Al-Suri has shifted the debate from seeing WMD as one of many options for al-Qaeda to use to WMD as a key component to victory of jihad against the US, going so far as to say that their use is “a necessity”.

The capture of al-Suri is a significant accomplishment for the US, but in realistic terms, it might have done nothing to mitigate the threat from his sleeper cell network which may begin operations on their own without activation by al-Qaeda. As the architect of the new global jihad, through the execution and improvement of his “individualized terrorism” and “template of terror”, along with his ideological shift regarding the use of WMD, Americans may experience the victims of al-Suri’s legacy for many years, or even many generations, to come.

Friday, July 14, 2006

The Decline of Western Civilization, Part 1

I was watching Late Night with Conan O'Brien this evening when I encountered perhaps the most telling sign of the decline of Western Civilization I have ever been witness to - David Lee Roth singing Van Halen tunes to country music. "Jamie's Crying" played to a banjo, steel guitar, fiddle, mandolin, the whole works. I wish I was lying.

Is nothing sacred anymore!!!!

Apparently, Roth has cut an entire album, Strummin' With the Devil: The Southern Side of Van Halen, filled with this sacrilege. What's more, various country artists have joined his Satanic coven to defile these sacred tunes. May David Lee Roth and his record company executives rot in the deepest bowels of Rock N' Roll Hell for such blasphemy!

Friday, July 07, 2006

Thoughts on Gothic, Part 1

(Note: This is something I wrote for a book project several years ago. I ran across it in my files and thought it worthy of a reprint, with a few modifications. Also, see this previous post taken from my unpublished devotional using encounters with Gothic cathedrals as an allegory for life.)

Among the few remaining cultural glories of the Age of Christendom are medieval Gothic cathedrals. Having had the opportunity over the years to visit dozens of cathedrals all over the globe, I recall those magnificent structures, with their spires, windows, statues and gargoyles, and have concluded that a Gothic cathedral is a vivid expression of resisting the tyranny of the urgent. Towering above the city skylines, cathedrals are a testament to the slow, deliberate, long-range thinking of the medieval mind. Built with painstaking precision and incredibly complex detail, their edifices rose at a painstakingly protracted pace, generation after generation.

Standing almost a thousand year after they began to appear, it is safe to say that they are the antithesis to our fast-food, disposable culture – they took forever to build, and when finished, they were impossible to get rid of. Because of the awful physics of the project, the cathedral builders had to be equally mindful of both the means and the end. Any shortcut would eventually have catastrophic consequences, possibly costing many lives and undoing hundreds of years of work. Patience and safety were the order every single day.

But there is more than the mechanics and science of it all. There is the psychology of cathedral-building. Every successful cathedral project, including the modern-day Gothic revival churches, required astonishing leadership ability. It took remarkable people skills to build ongoing support in a community to initiate and sustain a project that the original participants, their children, their children’s children, and several generations after that would never see to completion. The organizer of the project, whether it was a bishop, an abbot, or an architect, had to be spiritual leader, project manager, financier, cheerleader, and intergenerational visionary all rolled up into one. They had to make such a dramatic impact in their time to propel the project into the future with such a force that successive generations would pick up the ball and run. The cathedral-builders had to not only cast a vision, they had to literally build the foundations for it. The talent, time and resources necessary for building a cathedral meant that many who tried, failed.

Motivating these leaders was a worldview that wanted to proclaim an inspiring vision of God and an understanding of man’s role in the universe. They wanted to display eternal truths, beauty and art. They sought to make a powerful statement about their ideas and understanding of human existence. These medieval visionaries believed that these radical buildings were symbolic representations of an ordered reality. Furthermore, the cathedral-builders intended their work to be a monumental protest against the prevalent ideas of that time.

The appearance of the cathedrals was a revolt against the Romanesque style that dominated Europe. Rather than being places to display art, such as mosaics and tapestries, the cathedral itself was the art. It was also a massive insubordinate statement of the metaphysical views of the day. The high, upward thrust of the walls was intended to defy gravity, allowing the worshipper to transcend earthly existence to heavenly reality. The walls of glass represented the power of the spiritual world to penetrate the material. Light, seen as absolute truth, was not intended to shine on objects to merely illuminate them; instead, the light of truth would penetrate the walls of our hearts from all directions, to transform and change it. The truth was not subject to our judgments of how it was to shine in our lives; rather, it passed through us regardless and leaves its reflection in a multitude of colors.

As Jean Gimpel notes in his book, The Cathedral Builders, more stone was quarried in France during the 13th Century for cathedrals than for all the pyramid-building at Giza. The architecture of the cathedral, much like the enormity of the pyramids or the extravagant grandeur of Versailles, was intended as propaganda. But the cathedral-builders contradicted the spirit of the Egyptian pharaohs and the French Sun King, because they were marketing, not the vanity and brilliance of man, but the glory of God and His perfect and proportionate attributes reflected in the created order. And they determined to fashion the building with God’s own materials – stone and light.

The medieval visionaries wanted to put our lives in perspective to the divine. Anyone who has walked into Notre Dame de Paris, Cologne, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul’s, or the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. understands that they are entering sacred space. They created a clear-cut distinction between our everyday lives and entering into eternity. Cathedrals are a backhanded statement about our mortality. We all have a beginning and an end, with the tombs and crypts of previous generations in the cathedral itself serving as an unmistakable witness to that fact. The world we live in is bigger than any of us. But there is a role for us in the eternal order of things if we would only look up and realize our place and come to terms with the purpose of our lives. It is an experience only comparable to viewing the staggering geography of the Grand Canyon; or gazing at the supreme heights of the Rocky Mountains; or watching the powerful shaping energy of the waves of the Pacific Ocean. That was the intent – to take your breath away and to place you into eternal perspective.

Cathedrals are also a profound statement about the medievalist view of the future. And at best, the project would take a lifetime to complete (Salisbury Cathedral being one of the few completed within one lifetime). The more ambitious the program, the further it extended plans into the future and grew more distant from the planners themselves. The commitment and time frames involved are unparalleled in the field of human endeavors. Thus, it required tremendous assurances in the ability to train and pass off the project to their progeny. In glaring contrast to our era of just-in-time delivery, the construction of a cathedral took incredible foresight and dedication on the planners and builders. As the German poet, Heinrich Heine, noted: “In the Middle Ages, they had convictions, whereas we moderns today only have opinions; and it takes more than opinions to build a Gothic cathedral.”

The Gothic cathedral is an excellent allegory for leadership. At the very beginning, you must have a plan. Failing to develop a strategy inevitably leads to little being accomplished. Then you need solid foundations sufficient to bear the weight of the building. If you are not grounded in your first principles, what you are attempting to build will begin to sink and become unstable. And as the walls grew higher, there had to be buttresses to support the downward pressures that would otherwise crush the structure. Remove the supports of family, friends and faith from a leader, and the gravity of circumstances will merely do its job and bring things crashing down.

And finally, you need time. Any attempt to rush the project of your life is flirting with disaster. If you want to build something that will really last, you can’t be constantly consumed with the here-and-now. As a leader, you must always have an eye on the future while simultaneously working in the present. You have to be both visionary and strategist. You have to know where you are going and how you intend to get there. And you have to take the time to find suitable ground to do your work. Anything less will mean that you will end your life with a pile of rubble. But getting the mixture right will mean that you have an incredible legacy that will serve as an example for future generations.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Reflections on the American National Spirit (reprint)

NOTE: In commemoration of our nation's 230th birthday, I am reprinting here a creative writing piece I published a few months ago. It still seems appropriate. Happy Fourth of July! - P

I was recently reading an article by Victor Davis Hanson, Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?, regarding the ongoing pot-banging by the Iranian ayatollahs’ current political stooge, Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We offer our congratulations to the Iranians for their recent nuclear achievements. We’re glad that you’ve joined the 20th Century now that we are in the 21st, and that you’ve been able to replicate the accomplishments of an American generation that has largely passed into history. We must note, however, that you were only able to reach this goal by using American methods and using our own technology. At best, the rest of the world can only imitate America.

I’ve always appreciated Hanson’s understanding of ancient and modern warfare. But what struck me was something he said towards the end of the piece. He wrote:

Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, “Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.” The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough.

In these few sentences Hanson captures the essence of the American national ethos. Americans are by nature decadent, rebellious, brash and reckless – we always have been. But history has recorded time and again that when America has been threatened and attacked, from the deepest recesses of the American heartland rises a fierce response prepared to let slip the dogs of war to hound its enemies into submission or oblivion.

This national spirit is something we need to remind ourselves of occasionally; and quite honestly, it is something we have tucked away like an old nostalgic remembrance that we only bring out on flag-waving occasions, like during the Gulf War or after the 9/11 attacks. We live in a troubled time when patriotism is mocked more than celebrated; vices are indulged and virtues are forgotten; heroism and sacrifice replaced with self-interest and inaction. That notwithstanding, the national ethos that Hanson identifies still is in the lifeblood pumped by the heart of America. It is woven into the very fabric of American life itself; it is in our civic institutions; it is in our politics; it resides in its people. The fire of the American spirit can be doused, but never extinguished.

The sense of steely determination in the face of terrible odds and fierce enemies has been in the American bloodline since the beginning. In the dark days when General George Washington and his men were struggling for survival, Thomas Paine would write these stirring words of encouragement in The Crisis:

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
These are indeed the times that try men’s souls. Our faith in America’s founding spirit is waning. Critics from all sides express their doubts in loud, whining tones and wring their hands in self-imposed grief at the present state of affairs, all while America’s men and women in uniform live day-to-day in harm’s way in the furthest reaches of the globe to extend freedom to peoples who not long ago were (and some who still are) our enemies. These critics are the summertime soldiers and the sunshine patriots of our day.

Yet it is the weary and wounded men at arms fighting for their lives from disease and the cold that would gamble America’s future on crossing the icy Delaware just days after Paine’s words were first published and capture the Hessian garrison at Trenton, reversing the trend of constant defeat and forced retreat for the embattled colonial troops. George Washington, the Father of our Country, understood the value of risking all to take the battle to our enemies. In the years that followed, America’s hard-won victories and tragic defeats that followed in the War for Independence would eventually win our nation’s freedom. And when the final victory at Yorktown was secured, no one begrudged the summertime soldiers and sunshine patriots from celebrating as well. Even so, few could name any of those colonial naysayers today. America loves the winner.

It isn’t unusual for Americans to lose their way, though Providence has a way of forcing events upon us to remind us of who we are as Americans. These events are the adrenaline that gets the heart pumping our lifeblood to the body politic once again.

As I’ve thought about Hanson’s essay over the past few weeks I have been reminded of two historical incidents (though there are many to choose from) that I think captures the two-sided nature of the American national spirit.

The date of the first event is September 13, 1814. It is an event that we commemorate every time that we sing our national anthem. However, many Americans forget the circumstances surrounding the British assault on Fort McHenry in the misnamed War of 1812. Just weeks before the attack on Baltimore, the British had sailed up the Potomac and put Washington D.C. to the torch, forcing President James Madison and his Cabinet to flee for their lives. The burning of Washington in August 1814 was a demonstration of British military power intended to show America’s military impotency. The British quickly sailed to capture the strategic port of Baltimore to issue the coup de grace and bring America to its knees and back under the dominion of the British crown.

This is the plan that America’s enemies had in mind.

But the British miscalculated. They didn’t underestimate the number of men or firepower of the American troops huddled inside Fort McHenry; it was the spirit and resolve of the American forces that the British misjudged.

The British landed a large force at North Point and advanced within sight of the city of Baltimore. The British command intended to sail their fleet up to Fort McHenry and literally pull out their big guns and pound the American forces into submission and surrender and press in to take the rest of the town. On the morning of September 13, 1814, the British Navy began the most intense bombardment ever unleashed in the history of human warfare up to that time against the huddled defenders of Fort McHenry – a bombardment that would continue through the day and well into the night.

Francis Scott Key was an accidental observer to these events. He and a friend had approached the British under a flag of truce to secure the release of an elderly doctor that had been captured and accused of giving aid to some British deserters. As they negotiated with British officials for their friend’s release they became privy to the battle plans of the British and were held onboard one of the ships as a precaution until the British had secured their victory. Even though Key would only observe the bombardment from a ship distant from the battle, the rockets, bombs and flares of the ferocious attack on the American defenders could clearly be seen from miles away.

Using their superior long-range cannons, the British fleet attacked Fort McHenry beyond the effective range of the American guns. The only American weapon was courage and resolve as the massive bombardment continued. When the shelling stopped at 1 a.m., the dark prevented any view of the American battlement. Key and the other American observers down river would have to wait until morning to see who had won the victory. Those hours of waiting must have tried their souls. They surely must have thought that the awesome firepower of the British fleet had prevailed against the outmanned and outgunned Americans. But the darkness held out the possibility of hope. Maybe the men at Fort McHenry had been able to withstand the British fury.

When dawn finally came, what a sight Francis Scott Key would see: the Americans inside Fort McHenry had taken down their standard storm flag and raised a new massive flag in its place, telling the world of the American ability to withstand the mightiest blow that its enemies could strike and that England’s best was still not enough to prevail. Even though the British had just burned our public buildings in Washington to the ground, the commander at Fort McHenry had the larger flag prepared in anticipation of an American victory. This sign of the triumph of the American spirit was Key's inspiration as he sat down to pen those immortal words familiar to every American heart.

Raising that flag – that Star-Spangled Banner we can still see today at the Smithsonian Museum – was a haughty gesture, but one completely in line with the American national spirit. It was like General Patton pissing in the Rhine as he and the crusading American forces were storming into Germany on the verge of crushing our Axis enemies. On that day in Baltimore Harbor, America had taken the most savage beating ever unleashed in the history of warfare from the greatest military power in the world – and won. How utterly American.

We should remember that at the time of the siege of Fort McHenry, the British had Napoleon imprisoned on Elba, and that a year later after his escape they would finally vanquish Bonaparte at Waterloo. The great Napoleon was defeated; America was victorious. American courage and resolve alone had won the victory that brave day on the Chesapeake. This is what our national anthem means when we sing, “O say can you see by the dawn’s early light…”.

Yet it means even more than that. When we sing that immortal refrain, “O say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave,” we should remember what that Key’s question is rhetorical: he urges us to recall that, yes, the flag still waves and Americans remain free and brave. It means you can burn down our Capitol and White House and send our elected officials fleeing, but the American spirit will allow us to take your best shot and overcome. As long as Americans remain on the field of battle, the American spirit will remain. Through the darkness we remember, just like Francis Scott Key, that hope remains for America, because our most potent weapon has always been Americans themselves.

I think it’s for this reason that Americans love a good fight. Raising the Star-Spangled Banner that day recalled the spirit of Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae responding to the Persian King Xerxes demands to lay down their arms, telling the innumerable Persian foe that faced them, “MOLON LABE” (“Come and get them!”) Americans have been known to scour the world looking to join the other’s fights when we didn’t have our own to occupy us. We think of Davy Crockett and his Tennessee Volunteers arriving at the Alamo spoiling for a fight. And when all looked hopeless, Crockett, the Volunteers and the rest of the men of the Alamo didn’t flee. They had the American spirit. They knew that there are things more valuable than life and leisure; and that death and defeat could not measure up to disgrace and dishonor by abandoning hope in the face of our enemies.

This is the testimony of the Americans who died at the Alamo. And the Marines at Wake Island. And the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11. They weren’t fighting to beat the odds; they were fighting because they refused to abandon the American spirit. At certain times in our history, all Americans have had left to fight with is their refusal – telling our enemies in desperate hours and deadly circumstances that they would not go gently into that good night. And laying down their lives, they knew there was hope because Americans remained. Their respective sacrifices were not the abandonment of hope, but the preservation of it. Those American heroes believed that the battle would be won and invested their lives in that hope. Through the darkness and doubt, hope remains for America.

The American spirit allows us to see our most prominent commercial and military buildings destroyed in acts of terror, killing thousands on our own soil on 9/11. And yet in ninety days our enemies that attacked us were forced to hide and fight in caves in the most remote point on the planet trying to survive the American fury. They had taken their shot at us and won a symbolic victory. But they miscalculated about the mettle of the American spirit, and most of them have paid with their lives, thanks be to God. That spirit of taking the best shot America’s enemies can deliver is what inspired the men at Fort McHenry: burn down our Capital if you can, because in short order we will chase you into the sea and out of America forever. You may give us your best shot but we will unleash the furies of Hell against you in due course.

America’s battles have been won because there is a parallel element to the American spirit. This added element to our national character is what brought to mind the second event that I recalled after reading Hanson’s essay. The date I have in mind is April 18, 1942. Just months before the worldwide furies of nationalism and fascism set their sights on America with the intention of taking her down and neutralizing her to end any opposition to their plans of worldwide domination.

The Japanese Empire struck their first blow on December 7, 1941 by raiding Pearl Harbor. Almost 2,500 American servicemen and civilians were killed that day, along with the destruction of most of our Pacific fleet. Almost sixty-five years later, the USS Arizona still lies in Pearl Harbor as a tomb for her crew. But our three Pacific aircraft carriers survived, and so did the American spirit. Through the darkness, hope remained.

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the assault and led the Japanese forces in the Pearl Harbor attack, was aware of this. Even as his planes returned hailing their decisive victory, Yamamoto warned his staff, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." As a shrewd commander, he knew the character of his American adversary. Yamamoto knew more about the American spirit than many Americans themselves that dark day. Events like these force us to remember who we are and what we represent to the world.

The attack on Pearl Harbor brought to Americans clarity of vision by exposing the degree of threat posed by their enemies. Much like Hanson observes, it wasn’t just America’s international interests that were being attacked by the fascists Axis Powers – it was the way of American life itself that the enemy was determined to destroy. And Americans from every corner of the country and every walk of life rose to fight America’s battle on behalf of the free world. It was not America’s martial might that was released against our enemies; it was the American spirit itself. The country’s resources and industry were dedicated to retaking the initiative from our enemies, and this is precisely what Yamamoto rightly feared. Within months, the engines of American industry were put to the war effort and millions of American warriors were flung to the farthest reaches of the globe to defeat our enemies. Having taken their best shot against America, Yamamoto knew even then at the beginning of the conflict that the American spirit would prevail.

Still bruised and broken from the Pearl Harbor attack, America’s leaders drew deep from the well of our national spirit and approved a plan to take the battle to our enemies and to demonstrate the American resolve to win the war that had been thrust upon us. Less than a month after the attack, a cavalier Army Air Corps Lt. Colonel, Jimmy Doolittle, formulated a strategy to attack the Japanese homeland. The plan, however, was risky and would require that American technology and the flight crews themselves would be pushed to their very limits and beyond. The mission could easily end in total failure and death for all the personnel participating in the raid. One of the three aircraft carriers that had avoided destruction on December 7th would also be put in jeopardy. The B-25s that were used had never been launched from an aircraft carrier, and there was no margin for error as the planes took off. The risks were enormous, but it would be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate to our enemies and to ourselves the American national spirit. In a decision that reflects what is best and true about the American national spirit, just like George Washington crossing the Delaware, they took the gamble.

The stakes were raised even higher on April 18, 1942 when the carrier bearing Doolittle's sixteen B-25B bombers was spotted by a Japanese ship. One day and 200 miles away from their scheduled launching point, Doolittle decided to launch the attack. Flying 650 miles in single-file formation at wave top altitude, the American bombers reached the Japanese coast. In broad daylight, Americans were able to bomb the Japanese cities of Yokohama, Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya and the imperial city of Tokyo.

To any other country, such a raid would have been seen as foolish, unnecessarily risky and a likely failure. But as American bombs rained down on the Japanese that day, just weeks after suffering a stinging defeat at Pearl Harbor, America was delivering an unmistakable message to its enemies: we will bring the war home to you. That’s the American way.

Bombing Tokyo wasn’t a symbolic victory for America; it was a foretaste for the Japanese people of the fury that was to follow. Jimmy Doolittle and his raiders weren’t out to inflict revenge; they came as harbingers of reckoning. Taking the battle to our enemies is what Americans do. While the French national motto since the time of Napoleon has been, “Je me rends” (I surrender), the American national motto since our struggle for first freedom and independence has been, “Don’t Tread On Me!” The Japanese Empire learned first-hand that attacking America has fatal consequences. Strike us and we will apply our greatest minds to find ways to unlock even nature’s deepest secrets, as we did with the atomic bomb, to rain fire and death upon you.

The Doolittle Raid is a consummate example of the second element of the American spirit. Yes, Americans can take the worse blows that our enemies have to offer, just like we did at Fort McHenry. It is something we remember and celebrate. But our enemies who dare to tread on us should remember that in the end, we will bring the battle home to you.

And Americans never forget their blood-debt. Yamamoto found this out himself on April 18, 1943, one year after Doolittle’s Raid, when a squadron of American P-38s flew 430 miles under radio silence and caught up with his aircraft, shooting it down and killing Yamamoto.

This was the message we delivered to the world after 9/11 when we forcibly deposed the Taliban Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan and Saddam’s Baathist thugocracy in Iraq. Our enemies should recall that what the Soviet Union was not able to accomplish in ten years in Afghanistan, the United States of America pulled off in the matter of weeks. In Iraq, our military strategists developed and our soldiers executed a plan that left the largest Arab army in the world no other option than to go home rather than fight the invading American foe in open battle. It seems they learned from our American military’s last visit to the region. For that reason alone it was appropriate for President Bush and the entire country to greet the returning sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers who fought their way to Baghdad with the words, “Mission Accomplished!”

Yes, some of America’s fighting men and women lost their lives in the rush to Baghdad and Kabul. Some are still the targets and victims of terrorists and cowardly murderers today. Flag-draped coffins are the awful price we pay for our freedoms, but it has always been a price that Americans have been willing to pay. Each one of our war dead is an irreplaceable loss; but they are not irreplaceable because they were young or left families behind. They were irreplaceable because they were Americans willing to fight America’s battles. What better memorial to the American spirit do we have than these men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to take the battle to our enemies?

As we are in a period of doubt regarding the progress of the Global War on Terror, we would do well to remember that America has always been plagued by cranks and cowards – those faithless souls whose iniquity in not losing faith in America, but losing faith in themselves as Americans. Regardless, we should never lose our faith. Even when Congress was considering the recognition of The Star-Spangled Banner in the early 20th Century, there were voices calling our great national anthem a “hymn of hate”. The summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots are always with us, whether they are retired armchair generals or craven moonbat politicians, singing their siren songs enticing us to crash upon the rocks of self-doubt, retreat and inaction. For our own sake, we should stay the course and steer clear of those waters.

America’s enemies should not take any comfort at what the cranks and cowards have to say. Islamists should remember the fate of their predecessors, the Fascists and the Communists, who were swept up into the waste bin of history by Americans. The sunshine patriots could be heard back then, too. And Iranians should remember that no matter how far they develop their nuclear capability that we have some old scores to settle with them as well. Jimmy Carter is no longer President and Iran has a blood debt still left to pay from attacks on Americans from Beirut to the Khobar Towers – and America has every intention of collecting on that debt. We always remember the wounds inflicted by our enemies and will repay at the hour of our own choosing.

The American spirit resides deep within our national soul: moral reckoning is our inspiration and war is in our life-blood. Americans should not ever doubt that the rest of the world marvels at our restraint, even though our enemies mistake our restraint for weakness – a mistake they make at their own peril. It is an everlasting testament to the rightness of America’s cause that at the height of our military power at the end of World War Two in sole possession of the most awesome weapon of destruction ever created by mankind that Americans didn’t blink when we disbanded our armies and sent the American legions home to live and work in peace. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, when America has fought its wars on foreign soil, all America has ever asked for is enough land to bury our dead. The long list of countries that have had their freedom secured through American military might over the past two centuries should shame our loudest international critics and quiet our domestic sunshine patriots. Honest historians will never chronicle the story of an American Empire.

We must keep in our hearts daily the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen living in harm’s way all over the world. They fly the skies in Afghanistan; they patrol the deadly streets of Iraq; they keep in the peace in the Balkans; they sail the Taiwan Straits; they man the line along the 38th Parallel on the Korean Peninsula. America doesn’t have the largest army in the world or the largest navy. From the beginning America has known that it is not strength of arms alone that will secure victory; the America warrior and the heart that beats within him is why we will win the war against terror. And the American warrior is guided by the American national spirit. In war, America is protecting of the innocent; generous to our friends and allies; and merciless to our enemies, yet magnanimous in victory.

For two-hundred and thirty years, this has been the essence of the American national spirit and the heart of American war policy: we will take your best shot and we will bring the battle home to you. And America never forgets its blood-debt. As long as there are Americans left to fight our battles, our enemies should tremble in fear. I thank Victor Davis Hanson for reminding me of it. In this time of uncertainty and doubt about the progress of the Global War on Terror, it is something that both we and our enemies would do well to remember.