Monday, December 25, 2006

The Triumph of Jihad

Islamists have often in the past seen America as weak, and probably more so now than ever, with all of the debate about the Iraq war. Several Jihadists have made it clear that they preferred the Democrats to take power in the November elections, because they are confident that Democrats will effect the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, which will be seen as a victory for Islam over the west.

Al Qaeda, who through a series of demoralizing victories over the Soviets, caused them to withdraw from Afghanistan, always felt the Americans would be the easier of the two superpowers to dispatch. The evidence was clear: we left Vietnam, we left Beruit, and we left Somalia.

Increasing vitriolic debate in America indicates to the Jihadists that they are approaching victory. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, views it this way:
...the debate in this country since [9/11] has caused many of the perpetrators and sponsors [of Islamic terrorism] to return to their previous diagnosis [that despite our post 9/11 resolve, America can indeed beaten].

...What we see as free debate, they see as weakness, fear and division. Thus they prepare for the final victory, the final triumph, and the final Jihad.

The rancor of our debate makes us seem even weaker, especially when many debaters don't take into consideration the current state of affairs when calling for (a) a withdrawal from Iraq, and (b) George Bush and Dick Cheney's heads.

Islamic terror leaders were pleased at the outcome of the November 2006 elections in America.

WorldNetDaily reported shortly after the elections that several chief terrorists in and around Jerusalem were pleased with the outcome. Claims have recently been made by Hamas that it met with US Democrats. Jubilant over the report of the Iraq Study Group, terror leaders feel that their brand of terrorism has been vindicated. Prior to the elections, representatives of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade expressed preference for a Democrat victory in America, feeling that such a political victory would lead to withdrawal from Iraq and a victory for Islamic Jihad.

On December 22, ABC News reported a statement of Ayman al Zawahiri of al Qaeda, confirming the preference for Democrat victory, with a clear expectation of the implications of that victory:

you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost.

And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate.

If we don't stand unified in the face if the Islamo-terrorist threat, the next attack will be within our own shores. Dennis Miller put it comedically yet poignantly in the following monologue:


Flag Gazer said...

Wishing you and your family a Blessed Christmas!

Flag Gazer said...

I wrote an article entitled "Do you want America to win?" and found some very interesting references about this topic.

Bernard Lewis, the Cleveland E Dodge professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University, recently said, "If Churchill had faced the opposition that President Bush faces today, Hilter might well have won."

"It seems that the US is having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, but an equally serious problem can be observed in the intellectual circles of America where some have had a difficulty coming to terms with the terminology of the War of Ideas. If the educated elite of the United States is incapable of identifying the ideology and the strategy of the Jihadists five years after 9/11, we not only have a problem with handling the War in Iraq, but also with this future of American national security as a whole." -Walid Phares

Link for the Walid Phares article.

We seem to be involved in such an ugly internal conflict and so busy fighting each other, that we are missing the real threat to our country.

Great post, Frank.

PJ said...

Well done, Frank. I got linked to you by CJ at A Soldier's Perspective. Looking forward to a lot more interesting reading on your blog. I am linkung to you on my blog.Welcome home and have a great New Year.

Rich Warnick said...

It's touching to hear that the jihadists have such faith in American democracy. Too bad for us, Bush hasn't the slightest intention of listening to the people. He's on a mission from God.

Frank Staheli said...

Flag Gazer,

Thanks for your addition to the discussion. I am especially appreciative when those come from the Middle East give their input to the debate. I have heard of Walid Phares, but don't know much about him. I will research.


I'm glad you came across my site. Thanks for your kind comments and especially for adding me to your blogroll. Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year to you as well.


It will be interesting to see what changes in the new year when the Democrat majorities take over in Congress. I have little expectation that it will change much, as I post recently on Simple Utah Mormon Politics.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Too bad for us, Bush hasn't the slightest intention of listening to the people.

If you mean not leading by poll numbers (some of which are misleading and biasedly pooled), then bravo President Bush! You don't lead a nation because it's the popular thing to do; you make decisions because it's the right thing to do.

President Bush can give a rat's ass about whether or not he is loved by the misguided and the misinformed.

President Lincoln faced similar challenges; Winston Churchill made unpopular decisions. But these were strong leaders who did what was right, even when public opinion seemed against them.

I think President Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest, because of just how much opposition and hostility he's had to face from the quagmirists and chicken littles who have been benchmarking every molehill setback into a mountain of disaster. Through it all, he's shown strength and character. He may be wrong, but you cannot call him a weak leader.

I think a great read is "The Press at War".

He's on a mission from God.

President Bush is unquestionably a devout man. But, puh-lease...

Don't twist his words and make him out to be on some sort of jihad. There is no moral equivalence between his embracement of people of all religious faiths, and the warmongering Islamo-imperialists.

Frank Staheli said...


Thanks for bringing "The Press at War" to my attention. Some of my thoughts:

I have always been frustrated by those who have said that the Tet Offensive was an American defeat.

I was particularly interested in Mr. Wilson's estimation of what WWII would have been like if the press were as partisan as it is now.

Also particularly enlightening was this statistic:

"Between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2005, nearly 1,400 stories appeared on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news. More than half focused on the costs and problems of the war, four times as many as those that discussed the successes. "

When a previous editor of the NY Times was asked if his paper was liberal, he said "Of course it is." It's interesting that liberals still accuse the Time of occasionally shilling for Bush.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

One aspect is liberal bias; the other is just the nature of media in general and people's fascination with the tragic; if it bleeds it leads.

In wartime, however, this is dangerous. It's like the media's taken it upon themselves to be apologists to the rest of the world for the actions of the U.S.; this gives us Newsweek publishing an unsubstantiated claim (later retracted) about a Koran being flushed; and then we have inflammatory, overblown stories like abu Ghraib. 31 consecutive frontpage news stories in 31 days by the NYTimes?!?! C'mon....

When a previous editor of the NY Times was asked if his paper was liberal, he said "Of course it is." It's interesting that liberals still accuse the Time of occasionally shilling for Bush.

Yes, Daniel Okrent. Libs accuse MSM of being conservatively biased, because the even though MSM overall leans left of center, that's not good enough for the crowd. So anything that doesn't paint President Bush as a liar and greedy war criminal and religious fanatic is "shilling" for him, as you say.

Bernard Goldberg's book, "Arrogance", has a bit of history on how the NYTimes began its leftward slant from objectively left of center, to downright liberally agenda-driven. It started when Arthur Sulzberger Jr. took over; and then Howell Raines in 2001 as executive editor, at which point the NYTimes lost some of its finest writers.

Kari said...

Great post, Frank! Thanks so much for letting me know!

Rich Warnick said...

I get it. For example, when the bipartisan Iraq Study Group reveals that our military is under-reporting the daily incidents of violence in Iraq by a factor of ten, and the press covers that fact, it's just another example of media bias.

If we could just get rid of the pesky media, we could all pretend everything is just as Bush and Cheney imagine it. Who needs reality?

Frank, mark your calendar for January 9, 2007. That is when Senator Biden will convene oversight hearings on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Frank Staheli said...


It seems you've sidestepped Wordsmith's main point--that the NY Times admits that it is liberally slanted.

I will, though, be very interested in what Senator Biden's committee learns.

For what it's worth, the US Military also under-reports the good things that it is accomplishing because of the magnet that good things--and the people they happen to--are for the wrath and destruction of the terrorists.

Rich Warnick said...

Where was the liberal slant of the New York Times when they put all the WMD lies on page one? Just asking.

Lots of good projects happening in Iraq, we just have to keep them secret because the insurgents will target them. No wonder 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country already, and continue to bail at the rate of 100,000 a month.

No reconstruction possible without security.

Frank Staheli said...


I assume that at the time the Times put the info about WMD on the front page they believed the info coming out of the Bush administration, just like many members of congress. Are you suggesting that they kept WMD on the front page after the reality came out?

Your sarcasm regarding "Lots of good projects happening in Iraq, we just have to keep them secret" is not well placed, and seems to indicate your intent not to countenance anything that runs counter to your opinion that we should leave Iraq. I think your case is much stronger if you commingle your opinion (a well-informed one, I might add) with a recognition of what is going right in Iraq.

It's much easier to destroy than to build. There are many good things going on in Iraq, regardless of whether we should be there or not. (BTW, I tend to agree with you that there probably isn't much more we can do militarily in Iraq.) And besides the fact that there are several instances of publicized successful projects and Iraqis getting attacked by insurgents, it stands to reason that those bent on the destruction of freedom anywhere would work to destroy the symbols of that freedom.