That's right...I'm about to destroy my liberal credentials, quite possibly manage to have myself labelled a raving bigot, and most likely be de-Friended by at least someone. Why? Because I'm about to tell you all that we really are at war, and that it's one that must be won if we don't wish our lives to be quite a bit more tightly circumscribed than in the present, by religion. Unfortunately, America's leadership decided to behave in the worst possible ways, leaving much of the rest of the non-Muslim world more concerned about the nascent American Empire and less about the equatorial enemy that really won't rest until every last man faces Mecca five times a day, and we women are considered soulless obstacles to men's salvation (what someone like me is to them, I don't even know...but it can't be very good!). But Bush, rather than attacking the causes of this type of enmity, decided he could secure his way to victory, and that the best thing to do outside the United States (assuming they even really still exist) was to go attacking the only secular country in the entire bloody Middle East! Did he honestly think that bringing the Islamist element, which Saddam had successfully repressed (if only by brutally opressing it!), to the surface, could even conceivably be anything but stupid? Seriously, did no one stop to think that one of the 'war criminals' we were so driven to collect, Tariq Aziz, is a Christian?!? Little tip, folks: when your targets have Christians in government, they're normally not the rabid Islamists who most endanger civilian life worldwide! Admittedly, conservatives have begun pointing out that American forces captured some terrorists in Iraq in the opening days of the war...and there's no reasonable way to deny that. Yankee (or are those Reb? :P ) troops caught several people, including some key members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, enjoying preferential treatment from the Hussein regime...there's no denying that!
The only problem is, we haven't thought at all seriously about this. PFLP is not an A-Q affiliate. It kills a limited number of Israelis, although it doesn't want 'the liberation of Palestine' but to 'push the Jews into the sea'. Unlike every liberal I seem to know, I don't consider that a reasonable, justifiable, or indeed even non-evil, goal...but...Hussein was supporting them as a way to harm Israel...probably because ot the geo-political ramifications. Had someone managed to get Israel and Husseini Iraq to play nice, the Palestinian terrorists might have lost their safe haven. Instead, though, Bush decided that because Hussein had tried to have Poppy kiilled, he had to go, no matter what. To that end, he...well, we all know that story *sigh*
Anyway, we're not here to go back into that quagmire...though quagmire is the right word! Sooner or later, America will need to draft her soldiers, largely thanks to battlefields of her President's own choosing. The worst part is, the greater war in which Iraq is a battlefront has, once again, been proven to exist. Every major milestone in the non-Muslim world could well mean an A-Q strike from this point onward. We have to get used to that, but no amount of 'security' will keep the enemy from striking. Why? Very simple. A majority Muslims of the Muslim world, and some of those outside it. see the wholesale murder of innocent civilians as an acceptable means to an end of every corner of the world following one form or the other of state Islam. They are willing to do this for one key reason: to the Muslim, there are no innocent non-Muslims. Bin Laden's an evil, twisted man, but he's not guilty of mis-reading his Qu'ran. It calls for, right there in its pages, 'making the infidel holy' at the point of the sword...and that means one of two things. We can stop being infidels, or stop being alive. That means that even the civiliian, by virtue of not 'submitting to Allah's will', becomes by extension a soldier of the infidel horde, and totally valid as a target. Further, while the current target is the English world (it's not the English-speaking world; the basic thought processes and legal protections of England are commonplace everywhere her people settled, and define the cultures of not only the Commonwealth, but America as well...indeed, Americans may follow the stereotypical English Tradition at least as well today as our cousins who must keep one eye on the Continent, and have been re-Anglicising over the past few years when not being pushed into Hispanicism by Latino colonists who have no intention of becoming English-by-proxy!), the entire non-Muslim world is the eventual goal. Islamists will work in any way necessary (Fifth Column efforts have already led Austrailia to forbid the criticism even of the very Muslim 'clerics' who do much more than simply 'criticise' the West), but it actually seems their preferred method is terrorism. And if a nation shows that it negotiates with terrorists, or indeed, does anything but wipe them out whenever they make themselves known, they'll keep working until such negotiations lead to a sentence similar to
Article V. Effective 11 November 2010, the official religion of this nation shall be Sunni Islam. All infidels have five years to convert to Islam, but must immediately commence to follow Shari'a in all aspects of life.
We would have been better off had Paris been selected as Olympic host...then the bomb would have struck in France, not England, and we would have learnt once and for all whether anything could shake France out of the belief that it's better to side with the Muslims for now, and keep appeasing them after the destruction of the English world, than to stand and fight...in the right war.
So, now you're probably asking (assuming I have any readers--or friends--left), what is the 'right war'? The answer is, W, in one of his rare moments of insight, had it close back in September of 2001. If you're not with the secular world, you're against it. Any nation that enshrines state Islam is an enemy...most of them are even actively involved in promoting Islamist terrorism (which has to be recognised as different from Islamic terrorism as practised by the Palestinians and such...never lump these!). The terrorists themselves, and any nation that knowingly harbours A-Q or other Islamist terrorist cells, are, of course, also the enemy. So's any Muslim who dreams, at their core, of a reborn Great Caliphate, a new flowering of Muslim culture, where to be infidel is illegal. Notably, this 'enemies list' manages to wrap up some of the Empire's current 'allies', notably Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. My response regarding those countries: Bush knew what they were when he picked them up, and he's only waiting for the viper to turn and bite his breast. Bush could have lessened this bite, and secured a crucial ally (India) by requesting to use India as a base for the Himalayan operation, thereby striking at Afghanistan through India's hated neighbour Pakistan rather than from that country. The cost would have been a few angry Pakistanis, but the true coalition Central Asia has enough of those already...another hundred angry bees when thousands are already buzzing about is rather negligible. And, unlike Iraq, there was no getting around having American troops in Pakistan...only a question of how 'invited' they were. Funny thing..when the government's the only one who wants you someplace (if it even does), bad things happen anyway. US forces in Northern India, on the other hand, would have been welcomed guests assisting a valued ally in a fight with a hated foe. It should be noted that the Islamists declared this war, in effect, by striking the mainland United States. Until an official cease-fire is gained, they and the nations harbouring, supporting, or funding them (intentionally!), are legitimate targets. Iraq wasn't a legitimate enemy in this conflict, however, and legitimate belligerence there would have required that Saddam somehow shoot first. Everyone involved with that debacle rightfully should answer for his actions at The Hague.
Who isn't the enemy? China, Germany, and France, first off, unless they choose to be so by declaring war (or the US stupidly decides to wage pre-emptive war again!). China may be a strategic rival, and it unquestionably desires to forever bottle up not only Japan herself but also Japanese influence on the Home Islands, but at the end of the day, China also knows that it will have to allow Japan, and the Special Relationship that was nascent between Japan and America prior to the Bush presidency, to have power as well. As for said special relationship, it's not dead yet...the average American under the age of 30 is still a Nihonophile, the average Japanese under the age of 30 is (inexplicably) fascinated with America, and should we not wind up a fascist Empire forever (the 2006 and '08 elections will tell!), the fusing of our cultures may yet resume. France, unfortunately, has decided she has to be the (self-appointed) counter-balance to the United insert-noun-here. Thankfully, in the past, she's always been to weak to actually do so. Had France had the clout to counter-balance the UK in 1940, we'd all be ranting about 'mud people', assuming there were any Muslims, Jews, Mainstream Christians, or other non-Nazis still around in the world. Either that, or there'd have never been a WWII to speak of...but something tells me that the odds are much greater that, still dependent upon the Maginot Line to stop German aggression, even a more-powerful France would have fallen...and left too much materiel around, in German hands. This time, France's misguided-ness once again threatens to bring about the unthinkable...an English country conquered in the modern era. Assuming that the French aren't jarred into action by an A-Q strike, though, the best France can be thought of is 'hostile towards the West, but officially neutral...ironically, the situation (though obviously not towards the same cold enemies) in which the United States found themselves for the opening years of World War Two. A friendly France is simply an impossibility in the long term...America's too English at her core, and aligned with the real English. Germany may well have to be written off in the same way...we should never forget that some former East Germans do have power these days, and their enmity with the English world ended a lot more recently than that of the Western Germans. Add in that Germany likes to think of itself as a pivot of power and that the English world sort of seems to keep that status to itself, and you get another country that I suspect can be cordial at best. I hope Russia also fits that bill...the Russians are too authoritarian at their cores, and possibly even a little corrupt (not to mention land-hungry) to even want as allies. African nations don't need any extra help eliminating their populations of young people...the assistance of non-Muslim countries (basically, sub-Saharan Africa) should be accepted, but not necessarily encouraged or requested.
So, who should America encourage to form an alliiance? The rest of the Englsih world tops the list. Preferably, the alliance would even include Australia (although it may be only a matter of time before the call 'Allahu Akhbar' resonates throughout Oz, simply because of its dangerous proximity to irrevocably-Muslim Indonesia). Japan also comes in high, as does Taiwan (the US, by the way, should also abandon the ridiculousness of the 'one China' policy and officially recognise Taiwan as an independent nation, with no ties to Mainland China!). I basically see Latin America as the other side of the state-compelled-worship coin, and for that reason, would rather it stay the f*** out of battle on either side. If it has to take up arms, better with the US than against. Israel is a special case. The Hebrews still are God/dess's chosen people, if the fact that even a remnant of them managed to survive the Holocaust wasn't enough of a hint. Above all else, the West must never (as the French and the Germans are so inclined to do!) abandon Israel.
So, can the allies I suggest win a wa with the entire Muslim world? All of them, working together and not undercut by the remaining non-Muslim countries, have a fighting chance (and quite possibly not much more than that; they've also been too busy selling their weaponry to countries guaranteed to be their enemies when everything explodes!). Actively opposed by France, Russia, Germany, or China, said odds of victory go down. Face off with two or more of the afrorementioned countries, and, in all likelihood, my peers will wind up having to price chadors. We can't make peace with this enemy, though...the only peace secured willl be at the cost of conceding their points one by one. Either the world won't have any Islamists at the end of this war, or it will have nothing but Muslims...those are our options.
So why do we try for 'victory through security'? Largely because right now the West reacts as badly as it does to civilian death. We can't harden ourselves to such tragedy, but nor can we keep trying to prevent it by reducing our freedoms. Historically, once liberty is surrendered, it never returns...even after the 'crisis' for which the sacrifices were made, ends. We've surrendered more liberty in the past four years than our predecessors did even during World War Two...all because this time, we feel that we need to fortify not only military targets (which were already hardened to some extent) but civilian ones. We may be able to raise the 'security' level at civilian events to that of a military base, but if we were to do so, that would be the very definition of a 'police state' (don't believe me? See how long freedom of speech lasts without freedom of movement--with items on one's person!). I was raised to believe, as was everyone born before 1994, that the worst thing about the area that once lay behind the Iron Curtain was that every last one of them was a police state. Today, we have a secret police 'authorised' by the PATRIOT act. Whether they've 'taken' anyone yet is open to debate, but at some point, if people can come up to one's house in a black Subbie and 'disappear' her, people will. It's just human nature...what power people have, they use...and abuse. Bush says he's fighting the war overseas so he doesn't have to fight it here. Fine...then restore security to a more-permissive, less-oppressive level (and while you're at it, roll back the 'security initiatives' mainly aimed at forcing biology-as-destiny, not catching any would-be criminal), and fight the Islamist Muslim, wherever he might be!
And as a side-note: the Qu'ran does call for Muslims of the modern era to kill or forcibly convert those who share their faith--Bin Laden is right about that. It's also the only holy book of any major faith that does make this call...the Hebrew Bible calls for the utter destruction of some enemy Canaanite tribes, but these tribes would have (and did--they weren't wiped out!) poisoned the Israelites' minds with actions and thoughts so ungodly as to be virtually un-imaginable, and the New Testament never calls for any person's forcible conversion, although enough mis-guided Christians have tried to force God/dess's Law on non-Christians over the centuries. Thus, one can be either a good person by non-Muslim standards or a good Muslim...not both! It is possible for someone to be neither a good Muslim nor a good person, but those two states are still mutually exclusive as well. To that end, I request that anyone who doesn't accept this idea of human sacrifice by another name voluntarily reject Islam. Why follow a religion that virtually bases itself upon such an evil thought?