The U.S. Peace envoy declares that a lot of progress has been made in negotiations with the Taliban. The hope is to, “End the destructive war in Afghanistan”. One has to ask, “By which standards?”
The Taliban doesn’t want to include the Afghanistan government in these talks. They want a withdrawal of US and NATO forces. They insist that no substantive progress can be made in the talks without puling the troops out.
It appears that the Taliban are dictating terms, and not offering something substantive that they would live up to their end of the bargain.
From Associated Press:
It wasn’t clear whether Khalilzad is seeking written guarantees from the Taliban that they will distance themselves from al-Qaida operatives, including Ayman al Zawahiri, who live among them or at the very least have safe passage and havens within territory they control.
It’s similar to what happened towards the end of the Vietnam War. The removal of U.S. troops in 1973 contributed to making it harder for us to guarantee that the North would live up to its end of the peace accords. Removal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan removes one solid way we could pressure the Taliban to live up to their end of the “understanding”:
More from Associated Press:
It wasn’t clear how the U.S. could verify Taliban promises to ensure Afghan territory is not again a staging arena for attacks outside its borders.
There was also no indication that the Taliban would agree to a cease-fire, which Khalilzad has been seeking, or when the Taliban would hold direct talks with the Afghan government, something they have continued to reject.
A couple of the graduates from Guantanamo Bay were among the leadership that served as Taliban negotiators. They were two of the five GITMO graduates traded to the Taliban in exchange for Bowe Bergdal.
The Taliban negotiating team that met this week in Qatar with Khalilzad were all senior members of the movement. They included…Muhammad Fazl and Khairullah Khairkhwah.
Both Fazl and Khairkhwah were among five Taliban freed from the U.S. prison at Gunatanamo Bay in 2014 in exchange for U.S. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who had been captured by the Taliban in 2009 after he wandered off his base.
The entire Associated Press article on this topic can be read here:
This presence of two of the five Slamonazi’s traded by 0 for Berg-Boi proves what a terrific deal maker he was. Obviously, we need one his acolytes at the helm in 2021.
How do you negotiate peace with a warlord? Honestly, you either take the warlords out or you “live” with the consequences of letting them live.
As long as our people are out of that shithole, I don’t care what lies are told and what agreements are signed. Too many lives and too many years, for what? “All in or all out” should be the motto hanging over every doorway in the Pentagon.
Agree absolutely!!
More treason from Obama. Literally giving away enemy leaders in exchange for a traitor, ignoring Congress as he did so you’ll recall. How is BHO remembered as anything but a foul up and moron?
I remember him mainly as a narcissist and traitor who sold his soul to his party’s agenda!
Also another great example of a “public servant” who never has a real job but becomes a millionaire.
But, but …but, what about all that hard work as a lawer representing that real estate gangster/felon?
Except that there are some very major differences: The first is that North Vietnam was by every measure a modern state with a modern (and very competent) military force. The chances that they WOULDN’T violate the 1973 Peace Agreement weren’t microscopic once US forces no longer had any way to apply leverage.
By contrast, the Taliban is made up of the same bunch of ragged camel jockeys that has been sniping at each other since the days of Alexander the Great and the chance of them being able to form an actual functioning government (much less a capable military force) are laughable.
Next, not only were the NVA a modern military force, but they were backed up by not one but TWO world powers, the USSR and Red China, while there is no shadowy world power backing up the Taliban, just the usual number of radical islamic losers who form the global “gang that couldn’t shoot straight.”
Third, this is a post 9/11 world.
What I mean by that is that when the NVA initiated their surprise attack in early 1975, with some very limited goals, the ARVN folded like a cheap suit and they took advantage of the chaos to push for a final resolution, while the US, badly burned by Vietnam, Watergate, the Middle East crises, etc, simply wrung it’s hands and said “sorry, there’s nothing we can do” until Saigon finally fell.
By contrast, if a resurgent Taliban were to somehow come close to re-takin all of Afghanistan (which I doubt they could do) and raise the specter of another failed state that would serve as a breeding ground for Islamic terror groups, the US and its allies would likely stomp a mudhole into them big enough to drive a tractor trailer through.
Even the dove-ish Obama had no qualms about ordering drone strikes or commando raids against suspected terrorist targets and there’s no reason to think any future president is going to be reluctant to do so either.
The bottom line is that it’s long past time for the government of Afghanistan, as imperfect as it is (not like ours is a shining example of perfection….) to either stand or fall on its own and if it falls, then we’ll deal with whatever replaces it. And if the Afghans themselves aren’t willing to stand up to the Taliban then there should be no duty for America to send its sons and daughters to stand in between the Taliban and the Afghan people.
I’ve not only studied History, I’ve done a tour in A-stan and have come to the conclusion that some people CANNOT be civilized. In their culture family and Tribe come first, someone from Ablablablaptui Village will never give even a tiny tinker’s damn about anywhere else, thus they still can’t muster a decent Army, that and that Country has MAYBE a thirty percent literacy rate that and most of them will change alliances, even in the middle of a battle.
That’s one reason I wonder why we insisted on keeping Iraq a single state. Seems they all hate each other, so we should have split it into three (Shia, Sunni, and Kurds).
Well, off hand I’d say 3 states = 3 times the work and 3 times the problems for us to deal with. Leaving it as a single state means Iraq can deal with the internal issues themselves (as a nation should and did under previous rulers.)
Seems to me the only thing we should send to any of these shitholes is ordinance… the smallest of which should be a MOAB… I have absolutely no problem with the deployment of nuclear weapons in these areas… the only reasons they’re not a deterrent are 1. Because it’s been so long that very few remember what happens when they’re used, and 2. Noone thinks we’ll use them… IMHO it’s way past tme to change both of those issues..
Martinjmpr: Except that there are some very major differences:
The differences don’t matter on the account that in both situations, a sizeable U.S. presence isn’t available. The North Vietnamese had representatives on the ground counting the number of U.S. troops boarding aircraft. They wanted to make sure that we were out of the way. The Taliban is insisting that the US and NATO pull out.
Martinjmpr: The first is that North Vietnam was by every measure a modern state with a modern (and very competent) military force.
The Taliban has taken control of large areas in Afghanistan, and they’ve been around since the 1990s. They’ve held up, and are now negotiating an “end” to our engagement while not guaranteeing that they fulfill their end of the bargain. They’ve had a comeback after we toppled their government. Once we pull out, they’re a force that has to be dealt with, especially if they don’t live up to their end of the bargain.
Martinjmpr: The chances that they WOULDN’T violate the 1973 Peace Agreement weren’t microscopic once US forces no longer had any way to apply leverage.
They couldn’t apply that leverage after they pulled out. It’s why I mentioned the statement that you quoted. We had other ways to apply pressure, but a combination of what Nixon got himself into, and a Congress that wanted to defund the South Vietnamese, reduced what we could do in the event that the North broke its side of the agreement.
Martinjmpr: By contrast, the Taliban is made up of the same bunch of ragged camel jockeys that has been sniping at each other since the days of Alexander the Great and the chance of them being able to form an actual functioning government (much less a capable military force) are laughable.
The same could be said of the Huns and the Mongols before they were unified and turned to threaten the powers in their area. The ones that were able to do the unifying had to engage in a combination of combat and verbal engagement to bring competing factions together.
The Taliban started as a fringe group in the 1990s, formed to protect Pakistani interests. They soon were able to expand and get stronger to the point to where they were running Afghanistan. They’re in much better condition now than when they formed.
Martinjmpr: Next, not only were the NVA a modern military force, but they were backed up by not one but TWO world powers, the USSR and Red China, while there is no shadowy world power backing up the Taliban, just the usual number of radical islamic losers who form the global “gang that couldn’t shoot straight.”
The Taliban are backed by other radical elements in the Islamic World. As Sunnis, they’d get their support from other Sunnis in the region. They see themselves as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and don’t want to negotiate with the government that’s in power right now.
Keep in mind that the radicals believe in a manifest destiny that involves the entire world being Islamic. Prior to the invasion of 2001, the Taliban was jockeying to be in position to export the war against the non-Muslim countries from Afghanistan. They succeeded by working with Al-Qaeda.
Martinjmpr: Third, this is a post 9/11 world.
And in a post 9/11 world, we’re knee deep in unrestricted warfare realities. There’s a book titled, “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America”, that covers the surface of this kind of war. It’s basically a way for the weaker to defeat the stronger. Not saying that the Chinese are behind this one, but it’s a concept that’s being used today. Written in 1999, it has proven prophetic in what nature warfare would take in the 21st Century.
Martinjmpr: What I mean by that is that when the NVA initiated their surprise attack in early 1975, with some very limited goals, the ARVN folded like a cheap suit and they took advantage of the chaos to push for a final resolution,
The only “Final Resolution” that they were pushing for was control of all of South Vietnam. The US was required to pull its combat units out in 1973, per the Paris Peace Accords. We almost didn’t have that, as the North Vietnamese walked away from the negotiating table to wait out the U.S. pulling out… On the grounds that Congress was going to defund the effort.
The U.S. took military action to force them back to the negotiating table. Richard Nixon kept a “Trump Card” in hand as he knew that the North Vietnamese were going to renege on their end of the bargain.
The attack in 1975 wasn’t their only post 1973 attack. They made a series of attacks since 1973 to test what the U.S. would do… To test how far they could violate the agreement without the U.S. intervening. When they discovered that no intervention would come, they pushed for a series of attacks that culminated in their attack of 1975.
Martinjmpr: while the US, badly burned by Vietnam, Watergate, the Middle East crises, etc, simply wrung it’s hands and said “sorry, there’s nothing we can do” until Saigon finally fell.
The U.S. Military still had the ability to inflict punishment on the North if they violated their end of the agreement. However, Nixon’s actions, combined with the Democrat Congress’ resolve not to provide funding to the south, contributed to our inability to stop the North Vietnamese, either though continued real support of the South Vietnamese Army, through replacing a damaged war equipment with a good one, or by other means.
President Ford had to give a plea, to Congress, to provide that support, but he was ignored.
The facts about the Vietnam War:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk
Martinjmpr: By contrast, if a resurgent Taliban were to somehow come close to re-takin all of Afghanistan (which I doubt they could do) and raise the specter of another failed state that would serve as a breeding ground for Islamic terror groups, the US and its allies would likely stomp a mudhole into them big enough to drive a tractor trailer through.
I wasn’t arguing that this was off the table, nor does this dismiss the fact that removing our ground forces removes one leverage we have of insuring that they live up to their end of the bargain.
Keep in mind that the “resurgent Taliban” lost control of most of Afghanistan, then they turned around and regained control of territory. Their refusal to talk to the actual government in Afghanistan points to them having intentions of regaining control of all of Afghanistan.
Additionally, they wouldn’t need to try to come in as a militia/military force to retake all of Afghanistan. They could engage in a series of terrorist attacks, and take other courses of actions that they need to destabilize the Afghanistan government. They were able to remain as a fighting force despite the presence of ground forces. They’ll do so despite our ability to provide air power in the future.
This is unrestricted warfare as mentioned by the two Chinese Colonels that wrote that above book.
They have an Asiatic sense of patience… Near indefinite. They could continue to make progress on the ground at a much slower rate, small village by small village, etc.
Martinjmpr: Even the dove-ish Obama had no qualms about ordering drone strikes or commando raids against suspected terrorist targets and there’s no reason to think any future president is going to be reluctant to do so either.
And the Taliban still kept fighting. Remove a good number of ground troops, remove all of them, and all of a sudden, the Taliban will be much more emboldened. Future presidents would be taking similar actions without ground support from western forces.
Martinjmpr: The bottom line is that it’s long past time for the government of Afghanistan, as imperfect as it is (not like ours is a shining example of perfection….) to either stand or fall on its own and if it falls, then we’ll deal with whatever replaces it. And if the Afghans themselves aren’t willing to stand up to the Taliban then there should be no duty for America to send its sons and daughters to stand in between the Taliban and the Afghan people.
Except that this wouldn’t stop with the Taliban regaining control with Afghanistan. If you read, “Holy War Incorporated,” Osama Bin Laden was already making plans to expand the Taliban style government on steroids… Beyond Afghanistan’s border.
As you mentioned above, the people in the area have been fighting a war against each other for thousands of years… Just as people have been fighting wars against each other for thousands of years in other parts of the world before they were conquered/colonized.
When Islam stood up in the Middle East, it spread. They were driven by a mandate to spread Islam throughout the whole world. Prior to this event, the areas that were formerly a part of the Roman Empire were mostly Christian. With the rise of Islam, many areas that were once Christian fell to the Muslim armies and became Islamic Caliphates.
That was by no accident. They were working their way into Europe when the Reconquista and later the Crusades pushed back. They didn’t just push into the Iberian Peninsula, they pushed from the east as well.
It speaks volumes when video turns up of sermons, in Mosques in the Middle East, where the religious leaders keep proclaiming that Islam will rule the world, will conquer Europe and both Americas, etc.
From someone that grew up in Egypt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Enx4XxO1E
So what’s your point? We should stay in Afghanistan forever? Or until they are a functioning and moderate state (which will never happen?)
The biggest mistake we made during the Cold War was seeing commies under the bed everywhere we looked.
There’s no reason for us to do the same with “radical islam.” And there is certainly no reason for us to keep expending blood and treasure in Afghanistan. We’ve done what we can do. Now it’s time for Afghanistan to stand or fall on its own.
And if it falls, so what? The only reason we even cared about Afghanistan is because the terrorists who conducted the 9/11 attacks used Afghanistan as their base. That’s not going to happen again as we have taken off the gloves and shown that we will attack terrorists no matter which 3rd world shithole they’re in.
I’m not afraid of the Taliban. The Taliban were NEVER able to control all of Afghanistan, even when we WEREN’T beating them like a red-headed step child.
This isn’t the 12th century. The last thing in the world we need is a new crusade.
(Dr. Phil Voice): And how’s that working out for them? 😉
Martinjmpr: So what’s your point? We should stay in Afghanistan forever? Or until they are a functioning and moderate state (which will never happen?)
One of the points that I argued, above, is that Western civilization is locked in a mortal struggle against an ideology that wants to eliminate Western civilization, and other non-Islamic civilizations, and replace them with a global government under the banner of Islam.
This is called the, “War on Terror”. This doesn’t capture the historical, and current, reality, of the enemy and struggle that we are up against. I call it the, “Response to the radical Islamic war to eliminate Western civilization in order to establish global Islamic caliphates,” paraphrased.
Again, they had their start, in their war against the “infidels”, during the medieval period. They expanded throughout the Arabian Peninsula, and then into Africa, Southwest Asia, and into Europe. Even though the rise of the Western empires halted their advance, they have not lost sight of their ultimate goal… The whole world being ruled under the banner of Islam.
The cold hard reality is that everything is at stake. There are only two options that we face, we fight them and cause changes in their area, or the radical elements in their area convert the United States, and the rest of the non-Islamic world, into a series of Islamic caliphates.
Arguing that they would never have a functioning moderate state is not justification to just pull out and “let them handle the problem over there”. Keep in mind that there was even doubts after World War II about whether we would be able to accomplish our objectives in Europe and Asia.
There’s even an article, written in 1946, titled, “America Losing the Peace in Europe”.
Heck, we were in the Philippines, as a military presence, for almost a century. Even today, the Philippine government is having a hard time keeping Mindanao under control. By your reasoning, the Filipinos should just abandon Mindanao as it would “never accept being a part of a Roman Catholic country”.
Our reducing our signature in that area would not be seen the way you would see it. It would be seen as a victory for them. Such a perceived victory would act as a recruiting incentive. They would actually be able to brag that they defeated the greatest power, and that would simply attract more recruits than they otherwise would have attracted. This would have psychological ramifications beyond the Taliban and beyond Afghanistan in favor of the radical Islamists.
The only outcome, in the struggle, is that we prevail, or they prevail, there is no other option. That’s historical reality.
Martinjmpr: The biggest mistake we made during the Cold War was seeing commies under the bed everywhere we looked.
I grew up during the Cold War, and joined the military towards the end of the Cold War. Cold War related topics is what made me a news junkie starting in 1982.
No, that was not a big mistake.
The Soviet Union did, indeed, have an active propaganda campaign in the United States. They also had agents throughout the U.S. They ran this campaign through fronts in the US manned by communists, and people sympathetic towards communists.
The United States had combat troops, on Russian soil, in the early 20th century. They, along with Great Britain, France, and Japan, secured interests in that area as the communists were getting underway. They had their taste of battle against US forces.
Prior to that, the underlying assumption, in theory, was that communism was going to take root in more advanced industrial countries. However, reality showed that it had to be put in place by force of arms. If US soldiers, along with other nations’ Soldiers, could easily give them a hard time on their own soil, what made them think that they would succeed in exporting communism by force of arms elsewhere?
This led to a series of chain reactions that would lead to a propaganda campaign ran in North America, and elsewhere, shortly afterwards. Their goal was to take over opinion leading organizations and to influence the population to work against the things that made America great.
They wanted to get their propaganda into our schools, into our newspapers, into Hollywood, and into our governments. Slowly, but surely, they were able to make inroads. It’s no accident that our schools, the media, Hollywood, and most of our government has drifted to the left.
The Soviets had come out and admitted that they were actively engaged in such a campaign to destabilize the United States. I’ve included a link, below, showing an interview with a former KGB agent that talked about the status of this campaign.
In it, he talks about how they were engaging in propaganda (final stages of nation destabilization) against three generations. The three generations that they were talking about in the video? The baby boomer generation, Gen X (my generation), and the millennial generation.
He argued that it would take three generations. Guess what? The third-generation that he talked about, the millennial generation, has a different attitude about socialism and communism than the previous generations. See Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, as well as what made it possible for both to do well in their respective campaigns.
Ronald Reagan didn’t just start engaging in the struggle against communism when he was president. He didn’t start when he was governor. He started when he was in Hollywood. He saw, with his own eyes, the communists among the actor’s ranks, and what they were doing.
Joseph McCarthy was vilified for pointing out the infiltration that I talked about above. However, the declassified the Venona Project/cables vindicated him.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was discovered that yes, indeed, the idea that Soviet agents, Soviet sympathizers, being “all over” was verified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ2fMeer5Mw
Martinjmpr: There’s no reason for us to do the same with “radical islam.” And there is certainly no reason for us to keep expending blood and treasure in Afghanistan. We’ve done what we can do. Now it’s time for Afghanistan to stand or fall on its own.
That is exactly what the radical Islamists what you, and everybody else, to think. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve listened to a video, that came from the Middle East, where key religious leaders talked about the eventuality that Islam will push outward and conquer additional parts of the world.
It speaks volumes when radicals from the Middle East talk about the “black flag of Islam over the White House”. Recently, a high-ranking Iranian talked about the White House being converted into an Islamic immunity center. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even argued that not even the mountaintops would serve as an escape from Islam. A cleric that is on the no-fly list, said on video, that Islam will rule the world, “whether we liked it or not”.
You have to listen to what they are saying over there, as it is their philosophy that is driving their actions. Whether you like it or not, they cast a vote in whatever actions we take. Those folks, participating in pro Islamic demonstrations, who are calling for deaths against those who insult Islam, who chant that “Mohammed’s army will come”, are hell-bent in making that a reality.
The “weapon of choice” are acts of terrorism that would be recognized as acts of terrorism, and other acts that could easily be dismissed or even ignored as “nonthreatening”.
For example, it’s no secret that birth rates are declining in the Western countries. Not so much with regards to Islamic families. They’re experiencing a growth rate. In fact, there have been video segments showing refugees, from the Middle East, bragging about the fact that they have plenty of kids per family and… And how they intended to leverage that in countries where the native birth rate is declining.
Declining native Western population in the face of an increasing population among Muslims, and other Third World populations. You know what this reminds me of? The last two centuries of Roman rule, where declining birth rates were offset by incoming immigration from outside the Roman Empire.
Muammar Qaddafi was reported as saying that Europe was going to get conquered via population growth without the use of swords (paraphrased). This has been echoed throughout the Middle East.
Heck, look in areas, in United States, with large Muslim populations, and see what is going on “on the ground” to see what their intentions are. For example, in Minnesota, in an area with a large Somali immigrant population, native Minnesota women have been assaulted for either rejecting the advances of the Muslim man, or for not being properly attired.
There’s another instance in another part of the Midwest where a customer, ordering a sandwich that contained pork, was yelled at and scolded by the Muslim employee for making such a request.
Speaking of Minnesota, many of their residents, who are Muslims, have attempted to go to the Middle East and to Africa to fight on behalf of terrorists.
Look across the Atlantic, Europe and their “no go zones” and are more recent instances of rapes/sexual assault against native European women. Or, how about the folks that got murdered for “insulting Islam”?
What appears to be “isolated incidents” are, from their standpoint, a unified attack against the West and against other parts of the world that aren’t Islam.
The radical Islamists have indefinite patience. On the other hand, they know that there is impatience in the West. They also know that they have been at war with us, Western civilization, long before the “War on Terror” became a talking point. It was something that we had to deal with even shortly after we stood up as a country. See Barbary wars.
So, the fallacy of simply saying, “let’s leave, let them kill each other over there,” ignores a growing reality… One that does not bode well for United States and the rest of the non-Islamic world if we don’t keep them on the defensive and if we don’t effectively counter them.
Martinjmpr: And if it falls, so what?
If it falls, it will be seen the same way the Vietnam War is erroneously seen today… As a “defeat” for the United States. Such an event would be a powerful recruiting drive for those who want to join the ranks of the Taliban, and other terrorist groups.
Take the realities that I talk about above, with their intending to grow their influence within their host nations through nonviolent means, added to the Taliban’s, then combine that with other radical Islamists efforts to continue the fight to reestablish the Islamic caliphates and to reestablish the push to expand said caliphates throughout the world.
Not only would people be emboldened to join those groups, they would be emboldened to carry out “lone wolf” attacks elsewhere.
Martinjmpr: The only reason we even cared about Afghanistan is because the terrorists who conducted the 9/11 attacks used Afghanistan as their base.
No, that is not the only reason. Given the fact that Afghanistan was used as a planning base was only a part of the problem. If you listen to the speech that President Bush made, shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, he laid out a plan designed to address unrestricted warfare. It was a multiple pronged plan that utilized military, economic, political, and other spheres of influence to battle the threat. It called for battles to take place not just in one geographic area, but in multiple geographic areas.
This war was never just about Afghanistan, the terrorists, Osama bin Laden, etc. Those were just the symptoms of what I call, “The radical terrorist war to exterminate Western civilization and to establish radical global rule.”
Martinjmpr: That’s not going to happen again as we have taken off the gloves and shown that we will attack terrorists no matter which 3rd world shithole they’re in.
However, it doesn’t do us any good if we take the gloves off, smack them around silly, and put the gloves back on while they are still fighting. If we pull out our forces, and simply “let them duke it out over there”, it would not be seen as you portray it here. It wouldn’t be seen as both sides coming up to an agreement.
It would simply be seen as a defeat for the United States and for Western civilization. What matters here is how those in the Middle East view this. Specifically, those who would join the ranks of the radical terrorists… As well as the terrorists themselves. Regardless of what we do, they cast a vote, via their actions, on the ultimate outcome for us and the world in the future.
And, when that happens, they’re not going to take us seriously if we go in and “take off the gloves again” elsewhere. Why? They know that they would simply have to outlast us and we would eventually say, “We’ve sacrificed enough over there, let them duke it out and handle it themselves.”
Martinjmpr: I’m not afraid of the Taliban.
The Taliban are not the only radical Islamic terrorist group. There are others. Seeing them as being separate, away from each other, is seeing this from a Western perspective. Although they disagree with each other, they overall have the same general goal… Establishing global radical Islamic law.
You may not have to worry about the Taliban here, but their success, as well as the successes of other radical terrorist groups would embolden, psychologically, other terrorist groups and those who would join and support them.
Martinjmpr: The Taliban were NEVER able to control all of Afghanistan, even when we WEREN’T beating them like a red-headed step child.
It doesn’t matter, they controlled enough of the infrastructure, and cities, to be considered as being in control of Afghanistan. Likewise, they would not have to control all the country to gain enough of a psychological and territorial victory to be elevated in the eyes of other radicals.
Again, you have to see this from their perspective, not from a western perspective. If the country is predominantly Muslim, they see it as a part of the Muslim nation. They do not recognize national boundaries. In their mind, large sections of the Middle East is a part of the Muslim nation, and that Israel is “illegally” occupying Muslim lands. Hence, many Muslims referencing all of Israel as “Palestine”.
We are dealing with a much bigger fish than just the Taliban. Even if they do not succeed in coming to the United States to take control, their perceived success against us encourages those who would have reach, or those radical Islamists within the United States will have additional reasons for identifying more with the Muslim Nation rather than with United States
Martinjmpr: This isn’t the 12th century. The last thing in the world we need is a new crusade.
This may not be the 12th century, but human nature has not changed. Likewise, the goals and aspirations of the radical terrorists have not changed. They are willing to go by the mandate that they feel they have, to spread Islam throughout the world and to prepare it for being governed under Islamic law.
You can feel free to think that they are not a problem, and that they do not have this aspiration, but what matters is what they think. You may feel that this isn’t the 12th Century, but, as far as they’re concerned, it doesn’t matter that we’re in the 21st Century… They’re mindset is still in the Medieval Period, and that fact will have an impact on our future.
What Martinjumper doesn’t understand is that although he doesn’t care about the Slamonazi’s, they care about him and the rest of us. Their plan for him involves the removal of his head. And now they have both a senator and a member in the house.
Given the context that I provided above, that would be equivalent to asking, in response to President Trump running for president in the year 2000, “And how did that work out for him?”
Again, you have to see this from their perspective, not from ours. Our invasion put a dent into that. However, our leaving allows them to regroup, strengthen, and resume what they were doing before we invaded.
Continuing my thought: There’s another side of this though:
If it’s “their” (i.e. the Afghans) war to fight, then it also ought to be up to them to decide how to fight it. Expecting a 3rd world country to live up to the kinds of ROE that we impose on our own forces is setting them up for failure.
If anything, this is yet another reason for us to pull our forces out. Right now the Afghans are stuck trying to obey overly restrictive ROE while fighting an enemy whose only ROE is “whatver you need to win, do it.”
Mason that is in fact what is prior to the end of WW1, it was the Brits who foisted that mess on us.
From 1800s to the end of WW1 it was three provinces Mosul/Baghdad/Basra.
The Kurds tried to create their own state at that same time and succeeded for a short while.
So yes three separate provinces/nations now would be a wise idea as well, except other players in the region might try assimilating the smaller components.
Interesting. My knowledge of history in that part of the world is rather limited before WWI.
Didn’t the British negotiate a peace before they retreated from Kabul to Jbad?
Afghanistan is also known as “The Graveyard of Empires”, just ask the Brits, French and Russians.
Why in the hell are we even “negotiating” with the Taliban anyhow. Phuque them. Pull all of the American Boys and Girls out, all of the American Treasury, tools, equipment…everything. Leave a few Global Hawk type Hell Fire Platforms handy, or a B1B loaded with some cruise missiles.
These SOBs have been killing one another for 1000s of years and will still be killing one another 1000s of years from now. If the whole damn place was nuked to oblivion and only 2 survived, those two would attack one another with fist.
Nearly 18 years of blood and treasure spent. Nearly 18 years of training. Most of us were trained to be lean, green killing machines in 6 months to a year. I guess we are that much smarter.
You know, that’s another good point. War Figthing 101 seems to be pretty clear that you can either (a) negotiate or (b) fight the war until one side or the other admits defeat.
You can’t do both. So at the point where we start “negotiating” with our enemies, we take “victory” off the table.
Look at the Korean war. We started negotiations in mid 1951. The war dragged on for two freakin’ years beyond that and tens of thousands of killed and wounded, and when the final ceasefire was agreed to, the position of the combatants was pretty close to where they were in 1951.
Look at Vietnam. We started negotiating with the North Vietnamese government (and by association, with the VC) in early 1967. At that point, there was ZERO possibility of “winning” the war, so every casualty that occurred after that time was someone who died for .. what? So LBJ wouldn’t ‘lose face?’ So the Democrats wouldn’t go down in history as the party that “lost Vietnam” (as they had been accused of “losing” China in 1949?)
If it’s time to negotiate then it’s time to stop fighting and pull out. Because all “negotiation” guarantees is that whoever walks away first will “lose” and since there’s nothing in Afghanistan that is worth the blood of even ONE American soldier, that will always be us.
And that shouldn’t really concern us too much, to be realistic. Afghanistan is one of those “tar baby” countries that NOBODY wants.
It’s like the old joke: You just entered a contest to win a trip: First prize is a week in Afghanistan.
Second prize is two weeks. 😉
My recollection (which may be a bit off after 17 years) of the reason we invaded Afghanistan is that the Taliban sheltered Al Qaeda. If the Taliban has learned their lesson and says it won’t shelter them again I say we should declare victory and get the hell out.
As far as I am concerned, at this point any excuse is a good excuse.
^^^ What he said.
“Winning” in Afghanistan won’t happen because to quote James Caan’s character of SFC Clell Hazard in the movie “Gardens of Stone”, there is “nothing to win and no way to win it.”
The inept and corrupt Afghan government is doomed to fall after we leave.
Whether we leave in 2 months or another 2 decades.
The Taliban are lying and will not keep any of their promises.
We need to get out and cut our losses.
Thebesig: I’m not going to respond to every point you made, but I’m a student of history too (my undergrad major.)
We grossly overestimated both the capabilities of the Soviets and the “unity” of the World Communist movement. In reality, most of the “communist” countries were simply repeating Soviet propaganda points so they could get Soviet support for their nationalist and anti-colonialist movements that were not, contrary to the paranoid beliefs of too many in the US, a part of a sinister conspiracy to surround the US and deprive us of our precious bodily fluids.
I see much the same with the current gross inflation of the capabilities of the so-called Islamic radicals.
When I look at the world I don’t see the failing Western democracies fighting a desperate rearguard action against a relentless and conquering tide of Islamic power. I see a more or less functioning world that is doing its own thing and minding its own business while a small number of crazy Muslims continue to undermine the development of THEIR OWN countries and try to drag them back to the 11th century while the rest of the world just tries to keep them contained in their own dusty parts of the globe.
That’s not to say the radicals – particularly where they’ve infiltrated the Muslim communities in Europe – are not dangerous, they are. But they are not an existential threat because they’ll never be able to do more than just stage the occasional random attack and kill a few dozen people with bombs or automatic weapons.
Now that’s horrible for the people who get killed or injured, and for their families too, but it doesn’t threaten the foundations of liberal Western society because the power to destroy is never enough: They also have to have the power to accomplish something.
And what have the radical islamists accomplished? What have they actually done? They haven’t even managed to topple the rotten edifice that is Syria. Libya? OK, I’ll give them that. They got Libya. And they got Egypt, but then they lost it again so that doesn’t really count.
By all outward appearances the radical muslims are nihilists. All they are about is destroying. That doesn’t exactly make people flock to their cause.
We simply have very different views of the world. I don’t see us as being locked in a life-or-death struggle with Islam.
Martinjmpr: Thebesig: I’m not going to respond to every point you made,
There’s no rule, on TAH that I am aware of, that requires the reader to respond to every point made in the post they are responding to. However, from reading your reply, I could tell that you could’ve at least thoroughly read what I stated above.
Martinjmpr: but I’m a student of history too (my undergrad major.)
I’ve been a student of history since the late 1970s, which would make this interest a four-decade long interest for me. I’ve been a news junkie since the summer of 1982. That’s over 3 ½ decades of being a news junkie. Both of these go hand in hand with regards to my interests.
For comparison, I’ve only been tracking global weather since 2007.
In the mid-1980s, I used both of the above to be able to piece together a picture that allowed me to predict that the Soviet Union would disintegrate. Likewise, before I graduated high school in the late 1980s, I wrote papers in class that basically predicted that the United States would be involved in combat operations in Central America and in the Middle East.
Years later, when I visited my high school, I ran into my teacher that I wrote those papers for. She told me that she wished that she kept my papers given what had already happened by that time. We had a ready engaged in combat operations in Panama as well as in Kuwait/Iraq.
In the last decade, I made a series of predictions in my debates against the leftists. These predictions related to our actions in Iraq given what I was arguing we should do, and what the opposition was arguing we should do. I also provided an “if [your way] happens, then [prediction] what happen.”
The Arab Spring? The conservatives argued that this would develop into a ripple effect. The leftists dismissed that. I explained how that ripple effect would happen, it wasn’t some “pulled from the air theory” that the Republicans concocted.
The verdict? Every prediction that I made and ended up happening.
When you can take information, from both history and current events, detect patterns information and trends, and make a prediction that ends up occurring, you have done what scientists achieve at a more advanced level.
The replies that you have been giving me does substantiate the fact that you would have a minor in history. They reflect a revision of history that has been perpetrated by the left, and pushed through our education systems.
When I posted on the old Protest Warrior forums, a big segment of the membership was either in high school or college. Current military, veterans, and conservatives, consisted other large groups. Both the high school and college groups complained about the leftist bent of the professors and teachers, and their attempts to push a leftist narrative of history and of current events.
Your argument is very similar to that made of those that I’ve argued against over the past 15 + years.
Martinjmpr: We grossly overestimated both the capabilities of the Soviets and the “unity” of the World Communist movement. In reality, most of the “communist” countries were simply repeating Soviet propaganda points so they could get Soviet support for their nationalist and anti-colonialist movements that were not, contrary to the paranoid beliefs of too many in the US, a part of a sinister conspiracy to surround the US and deprive us of our precious bodily fluids.
False.
With regards to their actual physical capabilities, and quality of military training and experience, we did overestimate their capabilities. However, the threat that they posed, and what they were doing globally, is as we have argued.
There was a forced unity within the communist world. Communist countries all around the world were not simply parroting communist propaganda just to get money from the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. All three countries in combination, or individually, were involved with destabilizing efforts in other countries.
They found leftist militia groups, who were Communists themselves, to support. They destabilized the non-Communist governments that these groups were in. They engaged in the propaganda, and in the destabilization effort, until they got their communist groups in power.
Once that was set up, they maintained advisers in those countries. This wasn’t just about “getting funding in the comments governments”. This was about, as the Soviets insisted, and Russians had admitted after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, global dominance, global communism.
As they attempted to create one communist country after another until they got to the U.S., they were engaging in the efforts inside the U.S., that I described above.
These were not paranoid beliefs. These were based on cold hard fact. In fact, if you read the book, Through the Eyes of the Enemy, by Stanislav Lunev, you would read about his personal account involved with activities like these. He was involved with the global intelligence/operations efforts to get governments to shift toward the communist goals.
This was widespread throughout the world. Stanislav Lunev was a former Russian military intelligence officer who defected to the United States.
These were not conspiracies, but fact.
The United States, for its part, engaged in similar activities, to counter these effects. We were involved in Central America countering the Soviet efforts. Our efforts paid off. When I was growing up, nobody would, in their wildest imagination, picture Central America as a retirement destination.
It is one now, partly thanks to our efforts against the communists in the 1980s, and our efforts in that area in the 1990s.
Martinjmpr: I see much the same with the current gross inflation of the capabilities of the so-called Islamic radicals.
These are not “gross inflammation of capabilities”. Also, they are not “so-called”. If you watch the video, that I posted above, by someone who grew up in Egypt, you would see but one example of what we are dealing with.
Again, I lost count of how many times I watched a video, featuring someone speaking in the Middle East, where they talk about how Islam will conquer Europe, North America, and South America. Even when they don’t say this directly, you can see it in their videos via symbology.
The radical Islamists are engaging in unrestricted warfare. Your argument, on this thread, can best be captured in this statement from Unrestricted Warfare:
This phrase perfectly describes your argument. They argued that our “holding” the quoted philosophy was our weakness, and how a weaker nation, or entity, could defeat us.
If a person was to only consider the “traditional means”, then what you argue would be applicable. However, the radical Islamists have already proven, and have a track record, of utilizing means outside of traditional means to wage their war against the West and other non-Muslim civilizations.
I listed some of those methods above, in my previous replies. When ISIS declares that they would send their fighters to the west, via the refugees, and then you have video clips show up listing some of these refugees as talking about how precisely they would end up dominating our culture, then add to that the assaults, rape, and crimes taking place in Europe, and you end up getting a sample of what unrestricted warfare is about.
Martinjmpr: When I look at the world I don’t see the failing Western democracies fighting a desperate rearguard action against a relentless and conquering tide of Islamic power. I see a more or less functioning world that is doing its own thing and minding its own business while a small number of crazy Muslims continue to undermine the development of THEIR OWN countries and try to drag them back to the 11th century while the rest of the world just tries to keep them contained in their own dusty parts of the globe.
First, understand that that this was precisely the mindset that most Americans had prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, in the mid-1990s the US government received a report, from the Philippine government, that contained a radical Islamic terrorist plan that included slamming aircraft into buildings.
President Clinton even received an intelligence briefing on this. Both parties, and most of the US public, shared the same opinion that you just expressed above. Result? Neither Republican nor Democrat senators or congressmen saw it necessary to take this report seriously and to implement a commission’s recommendation to prevent such an event from happening.
Second, what you view above does not accurately reflect reality.
As I mentioned above, this is unrestricted warfare. The radical Islamists may not like each other, and may be fighting against each other, but make no mistake… They hate us for more than they hate each other. In their eyes, we’re much lower than most of their worst enemies in the Islamic world. They hold the Jews to a lower level than us.
The reality is that collectively, they are engaging in multiple unrestricted warfare tactics to achieve their manifest destiny: to bring the world under the rule of Islam. As I mentioned above, they are using a combination of tactics that are both violent, nonviolent, and things in between. They are engaging in terrorist activities in an attempt to destabilize a society. They are also using their numbers, via growing birthrates, to increase their influence. At the same time, they are enforcing their way in areas that the populations dominate in.
Western civilization, engaging in leftist economic and social policies, is engaging in civilizational suicide. Match that with the strategy that the radical Islamists are using, which incorporates indefinite patience, to accomplish their goals in the long run. I provided examples above.
Third, the world’s nations are not minding their own business. Every country in the planet is pursuing its interest. The United States, and other Western countries, tend to do this best. However, every single country is pursuing its interest globally, regionally, and locally. The same thing is taking place with regards to organizations, whether that be for-profit or unauthorized militia.
If the United States were the disappear overnight, another country would end up filling our void. As history has proven, when a void is filled, there is usually a bloody conflict associated with it. And once the conflict is resolved, the same order that was taking place before ends up running again, with different players in different positions.
You, as a history minor, should have been privy to this process taking place throughout history.
But no, the radical Islamists are not just trying to destabilize their own country. That is only a step that is a part of an overall long-term objective.
First, get Western civilization out of the Middle East. Second, destabilize the Muslim governments that are not sufficiently Muslim. Third, stand up radical Islamist governments. Fourth, reestablish the Islamic caliphate., Fifth, push out and continue where the Moors left off during the time of the Reconquesta.
However, this is not the only one planned. This is unrestricted warfare. They are carrying out multiple plans, concurrent with the one I laid out. They are carrying out the combination of strategies that I listed above.
The idea that we should just contain them, in their area, while the rest of the world goes about its business, is a dangerous one. The radical Islamists divide the world into two:
Dar al-Harb: House of War
Dar al-Islam: House of Peace/Muslim Nation
Again, remember the manifest destiny that I said they had… Bringing the entire world under Islam. Dar al-Harb is the non-Islamic world in the process of being brought under Islamic law.
Your argument is like saying that you would much rather ignore your neighbor’s statements of their intent to kill you and your family, and that you would much rather go about your business as you don’t believe that your neighbor would commit such an act.
It’s like the FBI receiving complaints about a would-be shooter, talking to him, and not seeing his claims and threats as serious enough to remove him from society. That did not work out for a bunch of innocent students then, your argument would not work out for civilization in the long run.
If you think this is far-fetched, understand that this is based on the arguments advanced by our enemies and adversaries in that region. This is coming, “From the horse’s mouth.”
Martinjmpr: That’s not to say the radicals – particularly where they’ve infiltrated the Muslim communities in Europe – are not dangerous, they are. But they are not an existential threat because they’ll never be able to do more than just stage the occasional random attack and kill a few dozen people with bombs or automatic weapons.
Again, this was the predominant assumption made prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Believe it or not, we used to think that in the 1980s. Acts of terrorism against US interests and US personnel was an issue that Americans wanted to deal with. We never saw these terrorists as being part of a larger organization intent on overthrowing the West.
We thought exactly what you are thinking here. We figured that although there were some minor pockets of radicals in that region, that “they were not the majority or mainstream”. In fact, during the initial phases of the terrorist attacks that took place in 2001, the initial assumption that the pilots, and others involved with “rescue”, was that these terrorists were going to make demands and that, in the end, everybody was going to be released. Perhaps some people would’ve been shot, but most were expected to be rescued eventually.
That didn’t happen. Instead, three aircraft slammed into buildings, and one crashed into the ground when the passengers found out what was going on.
Thinking, the way you are thinking here, contributed to our not taking steps that could have averted those terrorist attacks. There was a statement, in the 9/11 Commission Repot, that faulted a “lack of imagination” regards to dealing with this kind of threat. Your mindset here is precisely the kind of mindset that was prevailing prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Contrary to what you claim, these radicals are dangerous. The philosophy is widespread throughout the Middle East, as well as throughout Muslim communities in the West. They are an existential threat to the West. Understand that them doing a random attack here and there, and killing targets here and there, is just a part of their larger strategy. I scratched the surface of the strategy above.
Martinjmpr: Now that’s horrible for the people who get killed or injured, and for their families too, but it doesn’t threaten the foundations of liberal Western society because the power to destroy is never enough: They also have to have the power to accomplish something.
False. Their long-term, current, and medium-term strategies threaten the foundation of Western civilization and that of other non-Muslim civilizations.
Many Islamists, not just the radical Islamists, argue that the U.S. Constitution is inconsistent with Sharia Law. They argue that any law that’s not consistent with Sharia is null and void. In areas in the U.S., Canada, and Europe where Muslims have a majority, there’s evidence of Muslims trying to enforce their law on those who aren’t Muslim.
I mentioned videos, above, involving Muslims (Somali) chastising American women for not being appropriately covered. What they were wearing was compliant with American law… Yet we have Somali Islamists lecturing these women that they’re not appropriate, that what they’re wearing is immoral, and that they needed to be covered up the way women in the Muslim world are covered up.
This is on American soil. Similar events are occurring overseas in other non-Muslim countries.
When their population is small, they talk about “cooperation, inclusion, and teamwork”. When their numbers grow, they shift from that and more to them getting their way. When they gain majorities, they enforce their way on everybody else.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was an example of this. When it didn’t look like they had a chance in the election, they talked about inclusion and equal representation. When their numbers improved in the polls, they talked less about inclusion and more about things going their way. When the polls showed that they had it, gone was the talk of inclusion. They argued that things were going to run the way they’re supposed to be ran in a Muslim society.
I mentioned above that they have indefinite patience. You’re looking at this and saying, “They don’t pose a threat to the West, that they’re isolated, that they’re restricted to a certain area, etc.” shows that you’re only looking at this from a limited perspective. They have patience, they’ll gain little by little, generation by generation, and they’ll expand.
What I also said above that addresses your claims of them being limited, and not being a threat as they don’t have the power:
“For example, it’s no secret that birth rates are declining in the Western countries. Not so much with regards to Islamic families. They’re experiencing a growth rate. In fact, there have been video segments showing refugees, from the Middle East, bragging about the fact that they have plenty of kids per family… And how they intended to leverage that in countries where the native birth rate is declining.
“Declining native Western population in the face of an increasing population among Muslims, and other Third World populations. You know what this reminds me of? The last two centuries of Roman rule, where declining birth rates were offset by incoming immigration from outside the Roman Empire.
“Muammar Qaddafi was reported as saying that Europe was going to get conquered via population growth without the use of swords (paraphrased). This has been echoed throughout the Middle East.” – thebesig
Martinjmpr: And what have the radical islamists accomplished? What have they actually done?
Again, you have to see this in context of history, the bigger picture, and the fact that they’re utilizing indefinite patience to accomplish their goals. For starters, look at what they’ve done in Afghanistan since the start of the War on Terror. They were dislodged from government, but they ended up making a comeback to the point to where they have control of a sizeable percent of Afghanistan.
The other things that they’ve done, I’ve mentioned above. They’ve made a change, in the House of Representatives to allow for the wear of religious headwear when none was previously considered. They did so to accommodate the Muslims. This is an impact indicator of not just what the radicals have done, but what a critical mass of Muslims and enablers have done.
When seen from the Asiatic perspective, which is what they’re using, a series of successful small accomplishments over a long period of time is just as acceptable than one big accomplishment in a short period of time.
You’re seeing this from a Western perspective, one big, sustaining, accomplishment after another a la World War II or other similar event. That’s not what they’re thinking, they’re thinking one small accomplishment over a period of time bringing them closer to their objectives.
The radical Islamists need the rest of Western Civilization to think the way you’re thinking here in order for them to achieve their objectives.
Martinjmpr: They haven’t even managed to topple the rotten edifice that is Syria.
Because they have a coalition of forces against them, doing what others and I say they should be doing against the militant efforts of the radicals.
Martinjmpr: Libya? OK, I’ll give them that. They got Libya. And they got Egypt, but then they lost it again so that doesn’t really count.
As I mentioned earlier, I argued in favor of a prediction made that essentially became the Arab Spring.
With the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey at different stages of what we consider desirable, we had the Middle East in a checkerboard pattern alternating between hard Islamic governments and governments that were relatively secular.
With the development of communication technologies that were taking place in the last decade, and with people in that region moving from one country or another, it was a matter of time before other countries were going to want what we were trying to set up in the Middle East.
It was only a matter of time, as of the time I argued this in the last decade, before we have a situation similar to what we had in Central America in the early 1990s. It was up to the U.S. State Department, CIA, and other agencies to remain engaged in the process in order to accomplish in the Middle East what we accomplished in Central America in the 1990s.
We had an opportunity to get pro-western, secular, forces in position to gain governance in areas that experienced the Arab Spring. Even the Iranians felt the sting, and experienced their own demonstrations. Unfortunately, the last president sent them signals that he wasn’t going to be supportive of their efforts.
The process that you talked about, with regards to what they tried to accomplish and what they failed to accomplish, was influenced by Western and global engagement in the area. They failed where we were engaged, they succeeded where we weren’t completely engaged. We left no standing force in Libya, we exerted no real influence in the wider area when we should’ve exerted that influence, at the beginning of the Arab Spring.
When the last President failed to capitalize on the Arab Spring, opportunities became available for the radicals to try to take advantage of the power vacuum.
Martinjmpr: By all outward appearances the radical muslims are nihilists.
False. Again, you need to quit seeing this from a western perspective, and start seeing this from their perspective. Claiming that they’re nihilists is claiming that they don’t value life. From their perspective, they do value life. They’re willing to give up on their “earthly life” for a cause that’d get them favorable condition in the “heavenly life”. In that process, they’re sacrificing their lives for that of others who would benefit, on Earth, from what they see are “true moral principles”.
Martinjmpr: All they are about is destroying.
False. Their main objective is to expand what they see as the Muslim Nation to include what they currently see as part of the “land of the unbelievers”. Using acts of terror to destroy and kill is just one of the tools that they have in their tool bags. I’ve mentioned, above, another tactic that they have used.
If they could expand Islam without the use of force, they’d use that. They have used that. They know that their biggest success would come through “soft kill” methods. I mentioned one of them with regards to population growths relative to population declines among the native populations of the countries they go to.
Martinjmpr: That doesn’t exactly make people flock to their cause.
False. If they actually achieve, or are perceived to have achieved, victory in any sphere of conflict, they will have material to recruit to their cause. Some good examples of this are videos that they spliced, and create, making the viewer think that they defeated the West on the battlefield. They use these videos along with voice or instrumental music in their recruiting videos. They keep doing this, as this has proven to be successful with regards to their recruiting efforts.
People and factions would change sides on a drop of the dime in that area, partly because people over there like to be “on the winning team”.
Martinjmpr: We simply have very different views of the world.
However, this isn’t a case where two different people could have different views of the world but not worry about the other trying to eliminate them. My neighbor across the street, and I, have two different views about climate change. I don’t have to worry about him inflicting damage against anything that I own. Likewise, he doesn’t have to worry about me doing the same against him.
We’re both westerners and respect the fact that we don’t see eye to eye on the climate/weather.
However, with something like this, our enemies/adversaries in the Middle East see themselves as having the God backed moral high ground. They see us as “morally in the wrong” with regards to doing what God wants us to do.
The West has the view that in today’s world, there shouldn’t be conquests of territorial acquisition. The radical elements in the Middle East? They believe in congest for territorial acquisition for the sake of expanding Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb.
Martinjmpr: I don’t see us as being locked in a life-or-death struggle with Islam.
The facts, and realities, on the ground indicate that the West is locked in a life-or-death struggle against radical Islam. You’re a history minor. You should have knowledge of the fact that Christianity was the dominant religion surrounding the Mediterranean prior to the Medieval Period.
Then, during the Medieval Period, Islam rose in the Arabian Peninsula, then pushed out both north, south, east, and west until it spread across North Africa, into Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc, and even pushed out into Southeast Asia.
Christianity? Left in the European side of the Mediterranean. Islam is a growing religion and, as I mentioned, Muslims in the third world have a healthy population growth rate relative to native populations in Western Countries.
In fact, the birthrates in most Western Cultures are such that there’s a question as to whether the West could sustain its culture. Muslims are migrating to these countries from the third world. Declining birthrates that leaves the native population in a questionable position to preserve their culture versus an incoming population with a healthy population to keep theirs… You do the math.
Again, as Qaddafi was reported to have said that Europe will be conquered without the sword via Muslim immigration.
Segments like this are a norm, not “exception” in the Middle East:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfACr-y4s