Daesh Heading Into A Death Spiral

For John, BLUF:  President Obama has the wrong strategy.  Ms Clinton has not suggested a better one.  Nor, for that matter, has Mr Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Islamic State Caliphate Staring Into ‘Death Spiral’

From Mr Jeff Seldin, of Voice of America News, on the 16th, we have a report on progress.

For the United States and its coalition partners, it is the sound of progress – the dull roar of engines as Iraqi Humvees kick up dust and dirt on the outskirts of Fallujah.  In the distance, smoke rises as Iraqi forces push on with a slow but steady advance.

The scene, shared in a video handout by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, makes the battle for the key city look more methodical than it is.  Closer in, Iraqi forces are meeting with what coalition officials have described as “stiff resistance” from Islamic State (IS) fighters.

But for many, the trend appears clear:  The terror group’s self-declared caliphate is starting to crumble.

“This is the first time ISIL is experiencing pressure from a number of places,” said a U.S. official who spoke to VOA on condition of anonymity, using an acronym for the group.

“We’ve never seen them have to react to this sort of pressure,” the official added.  “We’re looking closely.”

This idea of a "Death Spiral for Daesh is supported by Mr Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has been closely following IS’s fortunes.

We could be looking at a death spiral that will destroy the organization.

On the other other hand, there is this more pessimistic, and realistic, view:

It's actually irrelevant.  Everyone seems to be focused on the organisation and not the idea.  IS is but one of the many Hydra heads from Al Tawheed Wal Jihad.  IS will die, but the phenomenon will remain.  Only until nation states cease waging politically correct wars will they learn to harness a combined military, civil and law enforcement exercise that not only targets the leadership but the "teachers" of the phenomenon, the IT support and the financiers.  This hasn't been done yet. That is why this threat will metastasize.  Also, we tend to forget AQ.   But...this isn't the worse threat.  Criminal organizations and politically aligned militias are learning and emulating this phenomenon.  The world is heading into very chaotic times.

And there it is.  This is not about Daesh or al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, but about a kernel idea that says Sharia is the supreme law over all other law and that certain things are wrong under Sharia and deserve death.  What percentage of Muslims believe this?  Probably a very small percentage, but they exist and they fuel the multiplication of groups like Daesh.

And then, there are those who believe Islam has been oppressed by the West for the last 500 years and maybe the last 700 years.  Remember that 1492 may be the year the people in Cambridge believe represents the infliction of Western values on the Western Hemisphere, but for Muslims it means the year they were thrown out of Iberia.  Daesh and others of an Islamic historic orientation want to go back into Spain.  Would that be good for the West, and the rest?

Regards  —  Cliff

Ali on Paris Killings

For John, BLUF:  I don't think we have to kill a lot of people, or even any, but we must take a stand.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at The Wall Street Journal is an OpEd by Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali,♠ the bête noire of the understanding Progressives.♥  Ms Ali probably escaped death at the hands of radical when living and working in the Netherlands.  Her cinematic partner in Holland, Theo van Gogh was brutally butchered on the streets of Amsterdam.

The headline is "How to Answer the Paris Terror Attack".  The article says "The West must stand up for freedom—and acknowledge the link between Islamists’ political ideology and their religious beliefs."

After the horrific massacre Wednesday at the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, perhaps the West will finally put away its legion of useless tropes trying to deny the relationship between violence and radical Islam.

This was not an attack by a mentally deranged, lone-wolf gunman.  This was not an “un-Islamic” attack by a bunch of thugs—the perpetrators could be heard shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad.  Nor was it spontaneous.  It was planned to inflict maximum damage, during a staff meeting, with automatic weapons and a getaway plan. It was designed to sow terror, and in that it has worked.

The West is duly terrified. But it should not be surprised.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter.  This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe.  There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Quran.  But the Quran is hardly alone.  In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept.  The 20th-century jihad “bible,” and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani Gen. S.K. Malik.  He argues that because God, Allah, himself authored every word of the Quran, the rules of war contained in the Quran are of a higher caliber than the rules developed by mere mortals.

Here is how Ms Ali ends her opinion piece.

There can only be one answer to this hideous act of jihad against the staff of Charlie Hebdo.  It is the obligation of the Western media and Western leaders, religious and lay, to protect the most basic rights of freedom of expression, whether in satire on any other form.  The West must not appease, it must not be silenced.  We must send a united message to the terrorists:  Your violence cannot destroy our soul.

In case you are still looking for an answer to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's question, "What difference at this point does it make?" Charlie Hobdo is part of the answer.  We let an extremist group attack our diplomatic staff overseas and blamed it on a cheap video about the oppression of Coptic Christians in Egypt.  Coptic Christians who get more support from Egyptian President al-Sisi than they do from the US Government.  The difference is that if we let the Salafist extremists get away with this sort of thing without strong condemnation and action, then they will continue to do it and intimidate us and run our lives.  Ultimately, it is about our freedom.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Ms. Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, is the author of Infidel (2007). Her latest book, Heretic:  The Case for a Muslim Reformation, will be published in April by HarperCollins (maybe).
♥  For example, Brandeis University backing out on giving Ms Ali an Honorary Degree, under pressure.

Female Guards Banned at GITMO

For John, BLUF:  We have to stand up for OUR culture.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

There seems to be nothing the "West" can do right.  The lawyers for Mr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others have objected to the use of military women as part of the escort teams that move the men from their cells to meetings with their lawyers.  This is believed, by the lawyers to humiliate the men and undermine their religious sensibilities.

From The Stars and Stripes we have "Female Guantanamo guards barred from moving 9/11 defendants".

A military judge ordered officials at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Wednesday to stop using female guards to move the five defendants in the Sept. 11 case to court and back and to meetings with their lawyers.

The ruling by Army Col. James Pohl addresses a dispute that has threatened to disrupt proceedings in the case, which is in the pretrial phase. Defendants have been refusing to meet with defense lawyers, arguing that any physical contact with a woman not related to them violates their Muslim beliefs.

Lawyers for the five defendants said the use of female guards, which apparently began recently inside the top-secret unit where they are held known as Camp 7, is unnecessary and interferes with their right to legal counsel as they face trial by military commission.

. . .

"It is being done to disrupt them and to disrupt their ability to defend themselves," Nevin said.

I admit to being much less sensitive to these humiliations today that I would be on most days.  The lack of sensitivity on the part of other Salafists has reduced my sensitivity.  The dead in Paris is a big contributor to this attitude.

Ultimately, the question is if we are willing to lose our culture in order to not offend those of other cultures who happen to put themselves in our way.  If we do to Saudi Arabia our military women should not be driving off base.  If some Salafist comes here and is offended because some woman is not covered, that is his or her problem.  And, if some Salafist man brings a wife with him to the US and she decides to wear a miniskirt, he should divorce her, but otherwise accept his humiliation and let it go.  And "honor killings" here in the US should be punished severely.

Rant off.

Sure, go with only male guards or now.  If, however, the defense is not moving forward to trial, go back and make all the guards female members of our military.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Line Will Never Stop Shifting

For John, BLUF:  If you let me set the standard here, what is to stop me from moving it to there?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A while back Michael J Totten interviewed Christopher Hitchens about radical Islam and free speech.  The interview, in Michael Totten's view, is as applicable today as then.  Early in the short discussion Michael says:

What good is legal freedom of speech if violent enforcers of a different, older, and foreign set of laws take it upon themselves to punish you extrajudicially?

Exactly right.  We are dealing with people willing to kill to enforce their views on the evils of blasphemy.  And there are people in the West who are willing to support the idea that we should not blaspheme against other religions, from Yale University to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Presidential Spokesman Jay Carney to the French Foreign Minister from a few years back.  They all urge that we show restraint.  That we not cross some invisible line.♠

The problem is that what is acceptable is not fixed in concrete.  As Michael Totten said in his post:

But the line will never stop shifting.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Of course they don't mind if my Lord and Savior is blasphemed.  No big deal.

Proper Response to Islamic Violence

For John, BLUF:  We can't solve Islam's problems for them, but we can hold them to the standards we expect of others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

In The Wall Street Journal, dateline Sunday evening, Mr. Aly Salem, an Egyptian writer based in New York, says "Let's Talk About How Islam Has Been Hijacked".  The sub-title is "I'm appalled by what is done in the name of my religion. Yet my American friends don't want to hear it."

Yes, the question is, what are we as Americans doing right and wrong in discussions of Islam.

Here is the conclusion of the article:

Compare the collective response after each harrowing high-school shooting in America. Intellectuals and public figures look for the root cause of the violence and ask:  Why?  Yet when I ask why after every terrorist attack, the disapproval I get from my non-Muslim peers is visceral:  The majority of Muslims are not violent, they insist, the jihadists are a minority who don't represent Islam, and I am fear-mongering by even wondering aloud.

This is delusional thinking.  Even as the world witnesses the barbarity of beheadings, habitual stoning and severe subjugation of women and minorities in the Muslim world, politicians and academics lecture that Islam is a "religion of peace."  Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia routinely beheads women for sorcery and witchcraft.

In the U.S., we Muslims are handled like exotic flowers that will crumble if our faith is criticized—even if we do it ourselves.  Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike would apparently prefer to drop bombs in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, because killing Muslims is somehow less offensive than criticizing their religion? Unfortunately, you can't kill an idea with a bomb, and so Islamism will continue to propagate.  Muslims must tolerate civilized public debate of the texts and scripture that inform Islamism.  To demand any less of us is to engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

There it is again, that dangerous phrase, "...the soft bigotry of low expectations."

The more subtle point is that ISIL (or ISIS or IS or da'eth) is not going to go away until Islam has its own internal dialogue and those of us outside the faith walk a fine line between unjustly condemning Muslims and mollycoddling Muslims.

And, at the end of the day it is their problem to fix.

Regards  —  Cliff

Gaining and Preserving Democracy

For John, BLUF:  The situation in Egypt asks, how do you preserve democracy.

Over at The Instapundit is a blog post on Egypt and Democracy and the rights and responsibilities of the People.

ILYA SOMIN:  What to Do When Illiberal, Anti-Democratic Forces Take Power Through the Democratic Process.

Remember: Democracy is a means, not an end.  It’s valuable as a means of protecting those unalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But those rights are unalienable — incapable of being alienated, that is, bought, sold, or given away — which means that even if you live in a democracy, you haven’t surrendered them to the majority.  A majority that wants to take away your unalienable rights isn’t a legitimate government.  I’m gratified by how many Egyptians seem to grasp that; it’s more than I expected, though perhaps not as many as it needs to be.  It’s clearly more than the Muslim Brotherhood expected, too.

In the Ilya Somin article is a reference to a Washington Post OpEd by Fareed Zakaria, in which Mr Zakaria argues that Egypt erred when it ”chose democratization before liberalization.”  What does that mean?  Is one better off with a "liberal"♠ leaning dictator (think Michael Bloomberg) than with a bumbling democrat (think Jimmy Carter)?  The key question is, will there be another election.

The current Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan, infamously said "Democracy is like a train.  We shall get out when we arrive at the station we want."  It may have been a throw-away line, but it isn't funny.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And what do we mean by "liberal"?  I think of myself as a liberal.  I think sometimes commenter Jack Mitchell is a modern-liberal.

Riot w/o Video?

For John, BLUF:  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Boston Globe headline:  "Protest at Egypt president's palace turns violent".  Here is the lede:

A protest by at least 100,000 Egyptians outside the presidential palace in Cairo turned violent on Tuesday as tensions grew over Islamist President Mohammed Morsi’s seizure of nearly unrestricted powers and a draft constitution hurriedly adopted by his allies.

What surprised me was that there was no mention of the YouTube video, Innocence of Muslims.  Must have been an oversight or the Administration hasn't yet weighed in.

Regards  —  Cliff

Totten Gives Us The Big Picture

For John, BLUF:  Islamists do try to intimidate our citizens, here in the US, and we should all be troubled.

Michael J Totten writes about "The Terrorists’ Veto" in City Journal.  Here is a key paragraph from the article:

Six months ago in the New Republic, Berman reviewed a book by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea called Silenced:  How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide.  It makes for sobering reading.  Islamist murder and intimidation campaigns against apostates and blasphemers are so widespread and common nowadays that the authors managed to write 448 pages about them and only cover 20 countries.  Religious minorities are the principal victims, but so are liberals, free-thinkers, and humanists from every religious community.  “Our survey,” they write, “shows that in Muslim-majority countries and areas, restrictions on freedom of religion and expression, based on prohibitions of blasphemy, apostasy, and ‘insulting Islam,’ are pervasive, thwart freedom, and cause suffering to millions of people.”

Yes, it CAN happen here.  Michael Totten cites the case of Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris.  Back in 2010 the FBI put her into the Witness Protection Program, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

This is about our freedom and our way of life and our way of governing ourselves.  Give in to the threats and we will live in fear or more.

Regards  —  Cliff

-2 F W 0.5

Can I Get An Apology?

Over at Hot Air we have a post by Allahpundit about the US Embassy in Cairo apologizing for Rev Terry Jones, a US Citizen, in the Unied States, exercising his First Amendment Rights.  Here is the extract from the US Embassy website:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.  Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.  Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.  We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Can I get a condemnation of and an apology for American artist and photographer Andres Serrano's photo depicting a Crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine?

From the InstaPundit, regarding this embassy incident, we have Andrew Klavan’s advice on how to behave during a Salafist massacre.

Let us be very clear here.  We aren't talking about Islam here, but about the extreme militant Salafist expression of Islam.  To put this in perspective, the Salafists stand beyond the Muslim Brotherhood.

And where does the US Embassy stand on Copts being murdered in Egypt?

I don't take this total imbroglio lightly.  Besides the disrespect for the American flag and embassy, we have had a Department of State employee killed in Libya.  And this could quickly go down hill, as in Iran during the Carter Administration.

UPDATE:  The White House, per Politico, has disavowed the "Apology" issued out of the US Embassy in Cairo—and rightfully so.  Good on the Obama Administration.  Further, it is not cear that Rev Terry Jones is the cause of this problem.  News now suggests there are two films and other factors.

Regards  —  Cliff