US Envoy: To defeat the Islamic State, we must “tell the story of how we celebrate Islam”

Allen-and-Kuwaiti-emir-300x213Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer:

General Allen was the commander in Afghanistan who issued an abject and embarrassing video apology to “the noble people of Afghanistan” for the alleged desecration of a Qur’an at a U.S. air base. Here he is assuming what all Western leaders assume: that the Islamic State is perverting the true teachings of Islam, and that these Muslim leaders will be eager to show that to be the case. But it is increasingly clear to everyone that this is just whistling in the dark: even the Guardian sees through it. “US Envoy: To Defeat ISIS, We Must Highlight ‘Our Profound Respect’ for Islam,” by Patrick Goodenough, CNS News, October 29, 2014 (thanks to Lookmann):

(CNSNews.com) – A global effort to counter claims by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) that it is acting in the name of Islam must include a counter-narrative that highlights “our profound respect” for the religion, the administration’s point man in the anti-ISIS coalition said this week.Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen was speaking in Kuwait, where representatives of more than a dozen Islamic and Western met to discuss using public communications to combat ISIS (also known as Da’esh – an acronym for the Arabic rendering of the group’s name, ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fil-Iraq wa ash-Sham).

“As we seek to expose Da’esh’s true nature,” Allen told the gathering on Monday, “we must also tell a positive story, one that highlights our respect – our profound respect for Islam’s proud traditions, its rich history, and celebration of scholarship and family and community.”

“We must work with clerics and scholars and teachers and parents to tell the story of how we celebrate Islam, even as we show that Da’esh perverts it.”

The conference in Kuwait City brought together officials from leading Arab states, Turkey, France, Britain and the U.S. to discuss ways their governments are working to counter ISIS’ message.

The jihadist group, which controls large parts of Syria and Iraq and has declared a “caliphate” in those areas, runs a dynamic propaganda and recruitment operation, including a full-color online magazine, video clips, and an active social media presence.

The Qur’an and other Islamic texts, along with viewpoints of historical and modern-day Muslim scholars, are central to its messaging, and the U.S.-led coalition is prioritizing attempts to counter the purported religious justifications for its actions.

Allen said that ISIS propaganda serves both to attract recruits and “perverts the innocent.”

“It is only when we contest Da’esh’s presence online and deny the legitimacy of its message – the message that it sends to vulnerable young people – and as we expose Da’esh for the un-Islamic, criminal cult of violence that it really is, it is only then that Da’esh will be truly defeated.”

He said every member of the coalition had a role to play in combating the image ISIS portrays of itself.

“Da’esh’s online messengers present themselves as the true and victorious representatives of Islam. They seek to portray themselves as winners, true leaders worthy of financial support that attracts and radicalizes foreign fighters,” he said.

“I believe every coalition partner, every one, has a unique and a vital role to play in striking down this image – this image within the context of our respective cultural, religious, and national norms.”

Allen noted that leading religious figures in the region have spoken out against ISIS on religious grounds.

Last August, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia declared that ISIS’ ideas and violent conduct made it “enemy number one of Islam.” The same month, Egypt’s grand mufti launched an Internet-based campaign to discredit ISIS, and urged media to stop using any name for the group that incorporates the word “Islamic.”

More than 120 Islamic figures last month signed a letter to ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – who calls himself “Caliph Ibrahim” and has called on jihadists everywhere to swear loyalty to him – challenging him on religious grounds….

And that challenge was as hypocritical as it was revealing.

America’s Provocative Weakness

3844747002Center for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Among former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s many illuminating “rules” is his trenchant observation that “weakness is provocative.”  Indeed, the accelerating instability we see worldwide is, in no small measure, a product of the weakness being communicated at every turn by Barack Obama’s administration.  Worse yet, the steps the President is taking to weaken America further will make it vastly more difficult to contend with the aggression he has invited.

In a characteristically brilliant op.ed. article in last Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson warned that the United States was engaged in the defense and foreign policy equivalent of the Fed’s bid to begin weaning the economy off of its massive purchases of U.S. T-bills that is known as the “taper” and has roiled world markets and currencies. As Prof. Ferguson puts it: “We are witnessing [a fundamental shift] in the national security strategy of the U.S. – and, like the Fed’s tapering, this one also means big repercussions for the world.”

Consider but a few of examples of such repercussions:

  • China has declared much of the East and South China Seas to be its territorial waters.  The PRC’s growing military seems determined to press its claims to the Senkaku Islands to – and perhaps past – the brink of war with Japan. And the People’s Liberation Army is putting into place the means by which it can effectively checkmate what is left of the United States’ ability to project power in support of American treaty obligations to the Japanese and perhaps others in the region.
  • The Iranian mullahs now know that the U.S. and the rest of the so-called “international community” will not be prevent the realization of their decades-old nuclear ambitions. Consequently, the Iranians are brazenly: doubling down on their bet on Bashir Assad in Syria; angling for hegemony in the Persian Gulf; penetrating our hemisphere with intelligence operations, money-laundering schemes and the insertion of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and proxy forces – including the designated terrorist group, Hezbollah; and, most recently, sending warships and other vessels into the Atlantic and Caribbean.
  • Of particular concern is the emboldening of Iran arising from President Obama’s surrendering of Iraq to its tender mercies – and those of its sometime partner, sometime enemy, al Qaeda.  We will shortly find fresh evidence of how provocative is our weakness when Mr. Obama does the same with respect to the Taliban in Afghanistan – especially if, in the interim, he replenishes their leadership by releasing five of the organization’s top, battle-hardened jihadist commanders from Guantanamo Bay.
  •  Speaking of ships in our waters, a North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba.  The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP)  attack on our electric grid.

President Obama’s response to this and other North Korean provocations – including highly publicized propaganda about nuclear strikes on the United States? Crickets.

Even what might be promising developments in Ukraine and Venezuela in the form of popular revolts against violent repression by their respective, anti-Western regimes may be squandered due to America’s perceived impotence and trajectory of disengagement.  This pattern will almost certainly encourage aggression by Russia in the former and by Cuba, China, Iran and narco-traffickers in the latter.

These are hardly the sorts of circumstances in which the United States should be signaling still further weakness by accelerating Team Obama’s  dismantling of our military.  Yet, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced Monday that the Army would be reduced to its smallest size since before World War II.  The Air Force would eliminate its ground-support A-10 “Warthog” jets and the Navy would tie up prematurely 11 cruisers.  And a host of cuts will reduce pay and benefits to active duty personnel and retirees.

The cumulative effect of these and previous cuts will be to risk breaking the All-Volunteer Force and the only military we have.  The absolutely predictable effect will be to make the world a more dangerous place for all of us.

This is a perfect opportunity for conservatives and the Republican Party to provide once again a Loyal Opposition to such hollowing out of our military and the Obama Doctrine it enables: Emboldening our enemies, undermining our allies and diminishing our country.

To provide this needed alternative to President Obama’s provocative weakness, however, the Right is going to have to return to its Reaganesque roots:  It must once again embrace and promote the philosophy the Gipper practiced as “peace through strength.”  The American people and our country are entitled to at least one party that stands for and will provide a responsible national security policy.

The place to start is by rebuilding our armed forces and their capacities, rather than going along with the further evisceration of the strength that dissuades, instead of inviting, aggression — and by holding accountable, at last, those responsible for the weakness that has, to date, done too much of the opposite.

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Enemy Action

US-POLITICS-ECONOMY

Front Page, by :

It’s often hard to determine whether a series of bad policies results from stupidity or malicious intent. Occam’s razor suggests that the former is the more likely explanation, as conspiracies assume a high degree of intelligence, complex organization, and secrecy among a large number of people, qualities that usually are much less frequent than the simple stupidity, disorganization, and inability to keep a secret more typical of our species. Yet surveying the nearly 6 years of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy blunders, I’m starting to lean towards Goldfinger’s Chicago mob-wisdom: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action.”

Obama’s ineptitude started with his general foreign policy philosophy. George Bush, so the narrative went, was a trigger-happy, unilateralist, blundering, “dead or alive” cowboy who rushed into an unnecessary war in Iraq after alienating our allies and insulting the Muslim world. Obama pledged to be different. As a Los Angeles Times editorial advised him in January 2009, “The Bush years, defined by ultimatums and unilateral actions around the world, must be brought to a swift close with a renewed emphasis on diplomacy, consultation and the forging of broad international coalitions.” Obama eagerly took this advice, reaching out not just to our allies, but also to sworn enemies like Syria, Venezuela, and Iran, and serially bowing to various potentates around the globe. He went on the apology tour, in which he confessed America’s “arrogant, dismissive, derisive” behavior and the “darker periods in our history.” And he followed up by initiating America’s retreat from international affairs, “leading from behind,” appeasing our enemies, and using rhetorical bluster as a substitute for coherent, forceful action. Here follow 3 of the many mistakes that suggest something other than inexperience and a lack of knowledge is driving Obama’s policies.

Russia

Remember the “reset” button Obama offered to Russia? In September 2009 he made a down payment on this policy by reversing George Bush’s plan to station a radar facility in the Czech Republic and 10 ground-based missile interceptors in Poland. Russia had complained about these defensive installations, even though they didn’t threaten Russian territory. So to appease the Russians, Obama abandoned Poland and the Czech Republic, who still live in the dark shadow of their more powerful former oppressors, while Russia’s Iranian clients were emboldened by their patron’s ability to make the superpower Americans back down. As George Marshall Fund fellow David J. Kramer prophesized at the time, Obama’s caving “to Russian pressure . . . will encourage leaders in Moscow to engage in more loud complaining and bully tactics (such as threatening Iskander missiles against the Poles and Czechs) because such behavior gets desired results.”

Obama followed up this blunder with the New START arms reduction treaty with Russia signed in 2010. This agreement didn’t include tactical nuclear weapons, leaving the Russians with a 10-1 advantage. Multiple warheads deployed on a missile were counted as one for purposes of the treaty, which meant that the Russians could exceed the 1550 limit. Numerous other problems plague this treaty, but the worst is the dependence on Russian honesty to comply with its terms. Yet as Keith B. Payne and Mark B. Schneider have written recently, for years Russia has serially violated the terms of every arms-control treaty it has signed, for obvious reasons: “These Russian actions demonstrate the importance the Kremlin attaches to its new nuclear-strike capabilities. They also show how little importance the Putin regime attaches to complying with agreements that interfere with those capabilities. Russia not only seems intent on creating new nuclear- and conventional-strike capabilities against U.S. allies and friends. It has made explicit threats against some of them in recent years.” Busy pushing the reset button, Obama has ignored all this cheating. Nor did Obama’s 2012 appeasing pledge to outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev–– that after the election he would “have more flexibility” about the proposed European-based anti-missile defense system angering Russia––could convince Vladimir Putin to play ball with the U.S. on Iran and Syria. Obama’s groveling “reset” outreach has merely emboldened Russia to expand its influence and that of its satellites like Iran and Syria, at the expense of the interests and security of America and its allies.

Syria

Syria is another American enemy Obama thought his charm offensive could win over. To do so he had to ignore Syria’s long history of supporting terrorists outfits like Hezbollah, murdering its sectarian and political rivals, assassinating Lebanon’s anti-Syrian Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, and facilitating the transit of jihadists–– during one period over 90% of foreign fighters–– into Iraq to kill Americans. Yet Obama sent diplomatic officials on 6 trips to Syria in an attempt to make strongman Bashar al Assad play nice. In return, in 2010 Assad hosted a cozy conference with Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and the genocidal Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where they discussed “a Middle East without Zionists and without colonialists.” Despite such rhetoric, even as the uprising against Assad was unfolding in March 2011, Secretary of State Clinton said, “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

In response to the growing resistance against the “reformer” Assad, Obama once again relied on blustering rhetoric rather than timely action to bring down an enemy of the U.S. Sanctions and Executive Orders flew thick and fast, but no military aid was provided to Assad’s opponents, the moderates soon to be marginalized by foreign terrorists armed by Iran. As time passed, more Syrians died and more terrorists filtered into Syria, while Obama responded with toothless tough rhetoric, proclaiming, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Equally ineffective was Obama’s talk in 2012 of a “red line” and “game-changer” if Assad used chemical weapons. Assad, obviously undeterred by threats from the world’s greatest military power, proceeded to use chemical weapons. Obama threatened military action, only to back down on the excuse that he needed the permission of Congress. Instead, partnering with the Russian wolf his own weakness had empowered, he brokered a deal that in effect gave Assad a free hand to bomb cities and kill civilians at the price of promising to surrender his chemical stockpiles. The butcher Assad magically changed from a pariah who had to go, into a legitimate partner of the United States, one whose cooperation we depend on for implementing the agreement. Given such cover, he has continued to slaughter his enemies and provide invaluable battlefield experience to tens of thousands of terrorist fighters.

Of course, without the threat of military punishment for violating the terms of the agreement­­––punishment vetoed by new regional player Russia––the treaty is worthless. Sure enough, this month we learned that Assad is dragging his feet, missing a deadline for turning over his weapons, while surrendering so far just 5% of his stockpiles. And those are just the weapons he has acknowledged possessing. In response, Secretary of State John Kerry has blustered, “Bashar al-Assad is not, in our judgment, fully in compliance because of the timing and the delays that have taken place contrary to the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]’s judgment that this could move faster. So the options are all the options that originally existed. No option has been taken off the table.” You can hear Assad, Rouhani, Nasrallah, and Putin rolling on the ground laughing their you-know-what’s off over that empty threat.

Iran

Now we come to the biggest piece of evidence for divining Obama’s motives, Iran. The Islamic Republic has been an inveterate enemy of this country since the revolution in 1979, with 35 years of American blood on its hands to prove it. Even today Iranian agents are facilitating with training and materiel the killing of Americans in Afghanistan. The regime is the biggest and most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, and proclaims proudly a genocidal, anti-Semitic ideology against Israel, our most loyal ally in the region. And it regularly reminds us that we are its enemy against whom it has repeatedly declared war, most recently in February when demonstrations celebrated the anniversary of the revolution with signs reading, “Hey, America!! Be angry with us and die due to your anger! Down with U.S.A.” At the same time, two Iranian warships crowded our maritime borders in the Atlantic, and state television broadcast a documentary simulating attacks on U.S. aircraft carriers.

Despite that long record of murder and hatred, when he first came into office, Obama made Iran a particular object of his diplomatic “outreach.” He “bent over backwards,” as he put it, “extending his hand” to the mullahs “without preconditions,” going so far as to keep silent in June 2009 as they brutally suppressed protests against the stolen presidential election. But the mullahs contemptuously dismissed all these overtures. In response, Obama issued a series of “deadlines” for Iran to come clean on its weapons programs, more bluster the regime ignored, while Obama assured them that “We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran.” Just as with Russia and Syria, still more big talk about “all options are on the table” for preventing the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons has been scorned by the regime.

Doubling down on this failed policy, Obama along with the Europeans gambled that sanctions would bring Iran to its knees before it reached breakout capability for producing a weapon. Odds of success were questionable, but just as the sanctions appeared to be pushing the Iranian economy, and perhaps the regime, to collapse, in November of last year Obama entered into negotiations that resulted in a disastrous agreement that trades sanction relief for empty promises. This deal ensures that Iran will become a nuclear power, since the agreement allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium in violation of numerous U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Finally, in an act of criminal incoherence, Obama threatened to veto any Congressional legislation imposing meaningful economic punishment for future Iranian cheating and intransigence.

Given this “abject surrender,” as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton called it, it’s no surprise that the Iranians are trumpeting the agreement as a victory: “In this agreement, the right of Iranian nation to enrich uranium was accepted by world powers,” the “moderate reformer” Iranian president Hassan Rouhani bragged. “With this agreement … the architecture of sanctions will begin to break down.” Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, agreed: “None of the enrichment centers will be closed and Fordow and Natanz will continue their work and the Arak heavy water program will continue in its present form and no material (enriched uranium stockpiles) will be taken out of the country and all the enriched materials will remain inside the country. The current sanctions will move towards decrease, no sanctions will be imposed and Iran’s financial resources will return.” Memo to Mr. Obama: when the adversary loudly brags that the agreement benefits him, you’d better reexamine the terms of the deal.

As it stands today, the sanction regime is unraveling even as we speak, while the Iranians are within months of nuclear breakout capacity. Meanwhile the economic pain that was starting to change Iranian behavior is receding. According to the International Monetary Fund, Iran’s economy is projected to grow 2% in fiscal year 2014-15, compared to a 2% contraction this year. Inflation has dropped over 10 points since last year. Global businesses are flocking to Tehran to cut deals, while Obama blusters that “we will come down on [sanctions violators] like a ton of bricks.” Add that dull cliché to “red line,” “game-changer,” and the other empty threats that comprise the whole of Obama’s foreign policy.

These foreign policy blunders and numerous others––especially the loss of critical ally Egypt–– reflect ideological delusions that go beyond Obama. The notion that aggressors can be tamed and managed with diplomatic engagement has long been a convenient cover for a political unwillingness to take military action with all its dangers and risks. Crypto-pacifist Democrats are particularly fond of the magical thinking that international organizations, summits, “shuttle diplomacy,” conferences, and other photogenic confabs can substitute for force.

But progressive talk of “multilateralism” and “diplomatic engagement” hides something else: the Oliver Stone/Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky/Richard Falk self-loathing narrative that the United States is a force of evil in the world, a neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist, predatory capitalist oppressor responsible for the misery and tyranny afflicting the globe. Given that America’s power is corrupt, we need a foreign policy of withdrawal, retreat, and apologetic humility, with our national sovereignty subjected to transnational institutions like the U.N., the International Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights ––exactly the program that Obama has been working on for the last 5 years. Given the damage such policies are serially inflicting on our security and interests, it starts to make sense that inexperience or stupidity is not as cogent an explanation as enemy action.

The Necessary War (Part II)

20140118_largemuslimislamprotestsLby JOHN GALT:

Unlike in the areas of economic and political restructuring of the old USA, where the president is so faithfully following the teachings of his ideological predecessors, in dealing with the issue of terrorism his policies are full of strategic blunders and tactical inconsistencies.

In Egypt, President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood and president Mohamed Morsi from the outset. Even after Morsi was ousted, Obama continued efforts to reinstate the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Why? As his argument goes, the Egyptians had an election and the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected. Therefore, it is a legitimate government and we must support a democracy. I hate to point out to the constitutional scholar that he is confusing elections with democracy. We should have learned by now that elections do not necessarily result in democratic institutions. Elections are only an instrument of democracy, no more, no less. This instrument of democracy in many instances has malfunctioned and provided legitimacy to oppressive and totalitarian regimes. There are number of examples of where democratic elections failed to produce a democracy: Hamas in the West Bank, Salvador Allende in Chili, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and Adolf Hitler in Germany, to name just a few. We see the almost identical development in Syria, where the United States finds itself on the side of terrorists.

To be fair, Obama is not the first president of the United States to actively support terrorists; it would seem that supporting terrorists has been a long-standing policy of the United States government and cuts across party lines.

President Carter supported Ayatollah Khomeini and called him a “peaceful and holy man.” In August 1982, Ronald Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon to save the Palestine Liberation Organization from complete annihilation when the Israelis cornered terrorists in Beirut. Just think about this utterly obscene picture-American Marines protecting PLO terrorists. America paid a heavy price for the involvement when 241 U.S. Marines died in a terrorist attack on their compound at Beirut International Airport in October 1983. President Clinton turned down at least three offers by foreign governments to help seize Osama bin Laden.

When Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Jr., Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” proclaimed in a sermon that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” although it was a reprehensible statement, he may have had a point. Decades of frolicking with terrorists bears a heavy price, and it’s an interesting mental exercise to play “if only.” If only President Carter had not betrayed the Shah of Iran, contemporary Iran would not be run by ayatollahs. If only President Reagan had not sent the Marines to Lebanon, the Israelis would have eliminated the PLO once and for all and thousands of Israelis and 241 brave Marines would still be alive. If only President Clinton had killed Osama bin Laden, 9/11 might never have happened. If only America was more prudent, our leaders more determined. If only…our presidents and the American people had learned from history.

The president, by practicing the politics of appeasement, has a difficult time coming to terms with the teachings of his ideological mentor and the father of modern terrorism, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, who both perpetrated terrorism and was on the receiving end, taught that “Terror can be conquered only with greater terror.”  

Read more: Family Security Matters

Also see:

 

The Geneva Agreement with Iran: A Foreign Policy Disaster

West must stop appeasing efforts to ban criticism of Islam

Istanbul. Great city. But no "process" please...

Istanbul. Great city. But no “process” please…

By Michael Curtis:

It is no accident that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It is also no accident that there is no such absolute provision in the Arab and Islamic world.

On the contrary, for at least fifteen years a concerted effort has been made by Islamic organizations, particularly the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.

This effort of the OIC has led to calls for controls of free speech in democratic countries as well as implementation of repression in its own member states. Although this OIC objective and its consequences have become familiar, it is puzzling that the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, did not resist it but rather seemed to compromise with it.

It should have been obvious that major international organs have been manipulated by the OIC to suppress speech. Each year from 1999 until 2010, one of the countries of the 57 member-state OIC, often Pakistan, has proposed resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) outlawing “defamation of religions.”

Rather than protection of religions in general, the intent of all the resolutions that have been passed is to declare criticism of Islam illegal and therefore punishable. More recently, OIC-inspired resolutions have condemned and called for penalization of what they term “Islamophobia.”

However, the number of states approving such resolutions has been declining. The OIC is aware of the fact that democratic countries have become alert to the fact that infringements of free speech result from any implementation of supposed “defamation” resolutions.

In 2011 the OIC, attempting to overcome criticism of its tactics, no longer used the concept of “defamation of religions.” It modified its extremist rhetoric, but not its objective.

On March 24, 2011 at the UNHRC, the OIC introduced Resolution 16/18. The Resolution was worded and then revised to make it more acceptable to the U.S. It avoided “defamation” and instead called for “fighting against intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against individuals because of their religion or belief.” It seemingly appeared to be concerned with individuals, rather than a religion. The OIC tactic was successful. The Resolution, which is nonbinding, was adopted by consensus.

What is important was the next step, the creation of “The Istanbul Process” at a meeting in Istanbul in July 2011 initiated by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, with the assistance of Hillary Clinton and Catherine Ashton, European Union (EU) Foreign Representative.

Read more at The Commentator

Video: Steve Emerson reports Saudi national ‘person of interest’ is being deported on Tuesday

 

 Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi

Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi

Shoebat Foundation:

Tonight on Hannity, Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, reported that his sources are telling him that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi national who was a person of interest for less than 24 hours, is being deported to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

Why? According to Emerson, based on National Security grounds.

Reuters is reporting that Obama met today with the Saudi Foreign Minister in an unscheduled meeting:

U.S. President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House on Wednesday and discussed the conflict in Syria, a spokeswoman said.

The meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule.

So, if Alharbi is not a person of interest, why is he being deported?

Via GWP:

 

See also:

#StandDown: Obama Let Benghazi 4 Die, Rather than Defy Libyan Authorities

By Daniel Greenfield

FOX News continues to do invaluable work by investigating Benghazigate and Jennifer Griffin and Adam Housley have a new article which raises serious questions about the so-called “Timeline” as well as continuing to pursue the question of why the Benghazi were allowed to die by the Obama Administration.

Now Obama had no problem bombing and invading Libya to prevent a fake massacre in Benghazi whose existence he lied about in a speech to the American people. But he did have a problem sending troops into Libya to prevent an actual massacre of Americans against the wishes of the Al-Qaeda linked Libyan authorities.

The closing paragraph says it all,

According to a source who debriefed those who were at the CIA annex that night, “When they asked for air support, they were told they could have an unarmed drone.”

Any show of air power was clearly off the table. The CIA rescue team chartered a plane too small to use. US rescue teams coming from outside the country were only allowed to enter by the Libyans after all the fighting was done.

That unarmed drone was sent over by General Ham. Meanwhile the rescue op moves as slowly as possible. “It isn’t until 2:53 a.m. (about five hours after the incident began) that those orders are formalized by Panetta and the teams are told they can leave.”

The Pentagon says that the European-based team of rescuers landed at Sigonella air base at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12, more than 20 hours after the attack began and 40 minutes after the last survivor was flown out of Tripoli on a U.S. C-17 transport plane.

What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.

Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.

And so the rescue was effectively delayed, by both the Libyans and Obama’s cronies, until there was no chance that they would be drawn into a firefight at the CIA annex.

The team was most likely flying on a modified MC-130 P Talon 2. A modified C-130 flying from Croatia about 900 miles from the Libyan coast could have been there under three hours from take-off. Croatia to Libya is the same distance approximately as Washington, D.C., to Miami.

The CIF, which included dozens of Special Operators, was never utilized to help rescue 30 Americans who had fought off attackers on the ground in Benghazi until 5:26 a.m. on Sept. 12. Pentagon officials say it did not arrive in time to help.

Of course not. Helping was not a priority. Collaborating with the Libyan Islamists running things and their precious sensibilities was.

Or this is how it would have been put in Diplospeak. “Armed intervention in Libya will shape a perception on the Arab Street of the new government as American puppets. During this crisis we must rely on indigenous support from Libyan police and military authorities while keeping our intervention as low key as possible. While the deaths of American personnel are regrettable, armed intervention would lead to further attacks and far more bloodshed. The cycle of violence must end with us.”

And so Obama watched while four Americans died.

Treating Islam with Special Reverence is Cultural Suicide and Just Plain Wrong

by JAMES  DELIN

My brilliant niece Freya was talking to my brother the other day about the  religious education curriculum at her predominately white, middle-class state  school in a pretty English cathedral city. She happened to mention ‘Mohammed,  Peace Be Upon Him.’ ‘Eh?’ said my brother. ‘It’s what we’re taught at school.  After we mention “Mohammed” we have to say “Peace be upon him”.’

Now I know what you’re thinking: that Freya must surely have got the wrong  end of the stick. ‘If this were a madrassa in Bradford, well maybe,’ you’ll be  thinking. ‘But at a white, middle-class state school in a pretty English  cathedral city? No way. Things aren’t that bad. At least not yet, anyway…’

But Freya is not stupid. That’s why, at the beginning, I referred to her as  my ‘brilliant’ niece as opposed to my ‘incredibly thick’ one. Apparently, she  assures me, they’ve been taught to use the ‘peace be upon him’ formula since  Year 7 and though they’re allowed to shorten it to PBUH, they’re definitely not  supposed to call him just Mohammed. ‘There’s sometimes the odd snigger when the  phrase comes up but we’ve been conditioned pretty much to accept it as normal,’  says Freya. ‘It’s a bit weird, given that there’s only two Muslim kids in my  year of 100.’

I find this scary for at least two reasons. The first is what it says about  the death of our national identity. When Freya’s father and I were at school, we  had to go to ‘chapel’ once a day, and twice on Sundays. In our scripture classes  we were taught all the key bible stories, even to the point of having to learn  the names of all the apostles. It didn’t turn us into religious freaks – anything but. What it did instil in us, however, was a sense of history and  tradition. Like generations before us we were members of the Anglican Church,  familiar with the same tales, the same liturgy, the same hymns and psalms, the  same rituals, the same boredom.

Before the 1980s, I suspect, this was the experience of most British  children, regardless of their race or religious background. It wasn’t a question  of forcing Christianity down anyone’s throat – merely an accepted part of the  fabric of British life. You went to church (at least occasionally – Christmas at  any rate) in the same way you watched Top of the Pops and Morecambe  and Wise, or you had roast beef and Yorkshire pud for Sunday lunch. It just  was what you did.

Not any more. Sure, the old religion is still covered in RE classes, but at  state schools like Freya’s only as an equally valid and certainly by no means  preferable alternative to Judaism, Sikhism, Islam and the rest. ‘Jesus was the  son of God! Do you agree?’ asks a sample Key Stage 3 question from Freya’s  school website. Well, what a bloody stupid question to ask an 11-year-old. How  are they possibly going to be intellectually equipped to produce any kind of  meaningful answer?

A teacher at my old school, Malvern, told me that when new kids arrive he can  no longer rely on their being familiar with even the most basic prayers and  bible stories. No doubt the progressives who devised the new God-free curriculum  will congratulate themselves on having finally freed young minds from the  shackles of organised religion. (Probably they read somewhere that religion has  caused more wars than, like, anything, man). But what they’ve really done is  impoverished and deracinated and dumbed down a generation. They’ve denied Freya  and her contemporaries the key that might one day have helped them unlock  everything from ‘The Dream of the Rood’ to ‘The Whitsun Weddings’. They’ve  vandalised 1,400 years of the history, literature and traditions which bound us  as a nation.

But our failure to defend our culture is only the second scariest part of the  PBUH story. The scariest, of course, is what it tells us not just about the  growing dominance of Islamism but about our cowardice, fear and ignorance in so  easily surrendering to it.

Read more: Family Security Matters

James Delingpole is a British writer,  journalist and broadcaster who is  (he says) right about everything. He is the  author of numerous fantastically  entertaining books including Welcome  to Obamaland: I’ve Seen Your Future and it Doesn’t  Work. His  website is http://www.jamesdelingpole.com/ and  he also  has a blog at the Daily  Telegraph.

 

Looking the other way: President Obama’s dangerous foreign policy

By: Rep. Allen West:

President Barack Obama has built a foreign policy on trying to appease and make friends with America’s enemies, rather than facing them head on with strength and clear consequences for their actions.  The president’s approach, marked by his belief that he could transition from a community organizer to a global organizer, has been an utter failure.  The president has diminished our nation’s international influence and stature, and most egregiously, has put the lives of all Americans in peril.

In the days since the attacks on our embassies and consulates on the 11th of September, we have seen a president and his administration demur, deflect, and mislead the American people.  Vice President Joe Biden says on the campaign trail that “GM is alive, and Osama is dead.” Tragically, so is our Ambassador to Libya.

President Obama’s community organizer roots have given him a naïve assumption.  He believes he can get everyone in one room and with time, they will all eventually get along. Anyone who studies history and understands the global threat America faces today, understands that in order for “peace, love and happiness,” not only do all parties involved need to be willing to try, but they actually have to have the same goal.

America’s enemies are emboldened

This president’s foreign policy failure has made America’s enemies ever more emboldened and our allies feeling even more abandoned.  In his recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama repeated six times that the recent attacks on Sovereign United States territories across the Islamic world were caused by a Youtube movie. He refused to use the words “terrorist attack” in referring to the events in Benghazi. He also warned to the assembled nations “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  He is either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge a radical fundamental Islamist enemy that will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life

These statements, and others like them, play right into the hands of our enemies. When President Obama infers America deserves blame for unprovoked attacks, our enemies see their horrendous actions justified, making them ever move brazen.

The fact that a U.S. Ambassador was in such a thinly guarded, unsecure facility on Sept. 11demonstrates an administration completely disengaged from the reality of the world and his own foreign policy.   Several attacks leading up to this incident should have provided a last minute warning. Documented reports show Egypt knew an attack was being planned and alerted the Obama Administration days before, yet this President ignored it and looked the other way.

“Looking the other way” seems to be the cornerstone of President Obama’s approach to foreign policy. Russia continues to grow its nuclear arsenal as the president gives in to Moscow on missile defense and the Strategic Arms Treaty.  The president has offered a “reset” with Russia at a time when a Russian attack submarine was stationed in the Gulf of Mexico, undetected for two months. President Obama’s response is to whisper to Russian President Medvedev that after his reelection he would have more “flexibility.”

Iran, a sworn enemy to the United States and Israel, is on a path to developing a nuclear weapon. When the pro-democracy movement in Iran began to stir, the Obama Administration could have taken steps to help ignite that spark. Instead, President Obama looked the other way. Now as a consequence, we see Iran funding the bloodshed in Syria and continuing to support the growing radical terrorist organizations in Iraq and around the Middle East, including Hamas, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, some of the very organizations that have been responsible for killing Americans over and over again in terrorist attacks in America and around the globe.

Both Russia and Iran have made it no secret they see America and Western democracy as their enemy, while President Obama has yet to outline any strategy to address this obvious danger to the American way of life.

Read more at Human Events

Allen West represents Florida’s 22nd district, serving Broward and Palm Beach Counties. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

The Obama Doctrine Exposed

The Obama Doctrine has been implemented and its net result has been to accelerate an inevitable war by a generation, and as the two-thousandth soldier killed in Afghanistan returns home in a flag-draped coffin, that victim of Obama’s cynical politics of appeasement is one of a number that may one day fall into the millions.

By :

On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took President Obama to task for his administration’s disastrous handling of American foreign policy, which has had catastrophic consequences — most recently in the form of the heinous attacks against our embassies in Libya and Egypt. To understand what happened in Benghazi or in Cairo requires more than poking around the rubble, wiping off some of the ashes and pronouncing the whole thing a tragedy. The German invasion of Poland wasn’t the tragedy; the Munich Agreement was. Similarly the tragedy wasn’t the consulate and embassy attacks, but the foreign policy that caused them to happen.

The underlying philosophy Romney pointed to, the Obama Doctrine, has often been described as appeasement, but that’s a vague and general criticism. The Munich Agreement was appeasement, but the Obama Doctrine goes beyond anything as simple as appeasing as a single nation’s territorial ambitions.

The Obama Doctrine sought to resolve the War on Terror by dividing Islamists into two camps: the moderate political Islamists and the extremist violent Islamists. These categorizations were wholly artificial and everyone from Obama on down knew how artificial the differences between the so-called extremists and moderates were.

In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood had transitioned the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from the status of violent extremists allied with Al Qaeda to political Islamists committed to political reforms. That did not actually make the LIFG, which exploited its newfound moderate status and the freedom that came with it to go on fighting Gaddafi as part of the civil war, non-violent. The difference between the Al Qaeda-affiliated LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated LIFG was a few pieces of paper.

But the gruesome absurdity of the whole thing was laid out plainly for all to see in Afghanistan. The plan for Afghanistan was not to defeat the Taliban, though that was how it was sold to the American people, it was to divide the Taliban into moderates willing to engage in a democratic political process and extremists who would be defeated and isolated.

The Afghanistan surge, which cost nearly 1,500 American lives, was a brute force mechanism for engineering a divide that was supposed to result in the military defeat of the Taliban and their transformation into a political party. The Taliban would be free to lock up Afghan girls again, so long as they did it after winning a democratic election.

The Muslim Brotherhood was called in to oversee negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, as it had between Gaddafi and the LIFG, but unlike the LIFG, the Taliban showed no interest in following the Muslim Brotherhood’s devious route to political power.

The difference between Afghanistan and the Arab Spring countries is that those countries had strong governments capable of suppressing Islamist groups and forcing them to resort to the political process to accomplish what they could not manage through violence. However Obama’s withdrawal timetable made it clear to the Taliban that all they had to do to win in Afghanistan was wait him out.

“Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich,” Hitler told his generals. The Taliban commanders have likely shared a similar opinion of Obama’s coterie of amateur peacemakers and of the great man himself.

1,500 American soldiers died in Afghanistan to improve Obama’s leverage in his failed bid to transform the Taliban into a political party. It is hard to think of any aspect of his foreign policy more hideously repulsive than this simple fact.

Read it all at Front Page

Muslim Riots Reach Europe: Part II

by Soeren Kern:

Abu Assad al-Almani asks Muslims in Germany to attack any German citizen who supports the film by “cutting their heads from their bodies and capturing it on film so that it is accessible to the public, so that the whole of Germany, and even the whole of Europe, knows that their criminal games will be thwarted by the sword of Islam.”

 

Muslim protests over an American-made anti-Islamic YouTube film, Innocence of Muslims, have spread to more European cities. Muslim rioters had initially clashed with police in Belgium, Britain and France, but since then, protests have spread to Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Norway, Serbia and Switzerland.

 

In Germany, while thousands of Muslims took to the streets in various cities, the biggest demonstration took place in the Dortmund, where 1,500 Muslims holding Turkish flags marched through the city center on September 22. In Hanover, protests involved about 1,000 Muslims on September 23. In Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony police reported protests involving 1,600 people. Protests were also reported in Bergisch Gladbach, Cuxhaven, Münster, Freiburg and Karlsruhe.

 

A radical Islamist, Abu Assad al-Almani, has called for bombings and assassinations in Germany after it emerged that the actor who plays Mohammed in the anti-Islam movie was allegedly German. In an 8-page document, entitled “Settling Scores with Germany,” and posted on the Internet on September 25, Abu Assad states: “In addition to the ugly cartoons, now the Americans have produced a film in which those pigs poke fun at our dear prophet and insult him.”

 

Abu Assad continues: “The one who played our noble Messenger was a German;” he then calls for revenge attacks. He asks Muslims in Germany to attack any German citizen who supports the film by “cutting their heads from their bodies and capturing it on film so that it is accessible to the public, so that the whole of Germany, and even the whole of Europe, knows that their criminal games will be thwarted by the sword of Islam.”

 

The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) says the document has been produced by a group called the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF), the European propaganda arm which supports Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. The BKA says it is taking the threat “very seriously.”

 

In Berlin, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has postponed at the last minute a poster campaign aimed at countering radical Islam for fear it might have incited violence by extremists. The posters had been due to go up as of September 21in German cities with large immigrant populations. The posters were aimed at those who suspected that a friend or family member might be drifting towards radical Islam.

 

In another sign that German officialdom is coming unhinged by political correctness, the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) lashed out at Baden-Württemberg’s Integration Minister, Bilkay Öney, for stating what many Germans believe is obvious, namely that “Islam tolerates no criticism.” She also said it was easier to dialogue with Muslims in Germany because they are relatively well educated. “In other parts of the world,” she said, “some take to the streets and set fire to embassies.”

 

CDU regional director Thomas Strobl rebuked Öney, a Turkish-born German politician, saying: “What Mrs. Öney says is surprising and shocking. Such remarks are unacceptable, as they emphasize what divides us, instead of linking and integrating.” Strobl wondered how Öney, who is a Muslim, could hold such politically incorrect views about Islam.

 

Elsewhere in Germany, more signs emerged that the threat of Muslim violence is endangering free speech in Germany. Development Minister Dirk Niebel (FDP) called for a ban on broadcasting the anti-Islam video in Germany. “Such a film should not be shown. We should not be adding fuel to the fire,” he told the newspaper, Bild. “The person who demands limitless freedom of expression has no idea what conflicts can be provoked by it,” Niebel said. His comments follow similar statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich.

 

In Greece, the center of Athens (recently dubbed the “New Kabul”) turned into a war zone (videos here) on September 23, when more than 1,000 Muslims — mostly immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh — hurled bottles and other objects at police, who were trying to prevent the rioters from descending on the American Embassy.

 

Protesting Muslims, chanting “All we have is Mohammed,” gathered in Omonia Square holding banners reading, “We demand an immediate punishment for those who tried to mock our Prophet Mohammad.” Shouting “Allah is Greater,” they then assaulted police with stones, bottles and slabs of marble they broke from the sidewalks.

 

When Greek riot police used tear gas to control the protesters and protect the security zone they had established around the embassy, infuriated Muslims responded by vandalizing streets and buildings in downtown Athens, as well as by setting fires to trash bins, smashing shops and display windows and vandalizing automobiles. Around 30 Muslims were arrested.

 

Also in Athens, Muslim inmates at the Korydallos prison (Greece’s main prison, in which an estimated 70% of the inmates are Muslim) went on a rampage and protested the anti-Islam video by burning mattresses, sheets and clothing. Security officials at the prison brought the situation under control after using teargas to force the rioting inmates to return to their cells.

 

In Austria, some 700 Muslims descended on the American Embassy in the Alsergrund district in downtown Vienna on September 22. They carried banners and shouted slogans of protest against the film, and called for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. The protests were well organized: some Muslims wearing orange vests were waiting at the nearby metro station to guide protestors toward the embassy. According to the Austrian newspaper Tageszeitung Österreich, one young woman wearing a headscarf said, “The film has triggered such a rage in me, I had tears in my eyes.” Other protesters wondered how it was possible that the film portrayed “our beloved prophet as a child molester and misogynist.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

What Orwell Can Tell Us About the Liberal Appeasement of Islam

Posted by Daniel Greenfield:

Suppose there were a worldwide movement which openly proclaimed its goal of taking over in your country and every country with the purpose of imposing its system on every human beings on earth. Also suppose that this movement had carried out murders and terrorist attacks in your own country, that members of this group promoted violence while gaining political influence. Suppose also that is was highly unfashionable and politically incorrect to speak out against them.

I am not speaking of Islam here, but of Communism. The current wave of censorship and denial toward Islam is not a new development. It is rather a very old one. Islamophobia, like Red-Baiting, is a political term that serves the function of cutting off any discussion of the subject. It precludes any listing of the facts or debates on the issue, by declaring it to be off-limits. To raise the issue is to expose yourself as a bad person whose ideas are unacceptable for public distribution.

When George Orwell was struggling to find a publisher for Animal Farm, he was repeatedly turned down on the grounds that the book would offend the Soviet Union. One publisher wrote to Orwell that he had been dissuaded from publishing the book by an important official in the Ministry of Information (an agency that would become the Ministry of Truth in his novel, 1984) who had told him that publishing such a book would be ill-advised at this time. That official was, incidentally, a Soviet spy.
The publisher went on to say that the book might be acceptable if it applied generally to dictators, but not specifically to the USSR. Finally the publisher added, “It would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.”
Change around a few names and this is exactly the rejection letters that courageous books critical of Islam have received. It’s fine to make general criticisms of religious fanaticism, so long as those criticisms are universally applied, and do not offend those touchy people who religious fanaticism occasionally expresses itself in dangerous ways.
In a generally deleted preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote, “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact.”
There are quite a few sensational facts and news items that are kept out or minimized in our own media because it would not do to mention them. There are rarely any government officials dictating this censorship, certainly in the United States there are no legal codes that make it mandatory, but this censorship is voluntary. It consists of people censoring themselves, of publications censoring people out of fear of violence, of publishers who feel that this is an ill-advised time to stir up tensions and of a larger body of liberal thinkers who feel that we should sympathize with Islam and ignore any of its violent and supremacist activities.
Read more at Sultan Knish

PJMedia: The End of America As We Know It: Why Barack Obama Should Resign

The filmmaker behind “Innocence of Muslims,” a film that some blame for the Middle East riots, was taken into custody. Is this the end of the First Amendment as we know it? Find out on this Trifecta.

“They’re Killing Us Because We’re Infidels”

AP Photo: Lance Cpl. Greg Buckley Jr.’s father Greg, foreground, and mother
Marina are escorted from St. Agnes Cathedral after his funeral Mass, Saturday,
Aug. 18, 2012, in Rockville Center, N.Y.. Buckley Jr. was
barely 21 years old when he was killed in an attack by a policeman in
Afghanistan.

by: Diana West

Paul Sperry rakes the Pentagon response to jihad inside the wire — more “sensitivity” training — in the New York Post this week (must have been Prince Talal’s day off).

Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.

“Top officials” should be relieved of duty, ASAP. They have lost their minds if they ever had any. Or, to be more accurate, they have adopted, internalized the Islamic mindset to a point beyond apology and beyond reason. Reality check: Normal, mainstream Afghan culture includes child rape, pederasty, “seven-day shit suits,” cruelty to animals, enslavement of women, and death to apostates, just to hit some highlights. Such institutional  depravity, however, is the New Normal to the ideological zealots in charge. They don’t see it, and can’t imagine the effect of it on Western troops, even when their own internal reports flag such native practices as dog torture as “stressors” that lead to “serious social altercations” between US and Afghan soldiers. These and other resounding features of culture clash are officially hushed up lest the irreconcilable differences between Islam and the West become openly acknowledged, and the bankruptcy of the past decade of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes the open national scandal that it should and must become.

Thus, our generals burble on about nose-blowing and shoe bottoms, announcing that deviations from the Islamic way of nose-blowing and handling shoe bottoms (“cultural affronts”) are motivations for murder. (This is the same Islamic mind-set that informs the White House and media position that the Mohammed video is “causing” the Islamic attacks on US embassies.)

Sperry’s op-ed continues:

If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview.

“Cultural affronts,” general? Read about the hostility Marine LCPL Greg Buckley Jr. encountered in an Afghan trainee before Buckley’s murder by an Afghan policeman last month. Greg told his father he didn’t think he would make it home alive — from the war zone of his own base. He told his superior officers that “one day they are going turn around and turn those weapons on us.” His superiors forced him to apologize. Two other Marines were killed in the same attack that took Buckley’s life.

Dempsey has no answer to this jihad because he has been trained, meticulously conditioned, not to see a jihad. As a result, he presses more “Islamic traditions and values” (child rape? pederasty? baksheesh?) on our troops. More Islam, more deference to Islam, becomes the only “solution” he and his brother brass and civilian leaders  can think of. They are all hostages to jihad and prisoners of Islam.

Dempsey echoes the concerns of Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, who earlier this month argued both sides need to do more to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values to reduce the chance of violent reactions to cultural slights.

“It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident,” he said.

How about just converting Western forces to Islam and be done with it? Then, Gens. Dempsey and Allen could lead a Muslim US-ISAF and serve the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as modern-day “janissaries.” (Janissaries were elite troops of the Ottoman Turkish empire comprised of Christian boys cruelly seized as “tribute” from their Christian parents and forcibly converted to Islam and Ottoman allegiance.) “Insider” attacks would cease because an Islamic US military would be “insiders,” too.

It’s happening:

To avoid offending them, US commanders are putting troops through intense Muslim sensitivity training. Among other things, they’ve been ordered to:

* Wear surgical gloves whenever handling a copy of the Koran.

* Never walk in front of a praying Muslim.

* Never show the bottom of boots while sitting or lying across from a Muslim, which in Islam is considered an insult.

* Never share photos of wives or daughters.

* Never smoke or eat in front of Muslims during the monthlong Ramadan fasting.

* Avoid winking, cursing or nose-blowing in the presence of Muslims — all viewed as insults in Islam.

* Avoid exiting the shower without a towel.

* Avoid offering and accepting things with the left hand, which in Islam is reserved for bodily hygiene and considered unclean.

Troops who violate the sensitivity rules face severe punishment.

Sperry does find a couple of sane military sources. Would that “President Romney” puts them in charge.

Military officials who have done tours in Afghanistan are outraged that brass would even suggest US troops are partly to blame for their own murders.

“I would like to see a public affairs officer explain to the press where showing the bottom of your shoe to a Muslim or shaking with your left hand was legitimate grounds for murder,” growled one US Army official.

They say their Muslim partners would still resent them even if they followed their Islamic protocols to the letter.

“The cultural affronts excuse is a bunch of garbage,” a senior US Army intelligence official told me. “The Afghans that know we’re doing all this PC cultural sensitivity crap are laughing their asses off at our stupidity.”

Explained the intelligence official: “They’re killing us because we’re ‘infidels’ occupying Islamic lands. It’s what the Koran and every imam over there is telling them, and no amount of cultural sensitivity is going to stop that or change the fact that we’re ‘infidels.’ ”

They’re killing us because we’re “infidels.” Period. The only solution is immediate separation and withdrawal to a new line of battle: the West.