The Fight Against Islamism Is The New Cold War

Photo Orlok /

Photo Orlok /

The Federalist, by James Poulos, May 31, 2016:

Even today, with the West and Russia edging closer to outright conflict, there’s a simple nostalgia for the Cold War era, when conflict was easier to visualize and manage than it is now. Instead of today’s hellbroth of terror groups, failed states, and warring militias, we faced a single, unified foe, an iron curtain drawn across the middle of the world to cleanly demarcate where we ended and they began.

2016 is the year—as the truth comes out about how last year’s Paris attacks could have happened—that this strangely comforting Cold War myth should die. As the latest revelations about those attacks confirm, today’s world bears much more of a resemblance to the world of the Cold War than we might wish to think—and, somehow, the West must respond accordingly.

History confirms the comparison. Think back. The geopolitically bipolar structure of the Cold War world was just one feature of the threat matrix the West faced. As conventional armies and nuclear arsenals squared off against one another, seeds of the unconventional warfare that bedevils us today had already begun to sprout. Beyond the third-world proxy conflicts and arms shipments that defined the age, the Cold War saw the beginnings of state-sponsored terrorism and infiltration as we know them today.

This Time, It’s Not Different

Many may want to cling to the “clean” Cold War myth for its own sake. But the myth also shores up the entrancing idea that the matrix of conflict jihadist Islam and its allies pose today does not rise to threat level when militant communism straddled the globe.

Circumstantial evidence has suggested to our impressionable minds that it’s different this time. After all, “nobody” really thinks absolutist Islam is a genuine intellectual and emotional competitor to Western life. To be sure, some of the West’s losers and rejects have found themselves in the arms of the Islamic State, or loosely associated with foes who appreciate, if not aid and abet, jihadist gains against the United States and Europe.

But at the height of the Cold War, a host of respectable Westerners believed communism might actually be right and capitalism wrong—whether at the level of ideology or sheer practicality. Because absolutist Islam is so alien and particular, relative to the grand yet familiar abstractions Marx ushered in, we’re apt to think the jihadists and their allies may be able to attack our people and our systems, but they cannot really defeat our civilization.

It’s easy to think this way because we’re so resistant to the prospect of another existential threat to our civilization. It doesn’t just strike people as reasonable that terror attacks won’t rise to the level of catastrophe promised by a strategic nuclear exchange. It strikes them as emotionally correct or necessary—not just because it’s easier to live in a world where a few major cities might be destroyed and not all human life on earth, but because so few people really believe we could actually win a world war against the jihadists and their allies.

If the Soviet Union seemed prohibitively difficult to defeat, at least there was a plan and enough willingness in the West to execute it. Today, it’s psychologically unacceptable for many people to imagine that we’re at acute risk of civilizational defeat yet lack a viable, acceptable blueprint to avoid that fate.

Subterfuge May Be More Effective Than Instant Destruction

Well, it’s time for a wake-up call—even though the head check we need raises the risk that fear and recklessness will increase as a result. As the emerging truth about the Paris attacks shows, the parallels are clear between the “dirty” truth about the Cold War and the dark reality of the state of play in our conflict with international jihadists and their allies. The nexus of state-sponsored terror, subversion, and infiltration established during the Cold War has been reactivated, threatening not just Western people or Western systems but Western civilization itself. We can argue over whether this threat is “existential” or not. Most significant is that it really is a civilization being targeted, on top of people and systems.

Let’s be clear about what this means. In theory, terror, subversion, and infiltration could destroy Western civilization by carrying off a kind of coup on the communist model: you wake up one day and a revolutionary vanguard has seized state power and the means of production. However nightmarish, that’s not the kind of attack on Western civilization we should focus on.

More plausible, more efficient, and more effective is an attack with more limited and devious aims. Much as a Russian spy might opt against killing a victim outright, choosing instead to administer a debilitating but nonlethal dose of poison, jihadists and their allies are now well-positioned to cripple Western civilization, inflicting harm without provoking a true world war the West would eventually win.

This is the lesson we are only now able to learn from Paris. France, in a jihadist proof of concept, is now on the verge of becoming a garrison state. Officials have been reduced to monitoring airport and public transit workers for signs of jihadist activity—or mere sympathy. The French head of intelligence, Patrick Calvar, admitted to Parliament that he expected “a new form of attack” from the Islamic State, “characterized by placing explosive devices in places where there are large crowds and repeating this type of action to create a climate of maximum panic.”

What is new here is not terrorism’s fear factor. Rather, it is the active and passive paralysis that comes from a judgment that one’s society is so badly compromised from the inside that one’s civilization—one’s rights, freedoms, pleasures, celebrations, and moral values—is now inoperable.

Read more

Video: The Legacy of FDR’s Normalization of Relations with the USSR

nov16 (1)

With (left to right) Stanton Evans, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Chris Farrell and (not pitcured) Stephen Coughlin

Eightieth Anniversary of Deal That Facilitated Penetration of U.S. Government, Society

Washington, DC — Eighty years ago this Saturday, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed for the first time to recognize the Communist regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did so on the basis of formal undertakings by then-Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the Kremlin would not engage in subversive actions in America.
The rest, as they say, is history. And a sordid and still unfolding history it is.

“The 16th of November 1933 is a day that truly should live in infamy. This symposium will explore its significance both in terms of much of the most sordid history of the 20th Century — and as the predicate for similar forces at work in the 21st.”

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to convene a symposium to review that history — both that of the immediate post-normalization period, of World War II, of the Cold War and of today — from noon-2:00 p.m. at the headquarters of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

  • Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character;
  • M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government Relations;
  • Christopher Farrell, Chief Investigator, Judicial Watch; and
  • Stephen Coughlin, author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy, moderator.

Diana West at 7:09, Stanton Evans at 24:15, Chris Farrell at 47:09, Stephen Coughlin at 57:57 followed by Q&A (which you do not want to miss)

Video: Walid Phares on jihadi propaganda war against the West

In an interview with Fox News, Dr Walid Phares author of ‘The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East,’ and of the newly released French book ‘Du Printemps Arabe a l’Automne Islamiste,’ said “Saudi Arabia, but also Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE and other Gulf, as well as Egypt, are frustrated with the Obama Administration on the issues of Syria, Iran and declining partnership with the US.”

Phares said “the Arab moderates were mobilized by Washington to pressure Syria’s, before the Administration suddenly pull out from the confrontation with the help of a Russian diplomatic maneuver. Also Washington engaged in a unilateral rapprochement with Iran’s regime without a consultation with its Arab and Middle East allies.”

Phares said “it would be as if the US, in the middle of the Cold War, would run to Moscow for dialogue, before it positions itself in between the USSR and Great Britain. Would that make sense? If you have allies in the region, you consult them and as one bloc you deal with Syria and Iran.

The Arab frustration is not about security matters, it is about the ailing partnership between the Obama Administration and America’s allies in the region.”


Winning the War of Ideas for Islamic Hearts and Minds

2012-09-11T191657Z_01_GHA03_RTRIDSP_3_EGYPT-USA-PROTESTBy Andrew E. Harrod:

The “war of ideas is the primary arena of conflict,” stated Jamestown Foundation Senior Fellow Stephen Ulph at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on September 6, 2013.  Ulph spoke as part of an all-star expert lineup discussing the international struggle against militant Islam during a daylong briefing by the Westminster Institute (WI) entitled “al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood:  A New American Strategy.”  Presenting many insightful panels with experts such as Ulph already featured in WI’s 2012 book Fighting the Ideological War:  Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism, copies of which were freely available at the briefing, the event was mandatory for anyone who wishes to engage effectively in this conflict.

Fellow event participant and book contributor Patrick Sookhdeo opened the proceedings with an address in which he argued that “in no way” are the United States and her allies “involved in any way in a war against Islam” as a faith per se.  Yet within this faith “we must address ideas” of aggressive and authoritarian agendas; otherwise, a “serious handicap” will result.  “The strength of al-Qaeda is not in its leaders, but in its ideology,” Sookhdeo observed.   WI Executive Director and Fighting the Ideological War editor Katharine Gorka concurred that al-Qaeda’s Islamic beliefs, not any given location with a street address, were the terrorists’ “center of gravity.”  This is the “one thing that the enemy must have to continue operations.”

One-time Egyptian Muslim extremist and Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Senior Fellow Tawfik Hamid accordingly criticized what he perceived as a “military confrontation with an ideology” in the years since September 11, 2001.  Hamid argued in “Brainistan” that the confrontation with militant Islam must take place at the “mental level.”  Political warfare scholar J. Michael Waller, meanwhile, found it curious that American policymakers had failed to understand the “mobilization power of ideology,” even though this was necessary for winning American elections.

Katharine’s husband and fellow book contributor Sebastian Gorka agreed, quoting current al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri that over half of his group’s struggle is in the “battlefield of the media.”  For the self-described “baby of the Cold War” Sebastian, whose parents fled Communist Hungary, the past struggle against Communism informed his current strategy against Islamism.  A “fundamentally ideological victory” marked the end of a “fundamentally ideological war” without one shot fired during the Berlin Wall’s fall on November 9, 1989, despite preceding years of arms races.

Yet Sebastian elaborated that Islamism’s ideological threat came not so much from highly visible terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, but rather from broad social movements like the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood (MB).  All Islamists, though, had the “same strategic goal,” Sebastian observed, with arguments between them being merely “about timing and tactics.”  Thus, Sebastian rejected the view of some that the MB’s “political” Islamists could somehow counter “violent” Islamists like al-Qaeda.

Sebastian analogized al-Qaeda and MB to the isolated Focoist attacks of Communist revolutionary Che Guevara and Mao Zedong‘s “people’s war” in China, respectively.  Despite Che’s radical chic youth hero popularity today on t-shirts, his guerilla war theories were “rubbish,” and Bolivian security forces killed this “loser” at the age of 39 in 1967.  Mao, by contrast, died as China’s ruler in bed at age 79 after his societally comprehensive “counterstate” took power.  MB groups around the world had an “indirect … soft approach” reflecting Mao’s vision of long-term infiltration of society as a whole, something al-Qaeda and similar groups “are starting to understand.”

Cold War public diplomacy veteran Robert Reilly, another Fighting the Ideological War contributor, drew as well from the past in order to confront Islamism.  Reilly advised, “Don’t get into a war of ideas unless you understand those ideas” and “unless you have an idea.”  Echoing Katharine’s “center of gravity” comments, Reilly in particular noted that a failure to debate Islamic religious ideas gave al-Qaeda, in the words of one commentator, a “theological safe haven.”

Read more at American Thinker

Obama Doctrine Faces Troubles in Cairo, Syria

ods1By Chris Stirewalt:

“…America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject:  the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

— President Obama, addressing “the Muslim World” from Cairo University, June 4, 2009.

President Obama’s vision for the Middle East is one in which Islamism serves as a transitional stage between authoritarian rule and liberal democracy.

The Islamist vision for the Middle East would say that he is half right.

Obama helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt, as he and NATO allies did with Islamists in Libya. While Muslim theocrats sound like unhappy partners for an American electorate accustomed to unhappy outcomes with such folks (the mullahs of Iran and the Afghan Taliban, to wit).

Obama’s Middle East doctrine, though, holds that under the oppressive yoke of authoritarian, secular governments propped up by the Cold War superpowers, legitimate political dissent was stifled. That means that the only place Obama could find an opposition to replace those tottering Cold War-era despots in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere was among those looking to establish Muslim governments.

But, these would be tolerant Islamists, we were told. Their promise of tolerance was secured in advance of providing the military, diplomatic and economic support that put them in power.

Read more at Fox News



How Obama Betrayed America

betrayed_lgBelow is David Horowitz’s new pamphlet, How Obama Betrayed America…And No One is Holding Him Accountable. To order it, click here.

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America.  We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall.  We see farther into the future.” – Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton

It is a judgment on Barack Obama’s timorous, apologetic, irresponsible and ultimately anti-American conduct of foreign affairs that Madeleine Albright’s words, spoken little more than 15 years ago, now sound as antique as a pronouncement by Harry Truman at the onset of the Cold War, the great challenge America confronted bravely and without equivocation a generation ago.  While Obama has quoted this statement repeatedly to hide his real disdain for his country, he has set in motion policies meant to make America far from indispensable — a diminished nation that “leads from behind” if at all; a nation with a downsized military that is chronically uncertain about its meaning and its mission as it skulks in the wings of the world stage.

Albright’s statement was made about Iraq when Democrats were still supporting their country’s confrontation with its sadistic dictator Saddam Hussein, and before they defected from the war shortly after its battles were under way.  As a senator, in step with his Democratic colleagues, Obama opposed America’s war with Iraq while American troops were still in harms’ way, and then opposed the military surge that finally won the victory; as president he presided over the withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq,  against the wishes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who wanted a continuing military presence, paid for with the blood of thousands of American men and women in arms. Obama thus turned that benighted nation over to the malign influences of America’s chief enemy in the Middle East, Iran, while betraying every American who gave his or her life for its freedom.

Far from shouldering his responsibility as the commander-in-chief of America’s global War on Terror and embracing it as this generation’s equivalent of the Cold War, Obama showed his distaste for the entire enterprise by dropping the term “War on Terror” and replacing it with an Orwellian phrase — “overseas contingency operations.” Minimizing the Islamist threat to the United States is not an oversight of the Obama administration; it is its policy.

It should not have been difficult for Obama to make the nation’s defense a priority when he became America’s commander-in-chief in January 2009.  The American homeland had already experienced a devastating attack, which terrorists have been constantly trying to repeat. The number of foreign states openly supporting terror has steadily increased (and grown even more during Obama’s tenure); and the most dangerous Islamist regime – Iran – is being allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, while Washington dithers over pointless negotiations. With secular governments giving way to Islamist regimes in Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, with the Taliban on the rise in Afghanistan and an American withdrawal imminent, the global situation today has eerie parallels to the early Cold War, with implications equally dire.  Yet instead of policies that put U.S. national security first and are pursued without hesitation or apology, Obama’s time in office has been marked by retreat and accommodation and even support of Islamist foes – most ominously of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which swept aside an American ally, with Obama’s personal intervention, and is busily creating a totalitarian state.

  Obama’s Foreign Policy Disasters

In the four years since Obama’s first inauguration, almost three times as many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan as in the eight years of the Bush administration. Withdrawal, not victory, has been Obama’s goal from the outset, and now it is the only outcome possible.  During the Obama years, there have been more than 8,000 Islamic terrorist attacks on “infidels” across the globe, a twenty-five percent rise over the years in which the fighting in Iraq was at its height. Yet, in the face of this bloody and intensifying Islamist offensive, Obama has tried to convince the American people that the war against al-Qaeda has been essentially “won” — by him — and the terrorist threat is subsiding.[1]  Denial of the war Islamists have declared on us and denial of the threat it represents is the heart of the Obama doctrine that has guided this nation’s policies for more than four years.

Obama’s desire for rapprochement with Iran’s Islamist regime has prompted the administration to drag its feet on the sanctions designed to halt Iran’s nuclear program. For the same reason, the president and his administration were silent when hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets of Teheran to call for an end to the dictatorship and were met by an orgy of violence from the mullahs’ thugs.  Because of the White House’s moral and political timidity, borne out of its denial of the Islamist threat and the guilty conviction that America (presumably an even greater predator) has no right to condemn another nation, this tipping point in Iran tipped the wrong way.

The administration’s denial was also egregiously manifest in its response to the massacre of 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood by an Islamic fanatic, who three and a half years later still has not been brought to trial. The Fort Hood terrorist successfully infiltrated the American military and despite open expressions of hatred against the West was promoted to U.S. Army Major. The Obama administration’s Kafkaesque response to an obvious case of Islamist violence against the U.S. was to classify the terrorist attack as an incident of “workplace violence,” and thus to hide the fact that Hasan was a Muslim soldier in a war against the infidels of the West.

This inability to name our enemies was on display again on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 when  jihadists staged demonstrations and launched attacks against the American embassies in Egypt and other Islamic countries. In Libya, al-Qaeda terrorists overran an American consular compound and murdered the American ambassador and three brave staffers. The attack took place in a country that had recently been destabilized by Obama’s own intervention to oust its dictator. As senator, Obama had denounced a military intervention in Iraq, which, unlike his Libyan adventure, had been authorized by both houses of Congress and a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution. As president, he had invoked the principle of non-intervention to justify his passivity in the face of governmental atrocities in Syria and Iran. But in Libya he conducted an unauthorized invasion of a country that posed no threat to the United States and was not, as Syria is, in alliance with the mullahs of Iran and the terrorists of Hizbollah. The chaos that followed Obama’s Libyan intervention led directly to the rise of the local al-Qaeda, which planted its flag atop the same American outpost in Benghazi it later destroyed, and the U.S. ambassador along with it.

The events in Benghazi were a stark revelation of the consequences of a foreign policy without a moral compass.  The battle over the embassy lasted seven hours. Although the President learned about the attack shortly after it began and although the embattled Americans inside the compound begged the White House for help, and although U.S. fighter jets were stationed in Italy only an hour away, the president, in one of the most shameful acts in the history of that office, denied help by leaving his post, so that only silence answered their desperate calls. The president and his administration then went into cover-up mode lying to Congress and the American people, pretending for weeks afterwards that the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Mohammed internet video, whose director they then threw in jail.

Before his overthrow, the dictator, Moammar Gaddafi, warned that his demise would unleash the forces of the Islamic jihad not only in his own country but throughout North Africa. This was a prophecy quickly realized. In the aftermath of Obama’s intervention, al-Qaeda was able to take control in Mali of an area twice the size of Germany. In Tunisia and Egypt, jihadists emerged as the ruling parties, with the acquiescence and even assistance of the Obama administration. In Syria, a savage civil war metastasized unimpeded, killing tens of thousands and eventually pitting a fascist regime allied to Iran against rebel forces largely aligned with al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As these disasters unfolded, the White House not only did not oppose the Islamists but armed and enabled them. Obama had previously intervened in Egypt, the largest and most important country in the Middle East, to force the removal of its pro-American leader, Hosni Mubarak. He then promoted the Brotherhood’s ascension to power by portraying it as a “moderate” actor in the democratic process. As the Middle East situation deteriorated, the Muslim Brotherhood became the chief beneficiary of America’s financial, diplomatic and military support. This same Brotherhood was the driving force behind the Islamist surge, the mentor of Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda, and the creator of Hamas. Rather than being quarantined, the Brotherhood-dominated government in Cairo now received hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and F-16 bomber jets from the Obama administration that had facilitated its rise to power.

Appeasement of Islamist Enemies

To allay concerns about the emergence of the Brotherhood, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following justification for its acceptance by the White House: “We believe that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful, and committed to non-violence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency.”[2] In these words, Clinton was referring to an organization whose spiritual leader, Yusef al-Qaradawi, had recently called for a second Holocaust of the Jews, “Allah willing, at the hands of the believers,” and a party that was calling for the establishment of a Muslim caliphate in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish state.[3] Soon after Clinton’s endorsement, the Muslim Brotherhood’s presidential candidate, Mohamed Morsi, was elected Egypt’s new leader and was referring to Jews as apes and pigs. Secure in the American administration’s support, he wasted no time in abolishing the constitution and instituting a dictatorship with no serious protest from the United States. Only months before this destruction of Egypt’s civic space by his Islamist party, the new dictator was visited by then Senator John Kerry, shortly to be Hillary Clinton’s successor as Secretary of State. Kerry assured the world that the new Muslim Brotherhood regime was “committed to protecting fundamental freedoms.”[4]

Read the rest at Front Page

What the Left Does Not Understand About Islam

Picture-16By :

The left has never adapted to the transition from nationalistic wars to ideological wars. It took the left a while to grasp that the Nazis were a fundamentally different foe than the Kaiser and that pretending that World War 2 was another war for the benefit of colonialists and arms dealers was the behavior of deluded lunatics. And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.

The Cold War was even worse. The left never came to terms with Communism. From the Moscow Trials to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the moderate left slowly disavowed the USSR but refused to see it as anything more than a clumsy dictatorship. The only way that the left could reject the USSR was by overlooking its ideology and treating it as another backward Russian tyranny being needlessly provoked and pushed around by Western Europe and the United States.

Having failed the test twice, it is no wonder that the left has been unable to come to terms with Islam, or that it has resorted to insisting that, like Germany and Russia, the Muslim world is just another victim of imperialism and western warmongering in need of support and encouragement from the progressive camp.

The anti-war worldview is generations out of date. It is mired in an outdated analysis of imperial conflicts that ceased being relevant with the downfall of the nation-state and its replacement by international organizations and causes based around ideologies. Nazism could still loosely fit into the jackboots of the nation state. Communism was another creature entirely, a red virus floating around the world, embedding its ideas into organizations and using those organizations to take over nations.

Islam is even more untethered than Communism, loosely originating from powerful oil nations, but able to spring up anywhere in the world. Its proponents have even less use for the nation state than the Communists. What they want is a Caliphate ruled under Islamic law; a single unit of human organization extending across nations, regions and eventually the world.

Read more at Front Page

Inside the Ring: Ideological war on terror needed

Washington Times, By Bill Gertz

The U.S. military made impressive gains on  the battlefield and covertly in countering Islamist terrorists since the Sept.  11, 2001, attacks. But the military and  government at large so far have failed to strike the religiously motivated  ideology behind al Qaeda and other Islamic  extremists.

That’s the conclusion of a new book, “Fighting the Ideological War: Winning  Strategies From Communism to Islamism, by a group of specialists urging the U.S. government to apply the lessons of the  Cold War defeat of the Soviet Union to  Islamist terrorism.

One of the authors, irregular warfare specialist Sebastian  L. Gorka, stated that the United States in the past 10 years successfully  degraded al Qaeda’s ability to inflict harm on  the United States. However, he writes,”al Qaeda  has become even more powerful in the domain of ideological warfare and other  indirect forms of attack.”

The problem for the U.S. government is “political correctness” toward Islam that has the prevented accurate  identification of the enemy’s threat doctrine. For example, the Obama  administration’s insistence on calling the Fort  Hood, Texas, terrorist attack by Army Maj.  Nidal M. Hasan “workplace violence” is crippling efforts to strike at the  ideology Mr. Gorka calls “global  jihadism” – defined as both the violent and nonviolent theory and practice of  imposing Islamic supremacy globally.

“Although we have proven our capacity in the last 10 years kinetically to  engage our enemy at the operational and tactical level with unsurpassed  effectiveness, we have not even begun to take the war to al  Qaeda at the strategic level of counter-ideology, to attack it at its heart – the ideology of global jihad,” he states.

Mr. Gorka notes that during the Cold  War, it took several decades to fully understand the Soviet threat before U.S.  diplomat George F. Kennan in 1946 wrote  his “Long Telegram” from Moscow, where he was serving as deputy chief of  mission. The missive became the strategy of containment and led to the eventual  downfall of the communist empire in 1991.

Similarly, Islamic jihadism presents a similar totalitarian threat and must  be countered ideologically. First, the nature of the terrorist threat must be  clearly understood and then defeated with Cold War-style information and  ideological warfare.

The administration has added to the  confusion by refusing to identify the Islamic nature of the current war on  terrorism.

Patrick Sookhdeo, another author and co-editor of the book, stated, “The truth, unpalatable though it may be, is that Islamists and Islamist terrorists are authentically Islamic, emphasizing specific texts and offering literalist interpretations of their sources.”

Some Western governments and analysts have sought to delegitimize terrorists  by incorrectly denying their Islamic roots, he said.

John Lenczowski, a White  House National Security Council specialist on Russia during the Reagan  administration, outlined in detail how Ronald Reagan approved and implemented a  program of “political-ideological warfare” that identified the illegitimacy of  the Soviet system as a strategic vulnerability that was successfully exploited  to defeat the Soviet regime. It included a combination of covert and overt  support for pro-freedom and pro-democracy movements and people.

The final Soviet collapse, Mr.  Lenczowski writes, came from “a confluence of internal crises that were  aggravated by the many ‘straws’ placed on the Soviet ‘camel’s back’ by the Reagan administration.”

Similarly, the authors argue that Islamist supremacy can be defeated  ideologically through programs that reveal the ideology of jihadist groups like al Qaeda and the Muslim  Brotherhood to be copies of earlier totalitarian and fascist ideologies.

The book was published by the McLean-based Westminster Institute and is  available at


Mr. X and the New Cold War

By Mark Tapson

Sixty-five years ago this July, Foreign Affairs published an explosive article by diplomat George Kennan, under the pseudonym Mr. X, which isolated and defined “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” It became the centerpiece of our response to Soviet expansionism and the foundation of our Cold War policy, and made “containment” a household word and a foreign policy strategy for decades afterward.

In the article, Kennan explained that the Soviet Union’s leaders were determined to spread the communist ideology around the world. Due to the “innate antagonism” between socialism and capitalism, the USSR perceived itself to be at perpetual war with the West, with no possibility for peaceful coexistence. And they were extremely patient and practical in the pursuit of that goal:

The Kremlin is under no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes in a hurry… The main thing is that there should always be pressure, unceasing constant pressure, toward the desired goal.

Direct conflict was never considered a desirable avenue for the propagation of their cause; instead, the Soviets were always on the move to fill “every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power.” Their foreign policy, Kennan wrote, “is a fluid stream which moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a given goal.”

Kennan argued that the Soviets were weak compared to the united Western world, and vulnerable to internal fault lines. He noted that Soviet power was “unamenable to argument or reason,” but very sensitive to superior force, in the face of which Russians would simply withdraw to wait for a more propitious time. That did not mean that the West should allow itself to be lulled into complacency by such a retreat, however.

Kennan described our conflict with Soviet Communism as “undoubtedly the greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably the greatest it will ever have to face.” His policy conclusion was that the main element of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of

a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies… designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon he interests of a peaceful and stable world.

The United States adopted that policy, and the USSR collapsed twenty years ago (which is not to say that the threat of communism collapsed with it).

Now go back and reread this but replace the Soviet threat of the past with the contemporary one of Islamic fundamentalism. Check off the similarities: Islam a totalitarian ideology at perpetual war with Western capitalism? Check. Muslims patient and prepared to fight the long war? Check. Impervious to the logic of reason, but vulnerable to force? Check. Islam always on the move to fill every nook and cranny available to it? Check. Of course there are differences, but the big picture is strikingly similar. To paraphrase Kennan, our conflict with Islamic fundamentalism is probably the greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced or will ever have to face.

So where is our Mr. X in government today who will craft a similar policy document to address the threat of Islamic expansionism? How would that even be possible, considering that our current President is so publicly worshipful of Islam and so supportive of such hardcore Muslim bodies as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Muslim Brotherhood  that many suspect he is Muslim himself? How would it be possible, considering that the Obama administration has scrubbed its official language clean of any unflattering reference whatsoever to Islam and will brook no criticism of it? Indeed, our own Secretary of State is working with the 57-member OIC to adopt restrictions on free speech that will criminalize the defamation of Islam.

Look what happened the last time a government official attempted such a policy document. Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamic extremism, and one of our government’s most important figures in analyzing its nature and waging ideological war against it, was fired in very early 2008 from his position on the military’s Joint Staff after becoming too hot or controversial within the Pentagon.

The reason? He had written a memorandum months before, based on documents exposing a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to subvert the United States using front groups. This made him the target of those very same influential front groups and of their allies in the U.S. government itself, who subsequently canned Coughlin. That was during the Bush administration; imagine how much less acceptable such a policy memo would be now, after nearly four years of Obama’s subversive complicity.

Today’s closest approximation to Mr. X’s policy paper is the work of Frank Gaffney and the Washington D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, who in 2010 published Shariah: The Threat to America, a highly acclaimed report on the dangerous reality of political Islam. More recently he and his team unveiled a free, ten-part, online “video briefing” entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: A Video Course,” designed to educate American citizens about “a threat most Americans are unaware even exists within our country, let alone the peril it represents.”

Read more at Front Page

The Mirage of Moderate Islam

By Daniel Greenfield:

Travelers across the vast stretches of the Arabian desert have been known to get lost and in their thirst and exhaustion hallucinate oases with palm trees and flowing water. Western policymakers lost in the vast stretches of madness that define the Muslim world are even more wont to hallucinate the oasis of a moderate Islam to take refuge in. Whether you’re dying for a drink or a way to reaffirm your reality, a mirage is sometimes the only way you can find it.

Moderate Islam is a mirage, a projection by desperate Westerners of their own values and culture, on an entirely different religion and culture. It is a mirage that many Muslims are eager to uphold, in the same way that desert merchants might sell goblets and bowls of sand to passing travelers foolish enough to confuse water with dust. And like travelers who think they are drinking water, when they are actually swallowing sand, it is a deception that will eventually kill the deceived.
When the Western cultural elite look at Islam, they see what they have to see to avoid falling into crisis mode. Like the traveler who would rather choke on sand, than face up to the fact that he is lost in a desert, they would rather keep most things as they are, even at the cost of the extinction of the nations they preside over, than confront the full scope of the threat surrounding them. A threat that they had a hand in nurturing and feeding in the name of goals that seemed to make sense at the time.
It is easier to segregate a “Bad Islam” composed of a tiny minority of extremists from the generally “Good Islam” of the rulers of the Muslim world and the waves of Muslim immigrants washing up on their shores. That this segregation has no objective reality, and is nothing but a psychological defense mechanism against experiencing the full reality of a disaster. From the Titanic to World War II, there are numerous similar situations in which the people in charge chose to ignore a growing crisis at a horrific cost.
The two primary paradigms through which Western political elites see Islam, is that of tyranny on the right, and the evils of Western foreign policy on the left. Bush employed the former when he defined the problem as being one of tyranny, rather than Islam. Having defined the problem in terms of a majority of “Good Muslims” oppressed by “Bad Tyrants”, Bush tried to liberate the former from the latter, only to discover that there was a good deal of overlap between the two. Under Obama, we have seen the left implement its own construct of Islam, as popular resistance movements against colonial oppression, who are reacting to the evils of American foreign policy. This knee jerk Marxist formula goes one worse than the Bush Administration by defining terrorists as “Good Muslims” and moderates as “Yankee Puppets”.
But the only item of true significance to emerge from the contrast of these worldviews, is the revelation that American political leaders from both sides of the spectrum still view Islam in terms of the old Cold War struggle between Communism and Capitalism. Like many generals who fight every war in terms of the last war, the political leaders of the West still see Islam in Cold War colors, which prevents from seeing it for what it is.
While Islam shares some common denominators with Communism, as well as Nazism, it is also a quite different entity than either one. For one thing it is not Western in any sense of the word. It does not rely on a centralized leadership. It has had over a thousand years to seep into the culture of the regions it has conquered. That has made Islam into an identity in a much more profound way, than Adolf or Vladimir could have ever managed with their own crackpottery.
Islam predates the political movements such as Communism and Nazism that arose to fill a vacuum of faith in a secularizing West with dreams of racial and economic utopias. It is the original sin of the East, a ruthless religion based on stolen beliefs and stolen property, its moment of religious transcendence was not that of the law or the spirit, but the sight of tribal rivalries uniting under a single green banner. The banner of Islam.

Read more

Inside the Muslim Brotherhood in the West

Erick Stakelbeck:

The so-called Arab Spring has seen the Muslim Brotherhood rise to power in the Middle East and North Africa.

But those aren’t the only regions where the group is spreading its influence: the Brotherhood has also been active in the West for decades.

CBN News recently traveled to Europe to discover how the Muslim Brotherhood got here and what it has planned.

Sparking a Capitol Debate

It’s an issue that continues to heat up on Capitol Hill.

When Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and four other GOP House members called for an investigation recently into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government, they were widely criticized, even by some of their Republican colleagues.

Yet documents captured by the FBI show cleary that the Muslim Brotherhood is active in the United States.

And Egypt’s new president, Mohammed Morsi, reportedly joined the group while he was a student at the University of Southern California in the late 1970s and early 80s.

Establishing a Toehold

The Brotherhood’s presence in the West, however, goes back much further than that.

CBN News recently visited the Islamic Center of Munich, which many consider the birthplace of radical Islam in the West.

It was there that the Muslim Brotherhood first established a presence in the West and spread its tentacles throughout Europe and the United States.

“Initially, the mosque was an idea of the West Germans, who also wanted to harness Islam for its political purposes in the Cold War,” said Ian Johnson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of A Mosque in Munich.

“But the project was taken over by young students, mostly members or sympathizers with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.

Johnson told CBN News the United States and West Germany initially supported the mosque as a buffer against Soviet communism during the Cold War.

It soon became much more than that.

“It was a refuge for senior key Brotherhood people,” Johnson explained. “The board of directors was a who’s who of radical Islam people, from Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and of course, Europe.”

“It really had nothing to do with Munich. It wasn’t a local mosque for local Muslims,”  he continued. “It was a political entity that was trying to organize political Islam around the world.”

From Munich, and with the help of funding from Saudi Arabia, the Brotherhood soon began establishing mosques throughout Europe and America.

“People who were key members of the mosque in Munich moved to the United States and helped set-up and organize Islam there as well,” Johnson said.

Read more at CBN News

The Muslim Brotherhood, Clinton State Department, John McCain and Today’s Lax Security Mindset

By Christopher Holton

There was a time when it was considered necessary and proper to be concerned  about possible foreign influences in US government and military service. Way  back in 1981 when I first filled out forms as part of the process for joining  the US military (it was a DOD form, I don’t remember the number) I had to answer  a specific question regarding travel. The question asked if I had traveled to  any of a list of nations after certain dates (all communist bloc countries) with  a date listed by each nation (the date that each country had turned  communist).

Anyone who joined the military in the Cold War era probably  remembers this form and this question. If the answer to the question for any of  the nations involved was “yes” you had to provide a complete explanation for the  reason for the trip, when it took place, etc. Having never visited countries  like Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, the Soviet Union, etc., I can’t say that I  know what the process would have been had I answered yes.

But the point  is, if you wanted to join the US military and you had even visited any communist  countries, the Department of Defense wanted to know about it.

Fast  forward to today. We are locked in a mortal struggle against a force not unlike  communism. In fact, it has been called “communism with a god.” That force is  Islam as defined by the Shariah doctrine which forms the basis for it. There are  certain countries and organizations that are prominent in the enemy threat  doctrine. Yet, to my knowledge, today we have no similar safeguards in place to  what the DOD had during the Cold War years to check on the influence of foreign  powers on American institutions.


This all stems from a complete failure of our leadership to put America on a war  footing in the wake of 9/11. Our leaders have failed to identify the enemy. They  have failed to even try to understand the enemy threat doctrine. In fact they  have even denied that an enemy threat doctrine even exists. As a result of this  culture, an imperialist, nefarious organization with long-standing ties to  terrorism and with goals identical to those of Al Qaeda itself, namely the  Muslim Brotherhood, is treated as a friend, rather than as a foe. If you even  suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be an enemy of America, Hillary  Clinton, John McCain and Anderson Cooper will attack you as if you are a  wild-eyed bomb-thrower. We are indeed through the looking glass.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Red to Green, the Muslim Brotherhood in America

Source: Patriots Duty

“I will stand with the Muslim should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” From, Audacity of Hope by Barrack Hussein Obama

Barack Obama flew 7000 miles at the cost of $170,000.00 per flight hour under the cloak of secrecy, surprise and darkness for a formal signing of a ten year Karzai agreement between the United States and Afghanistan. The contents of this agreement have not been released or approved as a treaty by the White House or the State Department; however it does allegedly stop drone strikes and demands the Taliban’s promise of peace.

At the Baghram Air Base the stage was set and the curtain rose at 4:30 a.m. with no troops or press pool invited to the vaudeville act where the Commander in Chief announced the final war stages of the war strategy and the exit plan in Afghanistan to the entire globe, something no other Commander in Chief or theater General has ever previously broadcasted in American history. Within minutes of the execution of this financial and military contract, complete with signatures hitting the airwaves, Kabul was struck by an exchange of gun-fire, suicide bombers and car bombs in retaliation for the coalition partnership deal. The early ‘sitrep’ told us there were 2 dead and 16 wounded, when an updated ‘sitrep’ revealed deeper collateral damage of our own U.S. forces of 1 EOD, 3 Special Forces were killed in action and 1 SEAL was wounded were added to the casualty and wounded list.

Barack Obama on a return flight to the United States, never looked back at the destruction in his wake from the boasting political event to laud his self proclaimed achievement where the ‘War on Terror’ is over dreamed-up only by his administration handlers as Osama bin Ladin was the catalystic springboard to Obama’s spouting success. Bin Ladin’s death was the crowning achievement, aired in political ads, campaign speeches and press releases. Yet, what is the next ‘forward’ step to mounting a larger goal of peace for ten years ahead and who or what stands to receive the final trophy? The supreme endgame has become clear and defined; the trophy is flying the flag of Islam over the White House. Here at home, there is a palpable and obscure movement where red has replaced green. Communism is no longer the insurgent, now it is the green menace, known as Islam. In the United States, emulating the Cold War anti-American objective, green now represents a flood of Sharia complaint faithful into placeholder positions of power provided by Barack Obama as formally announced in the Cairo speech. Before the first Cold War, a man named Martin Dies rang the claxon on communism’s infiltration into the Unites States before Joseph McCarthy later championed the same call during the 1940’s-1950’s. The Truman administration then made a fateful decision to turn off the sound, while today the same mission is underway, so increase the volume to hear this alert. Today, America has no Dies/McCarthy except those few who have uncovered the White House playbook and vetted evidence while outside the landscape of the governmental positions with few exceptions. The trophy is America, where in the recent decade, radical Muslims and Islamists have moved to American shores coming from a Russian support  push, approved by the more hidden appeasement of Obama through the Hillary Clinton ‘reset’ button when Putin returned to power. In the daylight of our civilian population and the infiltration of the lobby streets of Washington DC along with at least seven cabinet departments of the Federal government, Sharia, Zakat and Taqiyya are there for all to see and trace with the full scale likeness that harkens back a handful of decades.

The names listed below under the red and green columns while not exhaustive, are those who have gained deep and viable positions within government both decades ago, under red and in very recent years, under green. Either in present day they are part of lobby groups with open access to high level government officials or are in fact on the Federal payroll in such departments as Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the State Department, the main Justice Department or more central at the White House itself. Those listed on the red side are from the Communist infusion having all the same like roles within government during World War ll and later the Cold War. The green side contains names you must learn to know today.

[Go to the Source for the list of names. I could not get the columns to show properly here]

Hillary and William Clinton The surrender of America to her enemies by the Obama administration is real and has been launched, and is gaining increasing speed. This new and fresh cultural order where Islamists and their coalition forces are fighting for and winning the resources and real estate and hidden government mandates established in secret, a single governmental system on an epic scale. Most often, their method is based upon political correctness and under the guise of human rights, religious protection and outreach.

The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and INSA to name a few have deep ties to al Qaeda, al Shabaab, the Taliban and Dar Ululoom, now better known as the Haqqani Network. To provide an abbreviated summary of Haqqani please consider the fact that Mullah Omar is the top leader for this thirty year old terror network established by Pakistan’s ISI, the intelligence division in country and calls on the relationship with Lashker e Jhangvi as, the Mubai Raiders and the very group that kidnapped Daniel Pearl and killed him on video for the world to witness. They have been formally extended an open pathway to the United States by Barack Obama and his benefactors including Vladimir Putin and George Soros with legitimacy, sovereignty and finally diplomatic status. America has been at war with al Qaeda since before 9-11 and while the focus was on al Qaeda in particular theaters of operation, they have moved on to Algeria and North Africa expanding further beyond the static Middle East. It is certain that key al Qaeda leaders have been killed by CIA operated drone strikes yet a constant re-branding of networks and ties continue. The Obama administration has been negotiating directly with the Taliban for more than two years to force a peace agreement that includes the transfer of five key Taliban leaders from Guantanamo to Qatar. To this date, it is not confirmed whether this move has taken place under a cloak and dagger transfer. Yet today, the Obama administration has been secretly releasing Taliban tribal leaders from prisons in Afghanistan. The Taliban is the main focus of the Obama administration for peace agreements while the Taliban network extends from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Abdul Salam Zaeef, an Pakistani Ambassador to the Taliban is also a member. Tehrik e Taliban’s leader, Baitullah Mahsad claimed responsibility for killing the Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto changing the face of the leadership of Pakistan to that of an adversary.

It should be noted that there are in fact two laws if not more that apply to stop this sedition if not treason by countless government officials in addition to the Oath they swear to upon taking a government job. The laws include the Hatch Act and the McCarren Walter Act and we can include the Patriot Act to the equation. Under Barack Obama with his circle of large like-minded supporters, a system is being created to orphan the citizenry of America as we are caught up in this snare of a green mission under an ideology in complete opposition to our Constitution. The McCarren Walter Act of 1952 has been amended several times, where is has been watered down for the sake of political correctness, however in its original form, President Truman vetoed the law, but it prevailed due to majority votes in the House and Senate. This law was and is designed to manage immigration, deportation and the termination of employment as a result of the fallout in the 1940’s-50’s over the communist invasion in key government roles where subversive activities against the United States were tracked and proven. The Hatch Act forbids government employees from engaging in political actions yet the Muslim Brotherhood has employed at least three White House employees that are members of the Muslim Brotherhood where they are in fact engaging in political Muslim ideology and drafting mandates supporting the cause. What is more, appeasement entitlement programs and business grants as well as functional doctrine within the military, the Department of Justice and even Education have been completely altered and in many cases re-drafted that complies with the laws of the Hadith and Islam. The Hatch Act and the McCarren Walter Act are laws have been both selectively applied and in many cases waived completely by several government cabinets including the State Department. Islam is a government where a God is added to neutralize the debate and it has been extremely effective out of fear of retribution.

Public school systems in the United States have altered meals served, altered the curriculum and even the hours for football practice to the middle of the night for the sake of one Muslim student. Domestic court systems have applied Sharia law in at least 27 cases rather than Constitutional law.  Under the appeasement to Islam, Barack Obama has replaced the military chaplain program at the Pentagon with a more Islamic objective. Muslim Brotherhood liaisons have been created at all levels of our government where they have enjoyed full compliance of their goals that include removing Muslim training materials from the FBI and DHS lesson plans. Iftar dinners have been hosted by military Generals as well as by Tim Geithner at the Treasury Department. Only recently has the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation stopped all interaction with  national fusion centers where more local law enforcement has been taken out of the intelligence infrastructure, ceasing all state terror database use, investigation and eventual arrests. States such as Minnesota, Maine and Tennessee have become the target bases for green-lighted green card refugees from areas across the globe where in one particular sector, the Somalis take on the larger numbers of displaced travelers. It should be noted that there are countless pockets of real estate in America now that are essentially ‘no-go’ zones where Islam has been provided their own sovereignty, where foreign law and culture are applied rather than assimilation into our country and our values. Security clearances by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have been outsourced where a quota is forced to for acceptance into America without comprehensive investigations are completed.

The Soviets aligned with radical Arabs and Muslims decades ago to create the Red agenda, while they are doing the same today. Russia has subsidized Muslim factions for the sake of land sales and use in the Northern Caucus for the acquisition of oil and natural gas infrastructures. Outwardly, Russia is in opposition to the terror factions, however, more recently we witness Russia aligning completely with Syria, North African networks and al Qaeda and even FARC for the sake of resources.

What is upon America is the Russian Muslim Brotherhood Shariah mafia agenda with Barack Obama taking the lead as the grand marshal to complete the mission and the trophy, the flag of Islam is soon to fly over the White House. It can no longer be denied that the entire faction of Obama handlers inside government or outside government have a single subversive objective for the sake of radical Islam.

Links for reference: