Islam is a religion still grounded in principles formulated by its prophet in the 8th century. Then it spread like wildfire by conquest and subterfuge, which Mohammed preached and practiced. He justifies lying to unbelievers when this furthers the Moslem cause. Ever since, the desire to extend Islamic rule to non-Moslem areas has been deeply embedded in the minds of Moslems - the masses attending mosques and their rulers no less than fundamentalist extremists. Islam is by far the most political of all religions because the realization of this desire depends on concrete political and military action by Moslem regimes. However, Islam’s injunction to Moslem rulers to extend their rule to non-Moslem territory is limited by the pragmatic proviso that those too strong or too distant to be conquered can be left alone until circumstances are more propitious. This is why Moslem aggression ceased to trouble Europe after the 17th century.
It is in the forefront of Moslem minds today precisely because the United States recreated Moslem power by its policy of decolonization, accompanied by the developing of natural resources in Moslem states which were then allowed to be partially or wholly expropriated. It is important to understand why these policies and the Western encouragement of Moslem territorial expansion have not only made all Moslem rulers and their Moslem subjects more aggressive but have caused a revival of fundamentalist Islam. The idea that Moslems can be propitiated and kept peaceful by economic development and political concessions is the reverse of the truth. Their reaction is that concessions by unbelievers prove that Allah has begun to favor the believers. So the more powerful Moslem states become, economically and/or politically, the greater will be their religiously motivated appetite for territorial expansion at the infidel’s expense.
The US belief that its generosity to Moslems would be rewarded by loyalty was mistaken. Loyalty to unbelievers is not a Moslem trait. Pragmatism is. And pragmatism prescribes that when dealing with fools one milks them for all one can get, demoralizes them until they are incapable of protecting their interests, and then deprives them of any influence they have left. The Moslem world today has no love and very little respect for the Western powers in general and the United States in particular. It was for many years a bitterly divided world, where individual rulers competed with each other for wealth, influence and sometimes territory. This was why the wealthy states of the Gulf Cooperation Council were ready to accept protection from American and other Western forces. But four decades of prattling about decolonization and "globalism" have made their mark. If globalism is a good reason for uniting Europe, preventing it is a better reason for uniting Moslem states (which have much more in common than the Europeans) on a policy to wrest power from the unbelievers.
For this purpose, the Moslems enjoy one crucial advantage over the Chinese. Many millions of Chinese live outside China. A fair proportion of them may wish to encourage trade with China. But very few sympathize with Chinese communism or are ready to serve the political aspirations of Beijing. In the ideological sense, the opposite is true of Moslems. Even before the policies of Moslem states have been more or less coordinated, the Moslem dispersion, including Moslems in the US and Western Europe, will provide plenty of volunteers for an active fifth column and for terrorism serving the cause of Islam. Indeed, it has already begun to do so.
Thorough knowledge of US foreign policy during the 1946-2000 period is of vital importance to anyone attempting a serious diagnosis of the weaknesses threatening Western civilization from this direction. Whatever happens to the only superpower is likely to affect the fate of Western Europe. The Europeans only make matters worse by trying to compete with the US for Moslem favors. But perhaps the most serious problem of the West is that the Moslem states are aware of Western greed and its political repercussions. They had very good reasons to believe they will not be punished for increasing their military, political and economic capacity to a point at which they can blackmail the West into accepting their political, cultural or religious demands. Today, after the terrorist attack on New York and Washington, they are hoping that the US will settle for destroying Bin Laden and the Taleban and gradually resume its oil-dictated pro-Moslem policies.
For during the post-World War II era, the United States has tended to support authoritarian Moslem dictatorships on vital territorial issues when their interests conflicted with those of non-Moslem states, needlessly increasing their self-confidence and strategic importance. Israel was compelled to return the Sinai Peninsula (which it had occupied during a defensive war in 1967) to Egypt and may yet be told to cede the strategically vital Golan Heights to Syria – one of the main sponsors of radical and fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Lebanon, created to provide self-determination for its Christians (then a majority), was allowed to fall under Syrian rule, causing the destruction of the Christian power structure and mass Christian emigration. In the Balkans, the US intervened militarily and falsified election results to maintain a Islamic regime in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Then it used massive military strikes to help Moslem Albania separate the Kosovo province from Serbia, of which it has been an integral part for centuries, disregarding the anarchy in Albania where armed gangs compete for power and trade in drugs. Now it is trying to help Albanians obtain additional rights and influence in Macedonia.
The only identifiable motive behind this long-term US policy is the greed of American business circles determining it and the profits they reap in oil-rich Moslem states. Promoting democracy abroad is certainly not on the US agenda. Even the occupation of democratic India’s territory by communist China has been ignored for the past 39 years, mainly for reasons already stated, but partly because China was an ally of Moslem Pakistan. Consistency is also not a US hallmark. Its media and "globalist" politicians decry ethnic or ethno-religious nationalism when dealing with West European allies but treat it as almost sacred when Moslems invoke it on behalf of their territorial claims.
The erosion of nationalist and/or religious motivations in the West - especially after the bipolar world and the rival superpower disappeared in 1991 - is another important factor affecting the assessment of the dangers facing Western civilization. At the beginning of this century, the US was still very much a Christian state. Since World War II, it is increasingly gravitating towards agnostic liberalism and cynical materialism. The argument that religion was a great rallying cry for war throughout human history is often used against it. However, few have dared to criticize Islam (as distinct from Islamic fundamentalism) on this account, though the question how to motivate power-wielders and populations in democratic states to deal with Moslem aggression and Moslem terrorism must clearly be faced. Patriotism motivated by ethnic nationalism can be a good substitute for religion in this respect. But agnostic liberalism cannot fulfill this function, especially when it is laced with pacifism and globalism. For a superpower, it is a source of weakness and a serious handicap in dealing with terrorists or religiously motivated aggressors.
Not a single Moslem state is a democracy. When there is serious internal opposition to a Moslem ruler, his rivals sometimes demand "democracy" during their bid to topple him, but never maintain it if they gain power. So there is an obvious contradiction between promoting democracy and supporting Moslem states. The contradiction between supporting globalism with ostensibly equal rights for all races, religions or nations and across-the-board support for Moslem territorial and cultural expansion should be no less obvious. These contradictions are a grave American weakness, as ideological confusion hamstrings the ability to act logically and firmly.
The US advocates globalism because it is a means of imposing on the world economic hegemony by a select group of supra-national corporations and big banks, the large majority of which are American. The assumption is that economic hegemony maintains political hegemony. A few big British, German, Japanese and French companies are allowed to share the profits, partly to keep them quiet, but chiefly because their influence on business circles in their countries may limit opposition to American plans or activities. However, since a goodly proportion of the spoils is in oil-rich Moslem states, the Europeans - and especially France - have not always cooperated. They remember the 1956 Suez crisis and, conscious of the US attempt to gain Moslem goodwill by means of political and territorial concessions, have upped the ante by offering more of the same.
Perhaps the most crucial aspect of assessing the only superpower’s prospects of maintaining its status relates to the impact of its policies on the Moslems. These quickly understood that the American talk about promoting democracy was propaganda for internal consumption and that the US preferred to deal with autocratic rulers, who are much easier to bribe. They also understood that they were in no danger of losing US support for their territorial claims against non-Moslems regardless of how they behaved. Syria is perhaps the outstanding example. It has occupied Lebanon. It has long been on the US list of states supporting terrorism and maintains training camps for 10 terrorist organizations operating against Turkey, Israel, Western Europe and the United States. There is clear evidence that the June 1996 bomb which blew up the USAF quarters in Dhahran, killing 19 Americans, was made in the Syrian-controlled Beka’a Valley and transported to Saudi Arabia by truck through Syria and Jordan with the knowledge and approval of Syrian officials. Moreover, Syria is an ally of Iran and has been doing everything possible to help Iraq outwit the embargo the UN imposed upon it. Yet the US still wants Israel to cede the Golan Heights to Syria!
When dealing with Moslems, this kind of political masochism has a heavy price. It promotes terrorism and it encourages the oil-rich Moslem states to buy off the sponsors of terrorism with political and/or financial support. For the burgeoning of Moslem terrorism - radical as well as fundamentalist - the United States, Britain and France have only themselves to blame. It is safe to predict that this terrorism will be one of the main American security concerns in the 21st century. But the political ambitions of the Moslem world may turn out an equally serious problem.
This analysis began by recalling that throughout human history empires rose by military conquest and fell when their rulers took their power for granted and that the basic cycle of war, occupation, exploitation, negligence and collapse has not changed. It noted that greed has always blinded power-wielders to danger. The greed of the business tycoons promoting globalism is far greater in scale and its impact on humanity than any greed history has known - and just as blind. It has nurtured an enemy who cares more about land than about money and has a profound religious urge to prove his superiority to the infidel. The message of history is that the United States will be unable to stem the tide of Islam in the 21st century unless it abandons globalism and begins to treat Moslem states as potential enemies whose strategic assets and importance must be reduced before it is too late.
Trump’s Imaginary “Strategy” for Afghanistan - By: Ehsan M. Ahrari Perhaps after hard-hitting briefings from Mattis and McMaster, Trump finally realized Obama’s decision to remain in Afghanistan was b...
5 hours ago