• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

— One of the handier tools in the combat arms officer's bag of tricks is a thought process called the Estimate of the Situation.

It's a comparison of potential courses of action in the light of the assigned mission. It's a simple, logical thought process, but it's also one that is frequently performed under almost unimaginable stress, after days without sleep, in a continuously evolving life-or-death situation.

I've used it before, lots of times, in the field with a company of troops, or in assessing the overall situation of a province under attack by regiments of guerrillas, and once for a tribe under attack by a hostile government. This is the first time I've used it to analyze an attack by terrorists on all of Western Civilization. Bear with me.

1. Mission: To eliminate the threat of terrorism.

2. Situation and Courses of Action:

a. Considerations affecting possible courses of action.

As with all wars, what is happening is a clash of cultures. In conventional war, the cultures usually share a universe of discourse. Here we are faced with a conflict between two extremely different ways of life. Our version of the good guys we can loosely define as Western Civilization. Who are the bad guys? They are terrorists who are hostile to our way of life, but who, precisely, are they?

They are Muslims, but not all Muslims. They are Arabs, but not all Arabs. And in some few cases they are neither Muslims nor Arabs. Nonetheless, about 99 and 44/100 percent of the terrorists opposing us are what are called "fundamentalist" Muslim Arabs.

For this analysis I am indebted to a couple of Lebanese Christians and to a Muslim in Florida. But my primary source is a book called The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis. It's a short book but very insightful. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Lewis maintains that "fundamentalist" is a misnomer, one borrowed from Christian fundamentalism, and that "radical" Islam would be more accurate. So we can define our enemy as "Radical Muslim Arabs." Or, hey, let's do the GI thing and give them an acronym, "Radical Arab Muslims," or RAMs.

At some point we must consider that our most valuable allies are Muslims who are not radical, Arab or not. The threat to them is far greater than the threat to us. The RAM's long-range goal is not to eliminate Western Civilization but to drag all of Islam back from the modern world into a morass of superstition and clan feudalism.

In The Crisis of Islam, Lewis points out that the seminal thinker of Islamic radicalism was an Egyptian named Sayyid Qutb, executed for implication in a plot to assassinate Egyptian President Nassar in 1966.

Qutb came to America as a representative of the Egyptian Education Department in 1948 and stayed until 1950. While here he saw something so degraded, so reprehensible, so completely bloody awful, that he was turned completely against the U.S. and the civilization we represent. And, what was this ghastly event? It was a sock hop in a church basement. Here's his description. "The dance is inflamed by the notes of the gramophone. The dancehall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust." He was also pretty browned off by the Kinsey report. Obviously we weren't going to get on this joker's good side.

If any of you Christian Fundamentalists out there are tempted to agree that our society is decadent, let me point out that RAM find both homosexual pedophilia and clitorectomies perfectly normal behavior. My point would be that Muslim radicalism represents the decay of what, when Christianity was mired in the Dark Ages, was the highest example of civilization on this Earth.

It is not Islam we face, but a perversion of Islam.

At the core of Islam lies a book, the Koran, believed to have been dictated by God himself. The whole point of a book is that anyone can read it and interpret it for him or herself. There is nothing wrong with seeking the help of a scholar to understand it. But to attempt to enforce one's interpretation as the only one permitted is to usurp the prerogatives of God. It is, in fact, in Muslim terms, the sin of idolatry.

The Ayatollah Khomeini called us the "Great Satan," not because of economic exploitation, but because our way of life is attractive and posed a threat to the closed-off, hateful religion that is radical "Islam." They not only want to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives, they want to tell God how to run the universe. The word "Islam" translates as surrender to the will of God. This is the exact opposite of that.

b. Enemy Capabilities: It is axiomatic that you can run a suicide mission pretty much anywhere. Planning is difficult, and volunteers are hard to find, but it can be done. The RAM has the capability to destroy anything, but not the capability to destroy everything. Nor do they have the capability to destroy our way of life, if we keep our heads and persevere.

c. Own Courses of Action: Improved security is an obvious requirement. Retaliation is an obvious course of action. Since there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11, our improved security, in spite of some holes, seems to be working. In retaliation, our war in Afghanistan gets a B+, and the war in Iraq is essentially irrelevant, except as a morale factor. What is really necessary is to eliminate the enemy capability, at which we have been only marginally successful.

It must be recognized that the enemy's war against us has been financed with our own money. It would be nice if we found a means of powering automobiles with hydrogen or with fuel-cell technology. Then our enemies can resume the camel-riding and goat-herding activities for which they are so justifiably famous. I have every confidence that this will happen about 20 minutes after the power structure in this country can find a way to maintain its wealth, control, and privileges without Arab oil.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

Sign in to comment