Posse Incitatus

The invincible enemy that isn’t there

The Posse finds itself in rare disagreement with the Belmont Club on what the Democrat’s war strategy is.  Perhaps it isn't true disagreement, but rather a point of difference.

Wretchard makes a strong case that the Democrats don’t actually have a strategy other than to object loudly to anything and everything President Bush does.  But he doesn't go far enough.

Before going further, we must first note that their strategy is based on two seemingly contradictory beliefs: that Al Qaeda is both invincible and that also that it doesn’t exist.

We are told that the enemy is implacable and all-powerful. Far from being dismayed at the horrific losses Al Qaeda has taken in Iraq, they are in fact encouraged.

For most movements, losing 10 to 20 warriors for each enemy soldier killed would shatter morale and cause widespread disaffection and even desertion. But for militant Islam, that’s merely evidence of its profound long-term success.

Why each jihadi we kill generates 10 more!  Each victory on the battlefield we achieve merely makes the enemy more eager to run forward and die for the glorious cause!

At the same time, we are told (often in the same paragraph) that the Al Qaeda is essentially illusory. The real threat is BusHitler’s Oil/War Machine that is using a phantom Bin Laden to seize total power.

Top secret programs that listen in on Al Qaeda phone calls and monitor their financial transactions have zero strategic benefit because the enemy is so weak. Instead of helping to undercut a deadly enemy, these programs are instead merely cleverly disguised anti-democratic inroads designed to establish a permanent right-wing regime.

Based on the remarks of its leadership, the Democrats do have a clear policy preference: Immediate American retreat from Iraq (perhaps to Okinawa) and the destruction of the US intelligence and security apparatus – particularly the detainee camp at Gitmo. Presumably the prisoners there would be handed over to Belgium or some other suitably neutral party.

This is their plan. It is a horrible plan, a plan with no electoral mandate outside of the Providence cyber cafes, and the MoveOn fever swamps, but it is a plan nonetheless.

While Wretchard points to the lopsided margins by which the detainee interrogation bill passed, it is worth recalling that clear majorities of Democrats voted against it.

The Democrats have a plan and they are sticking with it. It is called defeat.

What is more, this defeatism is gaining ground.  The Iraq war was authorized by all but a handful of Dems.  Now a clear majority cannot even agree that terrorists caught in acts of war against the United States should be interrogated rather than treated as jaywalkers or shoplifters.

There is no double-bind here.  The Dems are shifting rapidly to the far left.

The Pope is on a roll

The Posse didn't agree with those who felt the Pope was caving in to Muslim extremists over his Byzantine quotation.  Now there is further proof.

Far from being cowed, Benedict XVI has stepped up his campaign of demanding reciprocity for Christian worshippers around the world - but particularly in Arabia.

Unlike the Anglicans, this Pope believes in something firm.  Those who refuse to the toe the line are shown the door.

This new assertiveness on the part of the Church in both doctrinal and cultural matters is long overdue.

If there is hope for the West, the Catholic Church is a large part of it.  While the usual suspects in the New York Times editorial offices will click their tongues at the "intolerance" of the Church, they are also likely to start being more circumspect towards it - because strength always commands respect.

That is what gives radical Islam its power - its aura of strength.  The Church is now rousing itself, thanks to Benedict.

Looks like we picked the right time to become Catholic.

Strange doings in Belgium

If a European capital burns, and no one reports it, does it actually happen?

That is the question posed over on Gates of Vienna.  While the American news media fixates on petty bureaucratic back-stabbing over interdepartmental memos, the world continues to turn and burn.

The question of whether liberating Iraq has made the US more or less safe is revealed to be utterly irrelevant when is faced with the reality of violent uprisings in Europe's most peaceful and accomodating countries.

Belgium is naturally seeking to appease the insurgents, reportedly releasing 10 suspects in a gesture of goodwill and utter cowardice.

Of course Belgium was famously opposed to the Iraq campaign, even going so far as to threaten Donald Rumsfeld with being charged as a war criminal.

The fundamental question Democrats therefore need to answer is this:  If US involvement in Iraq is so central to the anger and radicalization of the "Muslim Street," why is Belgium being hit by riots?

The eternally hidden Jew

The Posse has largely ignored national politics but the outing of Sen. George Allen's Joooness caught our attention.

Captain Ed links to a Washington Post story that makes it clear that above all else, family history is no one else's business.

This topic is somewhat close to the Posse for, like the good Senator, we only recently learned that our own family tree had J-E-W written on one of the branches.

What is interesting is that our late grandmother denied this revelation once it was uncovered by genealogical research.

Thus the "dark secret" long held by Etty Allen (who is of the same generation) rings true for us. 

Only a few months before she died, we asked the Posse Grandmother if she knew what her grandmother's religion was (that is, the Posse's great-great-grandmother).

"Episcopalian" she deadpanned, despite the fact that the woman was born and raised in Poland. 

Lots of Anglicans in late 19th Century Poland.

The upshot of all this is that for a certain generation, Jewish ancestry was something to be hidden rather than celebrated.  Ironically, it is the "progressive" left that wishes to restore the ancient stigma of Jewishness.

And thus the complete degradation of the Democrat Party proceeds apace.

The game started a while ago

Over on Tigerhawk, there is a perceptive post suggesting that Benedict XVI's remarks were not accidental, nor was the overblown response unforseen.

We agree, and reading through the post, we were suddenly reminded of what we wrote here five months ago, over the Easter holiday:

Perhaps alone of the major denominations, Catholicism understands the need at times for military action to protect the innocent.  While the self-loathing West amuses itself with exhuming long-discredited heresies, the Church is getting down to serious business.

Pope Benedict's call for "reciprocity" in religious tolerance is a great starting point.  Though Islam projects an image of strength and fearlessness, its action speak otherwise.  Why else enforce conversion with the threat of death?  Why else ban Bibles and other faiths from the Arabian peninsula?

Pope Benedict is, to our knowledge, the first Christian leader to speak out in such plain terms.

Whilst the flaccid Anglicans and bitterly divided Methodists debate how much of their liturgy to gut, how openly to embrace moral licentiousness and turn their backs on Scripture, the Church is, in its own ponderous way, preparing for the Long War as only it can do.

Benedict has visited this ground before.  As others have noted, no Pope in recent memory - arguably ever - has had so thorough a knowledge of Islam as the current pontiff.  He has studied it for years.

There can be no question that he is attempting to force a dialogue to avoid a far more cataclysmic clash of civilizations later.

May God be with him.

The Posse goes to the Gates of Vienna

The Posse is pleased to see our earlier post on Janissaries was linked by Gates of Vienna.

We've long admired that blog and, because they have linked to us, they are now Honorary Members of the Posse.

We had forgotten the bitterly-fought Greco-Turkish War which Baron Bodissey describes in such detail.  Indeed, the entire history of the Ottoman Empire is soaked in blood.  While many historians hearken back to the "Gardens of Cordoba" or some such idyllic period, the fact remains that Muslim rule was brutal, oppressive and resulted in incredible impovrishment - and lingering bitterness.

Unlike the Habsburgs, who even in their decadence brought some rudimentary improvements into their southeastern provinces, the Turks plundered their possessions.  It was because of these depredations that their subject peoples repeatedly rose in often hopeless rebellion.

Yet as the ossified Ottoman military weakened, these uprisings began to meet with success.  First Greece, then Serbia, Romania, Montenegro and Bulgaria all threw off the Ottoman yoke.

Turkey was the "Sick Man of Europe" indeed, and if anyone should be apologizing for past injustices, it should be the learned rulers of Turkey for centuries of occupation.  The Crusades ended in 1291, but Turkish occupation of the Balkans didn't come to an end until 1913.

Thus the sins for which the Pope is condemned date to remote antiquity, while those of a far more recent vintage are simply ignored.  What is the Turkish word for "chutzpa?"

We congratulate the good Baron for this welcome (and needed) history lesson.

Hot Air clarity

Via Michelle Malkin, the Posse found this excellent if somewhat long essay that nails much of the current situation:  When Atheists and Secularists Quote Scripture.

The tendency of the irreligious to lump all faiths into one distasteful basket is nothing new.  Over the years we've repeatedly been treated to the "More people have been killed in wars of religion than for any other cause" canard.

They wish to treat all religions as the common enemy, but to do this they are forced to equate the shooting of a nun in the back with a disagreement over the location of a bike path.

We were going to go on and explore this topic, but we must pause to contemplate the absolute low nature of this crime:  shooting a nun in the back.

It is the habit here at the ranch to make absurd comparisons, to equate often minor offenses with great ones in a humorous way.  Taking the last cookie, for example, is often likened to some petty, cruel act.  "Sure, take the last cookie," one might say.  "And trip a nun while you're at it."

But here is a situation where some utterly demented, twisted and incomprehensibly evil person has committed about the lowest crime imaginable:  shooting an unarmed woman who has dedicated her life to helping others. 

That he did it from behind only makes things even worse.

Given this, the Posse would expect the Muslim Street to rise up on outrage over such a heinous act done in the name of Islam.  That no such thing has happened, that the assembled ministers of the Arab League haven't issued a joint statement of condemnation speaks volumes to the difference between contemporary Christianity and Islam.

This is why the Posse looks at secularists who lump all religions together as the being most ignorant of fools.

Given their absolute blindness in this case, we have zero confidence in what they think about anything else.

Oriana Fallaci, RIP

The Posse notes with sadness the passing of Oriana Fallaci, fearless civilizational warrior.

We own her book The Rage and the Pride and of al lthe voices of the secular left raised after 9/11, hers was the most logical but also the most passionate.

Of particular note was her ringing call for clarity and strength from the Church, specifically His Holiness Benedict XVI.

Michelle Malkin makes the clear link between her passing and the Pope's remarks we referenced below.  It is the kind of connection Fallaci would have approved.  The opening paragraphs of The Force of Reason (which we read online) were a recitation, a much-needed history lesson on Islam's war with Christianity and the West.

It catalogued how - long before the first Crusader took up the cross, Muslim raiders ravaged the coasts of Italy and France.  All of the Mediterranean basin trembled before the armies of the Prophet, from Egypt to Spain.  Only in Asia Minor did the Byzantine Empire stem the tide.

Elsewhere the Crescent was triumphant, destroying the Visigothic kingdom of Spain in only a couple of years and driving on into France.

There, Charles Martel arguably saved Christendom by defeating the Muslims at Tours.  This was in 732, centuries before the Crusades.

Fallaci made clear that the Crusades were defensive campaigns, the long-delayed response of a disorganized West riven by dynastic rivalries.  Yet this is the sin - resistance - the Islam will never let go of.

Fallaci has passed on, but her words are shining beacons.  Would that George W. Bush had her vision and eloquence.  We have just lost our Churchill.

The word of the day is "Janissary"

The Posse is pleased to add Michelle Malkin to the list of People We Can Ride With.  The ranch has needed some upkeep, and putting a link in for her has long been overdue.

In other news, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI seems to have caused a bit of a stir.  What was his crime?  Pointing out that Islam hasn't always been a religion of peace.

If nothing else, this demonstrates that satire is well and truly dead.  When the Muslim Brotherhood starts demanding apologies for offending its delicate sensibilities, we have reached a place where irony has no meaning.  (Allahpundit's headline is classic and don't miss his comprehensive list of links).

But in terms of chutzpa, this reaction takes the cake.

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkey's top Islamic cleric asked Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday to take back recent remarks he made about Islam and unleashed a string of counteraccusations against Christianity, raising tensions before the pontiff's November visit — his first to a Muslim country.

The Vatican hastened to defend the pope, saying that the pontiff wanted to promote respect and dialogue toward other religions, "obviously also toward Islam."

Ali Bardakoglu, head of Turkey's powerful Religious Affairs Directorate, said he was deeply offended by remarks about Islamic holy war made Tuesday by the pope during a visit to Germany, calling them "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate."

We now cut ahead to the really good part:

Bardakoglu said he expected an apology from the pope and said it was Christianity, not Islam, that popularized conversion by the sword, according to Turkey's state-owned Anatolia news agency.[emphasis added]

Now let's just stop for a second and consider that the fellow who is saying this is Turkish. 

But the Turks didn't originate in Turkey, did they?  When the Turks showed up, other people where there.  Greek people, mostly.

We suppose there's a revisionist history where the Turks peacefully migrated into Asia Minor and that Constantinople was taken not by siege but rather a non-violent real-estate transaction.

This must be the parallel universe that Bardakoglu inhabits, because that is the only way his next statement makes any sense at all:

"The church and the Western public, because they saw Islam as the enemy, went on crusades. They occupied Istanbul, they killed thousands of people. Orthodox Christians and Jews were killed and tortured," he said.

This is a bit much, even for the Associated Press which can't help but adding this historical note:

Istanbul, Turkey's largest city, was the capital of the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Christian empires before being conquered by Ottoman Muslims in 1453.

But it was a peaceful conquest.  A voluntary one.

The Christians "saw war against those outside the Christian world as a holy duty," Bardakoglu said. "That's why the Western clerics always have in the back of their minds a crusade mentality and the idea of holy war."

Bardakoglu said he suspected Benedict had the same mentality and asked the pope to "look in the mirror" before making remarks against Islam.

Which brings us to the Word of the Day:  Janissary.

Janissaries were non-Muslims forced into slavery and used as soldiers by the Ottoman Turks.  You know, the peaceful people who just sort of wandered into Constantinople - we mean Istanbul - without using any violence whatsoever.

Of course, since dhimmis could not carry weapons under Islamic law, they had to convert to Islam.

Let's go back to that earlier passage, shall we?

Bardakoglu said he expected an apology from the pope and said it was Christianity, not Islam, that popularized conversion by the sword, according to Turkey's state-owned Anatolia news agency.[emphasis added]

The Posse is at a loss to find out which major element of Christian military power was derived from enslaved non-Christians.  The Crusaders, for all of their alleged evils, were born Christian.

Of course, one can make too much of one isolated example (though Janissaries formed the cornerstone of Ottoman military power), so let us see if there are any others.

How about Mameluke?  Hmm, looks like they ran Egypt for a couple of centuries.

Gosh, not one but two examples of enslaved non-Muslim subject peoples forcibly converted to Islam and used as shock troopers against the Prophet's percieved enemies.

The Posse does not mean to imply that all Muslims believe in conversion by the sword.  Indeed, we are certain that quite a few believe that this is utterly unacceptable.

Our problem is that these blatant falsehoods keep being spread without a peep from knowledgable Muslims.

Had the head of Turkey's Muslim association said "We completely agree that violent conversion is wrong.  Islam used to do that but, like the Catholics, we're happy to have it over with," we might have a more generous view of Muslims of all kinds.  These aren't fringe figures, either.

But instead we get stale, pathetic lies. 

So given that allegedly mainstream, respectable Muslim leaders feel fully within their rights to lie through their teeth to the rest of the world, the Posse thinks it highly understandable for some of us to wonder if Islam itself isn't the problem.

The Gates of Vienna (which may be upgraded to full Posse member status for its outstanding historical perspective) posted an excellent summary of the second Siege of Vienna, noting that it concluded on September 11-12, 1683.

We like this site because it makes it clear that while Christianity has constantly wrung its hands about the Crusades, Islam has far more wars and conquests to its credit - indeed its expansion was not through slaves or poor preachers wandering through a vast and hostile empire, but rather conquerors who preached with one hand on the Koran and the other on a sword hilt.

We cannot accept that Christianity and Islam are morally comparable in this respect.  Christ did not raise and army and conquer Jerusalem.  He did not send his disciples out to raise legions in His name and sweep the power of Rome aside in a holy war.

He died on the Cross, and rose again in glory - and in peace.

We sincerely hope that His Holiness continues this dialogue, and forces Islam's "moderate, mainstream" leaders to confront these inalienable truths. 

The West can make peace with Islam only when it comes to terms with its own past. 

Until that happens, we are wasting our time.

UPDATE:  Big hat tip to Allahpundit, who provided the link to the Pope's remarks.  We disagree, however with the statement that the Vatican has apologized.  Clearly he wasn't attempting to bait Muslims and meant no offense.  That intent is what the Vatican has made clear.  It hasn't, however, repudiated or retracted the remarks.

A choice of perils

Much debate amongst commenters over whether the Cold War was more dangerous than the current struggle.  Vodkapundit takes sharp issue with the hated Instapundit on this and we are inclined to go with the heavy drinker (it's the Catholic in us).

The threat of radical Islam was never that massed legions would thunder across the fields of northern Virginia into Washington, or that Osama bin Laden would review his conquering legions in the streets of New York after taking the city by main force.

No, the danger here is of a loss of will by the West; that it prefers submission to resistance and that the burkha replaces the bikini.

It is already underway.  The fawning attention paid to Muslim sensibilities; the unwillingness to speak out against "honor killings," and - perhaps the most salient example - the virtual adoption of Islamic law for family matters by Canada.

A right-wing dictatorship of American hyper-patriots is nothing more than a bogeyman trotted out by unrepentent leftists who would rather face an imaginary enemy than a real one.

Unlike Communism, radical Islam has no Central Committee.  There are no factories to bomb, no borders to mass against.  It is viral, infiltrating societies and using gangster tactics to impose its desires.

Like organized crime, it can be defeated, but only if the West has the will to do it.  So far, this hasn't been in evidence.

Instead, large segments of the West seem willing to accept the power of the Godfathers and kiss his hand if it means they'll be left alone.

That is the profound and critical difference between the Cold War and the current struggle.  Whereas the Cold War was waged by nations, the War on Terror is waged by individuals.  If enough of the West opts out, it will lose.

We are reminded of the Riddle of Steel from Conan the Barbarian.  Flesh is cut by steel, but in the end what is the sword compared to the hand that wields it?

A substantial portion of the American political leadership wants to flee Iraq, free the prisoners at Gitmo, and otherwise seek terms with radical Islam. 

Bin Laden doesn't have tanks because he doesn't need them.  A few thousand motivated head-choppers may well do what millions of Soviet troops could not: convince the West to capitulate.

Unless we understand this danger, we cannot confront it - and we will be unable to defeat it.