The War - Part 1

Every once in a while, I feel like getting my blood boiling. Not irrationally angry for the hell of it, just extremely agitated over some non-sensible theory or idea masquerading as conventional wisdom, maybe even "truth". In the past, I would accomplish this by simply reading the op-ed page of the New York Times. Alas, that is no longer possible or practical. I'm not even sure where the op-ed page of the Times is even located anymore. Nowadays, it seems to start on the front page and end on the last page. Besides, putting one penny in the pocket of the likes of Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman or Frank Rich somehow feels unseemly, almost unjust. So now, when I'm in the mood to be in a bad mood, I visit the Defense and National Interest website. There is a lot of good writing and good ideas on this site, most of which centers around the thinking and theories of Col. John R. Boyd, USAF. Unfortunately, far too many of the contributors to this site treat Boyd as some mystical god who has uncovered the secrets of the universe with themselves of course as his apostles. Not all of them are like this and Boyd is not the subject of this post. This series is based more on a reaction to a post I read this morning on d-n-i concerning Afghanistan.

The post in question is here and is by William Lind. It is in many ways a reflection of the current thinking in both houses of Congress, the White House, the media, perhaps the Pentagon and more importantly, a majority of the American people. My agitation is not so much at the details of what Mr. Lind has written but in the theme and context he places the current struggle in Afghanistan. That context is looking at the "war" in Afghanistan as simply that; The Afghanistan War.

Shaping policy for Afghanistan strictly in the context of that nation only is a huge mistake. The struggle in Afghanistan is not a war unto itself. It is a theater of operations in a wider global conflict. This conflict escalated on 11 September 2001 but started long before that date. In order to understand the conflict, one needs to understand the enemy. Not the flesh and blood enemy, but the ideology that drives them to fight. I can go on and on trying to do so and will most likely continue to mention this ideology in future posts of this series. However, as an introduction to this ideology I will leave it the writings of someone far more eloquent and knowledgeable on the subject than myself.

Below are a series of links to articles written by Ibn Warraq, an apostate to Islam who has taken up the mantle of studying the inconsistencies within the Islamic religion which has led to the advent of what we call "Radical Islam". As I said, he is an apostate from Islam, a former Muslim schooled in a madrasah of Pakistan at an early age. Later, he was educated at a boarding school in England. It may be wise to read what he has to say. The below articles were written between January and March of 2009. They can be found, along with other writings at the New English Review, which an be accessed here. I've chosen these specific articles because they touch on not only the totalitarian nature of Islam but also on the nature of those apologists in the West who seem to help shape the current "conventional wisdom" of our decision makers. With that, read on:

1. Apologists of Totalitarianism: From Communism to Islam, Part I

2. Apologists of Totalitarianism: From Communism to Islam, Part II

3. Apologists of Totalitarianism: From Communism to Islam, Part III

4. Apologists of Totalitarianism: From Communism to Islam, Part IV


As I said, this will be a series of posts covering the nature of the current war and it's scope. At times it will be complicated and deep. More to follow.