The Right Reasons: The Right Reasons -> EternalHope's Blog

Update on Pakistan #3

Afghanistan: The story of Pakistan starts with Afghanistan. We can win every battle in Afghanistan, but still lose the war.

“I’m not convinced we are winning in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Navy Admiral Mike Mullen said in a sobering testimony before the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on September 10, 2008. (see post 379)

Pakistan is the Taliban's base, a safe haven from which to launch attacks against Afghanistan. Pakistan is protecting the Taliban inside Pakistan from U.S./NATO retaliation.

Pakistan is against any U.S. action inside Pakistan, and has been issuing dire threats against us if we do so.

Supply Lines: If anything, the situation in Afghanistan is more precarious than we officially admit. Afghanistan is a land locked nation. The only way to bring in supplies is through Russian controlled territory, Iranian controlled territory, or through Pakistan. Russia has canceled a short lived agreement we had with them to provide a back-up supply route, and Iran is not an option.

That means the only way to bring in supplies to Afghanistan is through Pakistan. 70% of our supplies to Afghanistan flow through the Khyber Pass in Pakistan, and the Taliban control most of the territory there. The Paki military controls little more than the road itself. (see post 310)

We cannot supply our current level of activity in Afghanistan solely by air. And even our air supply is subject to control by Pakistan. The supplies we bring in by air go through air corridors granted by Pakistan. Our transports load and unload at bases inside Pakistan, and we have no bases close enough to substitute for these bases.

The reality is that we cannot sustain our military effort in Afghanistan without bringing in supplies through Pakistan.

Pakistan is threatening to cut these supply lines if we persist in attacks against Taliban/Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. Our ability to supply our troops in Afghanistan is very much at risk.

Al Qaeda: Even worse, Pakistan is a safe haven for Al Qaeda. As of last spring, public U.S. intelligence assessments were that Al Qaeda had nearly completed plans and preparations for their next big attack in the U.S. (see post 121).

It is now October and these plans may be complete and ready to go. One of the publicly stated objectives of current U.S. military actions against Al Qaeda in Pakistan is to disrupt plans for an attack that we believe could come at any time.

Chronology of Key Recent Events

The Musharraf era was essentially ended by the elections in February, 2008, although it took until September for him to be formally removed and replaced. His replacement as President of Pakistan is the widower of Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari. The tumultuous events of this period are chronicled in detail in the TRR Pakistan thread, and in the two blogs I posted updating and summarizing events in Pakistan during this period, Pakistan Update #1, and Pakistan Update #2.

NOTE: The TRR Pakistan thread has grown so long that it will soon be replaced by a new thread. The existing thread will then be moved to the TRR Library where it will remain available.

The U.S. has been attempting to carry the war to the Taliban/Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. We have been collecting intel and launching occasional predator strikes inside Pakistan for years. The new Pakistani government made no secret of their opposition to this, but their opposition exploded into fury when we launched a “boots on the ground” special forces raid a few miles inside Pakistan in a failed attempt to capture or kill Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Both houses of Pakistan’s Parliament voted unanimously to “repel such attacks in the future with full force”. Their new President, Zardari, concurred. (see post 370).

Shortly thereafter Pakistan closed our main supply line to Afghanistan for a day as a warning. (see post 373)

The U.S. was undeterred, and launched a major air strike against the Haqqani family, a major Taliban group. It appears we got lucky and killed the top Al Qaeda commander in Afghanistan in the strike. (see post 375)

The reaction in Pakistan was extreme anger. Nawaz Sharif, currently the most popular politician in Pakistan and leader of the party that would win the most seats in Parliament if new elections were held today, called for a single issue session of Parliament devoted to pulling out of the war on terror. (see post 382)

Shortly thereafter the key corps commanders of Pakistan’s army issued orders to attack any U.S. forces that enter the country. Pakistan reported two U.S. helicopters entered Pakistan, but turned back when fired upon by Paki troops. (see post 386) The U.S. denied the incident. Other similar incidents have been reported and denied.

We are now at the point where every action the U.S. takes against the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda inside Pakistan is seen by the Pakis as an insufferable insult to Pakistan’s sovereignty. At the same time, any action taken by the Taliban/Al Qaeda and/or the Pakistani security service (the ISI) in Afghanistan or India (or anywhere else) is considered justified. The Pakistani government claims they are ready and willing to go to war with the U.S. over the “sovereignty” issue. This position is very popular with the Pakistani people.


Possible “Game Changers”

Marriott Bombing: On September 20, 2008, the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was destroyed in a suicide bombing. (see post 400) and (see post 401) The hotel was the most prominent American business in Pakistan, and located in what was supposed to be a highly secure part of Pakistan’s capital. Over 50 people were killed and 250 injured. It would have been much worse if the Marriott’s guards had allowed the truck loaded with the bomb to get closer to the hotel.

The bombing shocked Pakistan. It is widely referred to within Pakistan as “Pakistan’s 9-11”. Typical statements from Politicians in Pakistan were along the lines of, “This is Pakistan’s war now.”

Zardari’s Response: President Zardari said in nationally televised remarks, “We will save this country.” High officials promised to launch a major new military operation against the Taliban within 3 days. (As of this writing 11 days later, no attack has come, and few think one is coming.)

Part of Zardari’s response was to outline a three point strategy for defeating the Taliban:
. 1. A truce to militants who give up fighting.
. 2. Funding for development projects in tribal areas.
. 3. Use of force only as a last resort against those who attack security forces.

Zardari’s plan is almost the same as the plan the coalition government has been trying to get the Taliban to accept since the new government came to power in February 2008.

The most significant part of Zardari’s plan is the promise to use force only if the Taliban use force against Pakistan's security forces first. The government will not even use force to protect civilians living in Taliban controlled areas.

In a practical sense, this means the government is willing to cede complete control to the Taliban in Taliban controlled areas, and is dropping all pretext of trying to stop attacks outside of Pakistan by groups based inside Pakistan. They are desperate to get the Taliban to stop attacking Pakistan, and will let them do whatever they want if they will just stop attacking targets inside Pakistan.

At the same time, Pakistan is vociferously threatening the U.S. if we do not stop our own attacks against the Taliban/Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. The practical effect is that Pakistan is offering the Taliban/Al Qaeda a big bonus: State protection. That is so close to state sponsored terrorism as to be essentially the same thing. Since Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, is known to be actively helping the terrorists, there is almost no distinction left.

Pakistan is offering everything they can possibly offer (money, safe haven, state protection) in exchange for simply stopping attacks on Pakistan's security forces. IN SPITE OF ALL THIS, the Taliban/Al Qaeda do not seem inclined to accept Pakistan's offer.

The logical conclusion is that the Taliban/Al Qaeda seek control of Pakistan itself. This is something the current government is not willing to offer.

Bajaur Military Offensive: The Pakistani military began an offensive in Bajaur over the summer. By September the military had lost heart and offered the Taliban a truce for the month of Ramadan. The Taliban refused. (see post 358) and (see post 359)

Something then prompted the Pakistani military to step up the level of this offensive, possibly as a response to pressure from the U.S. It has now become such a high profile operation that the Pakistani military is saying victory in Bajaur will “break the back of the Taliban”. The general in charge has publicly predicted victory within two months.

This has now turned into a stand up battle. Given Pakistan’s vastly superior firepower, they should be able to win a battle like this easily. However, the Pakistanis are having much more trouble than they expected.

“Pakistan’s army has never faced this level of resistance since it launched operations in the tribal areas (in 2003),” a senior military official told AFP. “Every day fighter jets are used, every day Cobras are used, yet we cannot break their strongholds.” (see post 449).

The U.S. view of the situation is that Taliban casualties have been significantly overstated, and that the battle is not going as well as the Pakis claim.

Worse, the law of unintended consequences may now apply. By inflating the expected benefits of victory, and confidently promising that victory, the Pakistani military has raised the stakes dramatically. At this point Pakistan cannot afford a defeat without risking severe consequences.

Unfortunately, even if they eventually beat the Taliban in Bajaur, Pakistan is unlikely to reap the promised benefits. Bajaur is surrounded by other Taliban controlled provinces, and would be certain to fall back under Taliban control unless the military stationed a sizable force there permanently. The military is quite unlikely to do so.

All the emphasis on Bajaur is most likely misplaced anyway. The Taliban’s primary base is in South Waziristan, not Bajaur.

High Stakes Poker

Pakistan has become quite militant in its attempts to shelter the terrorists living in their midst from U.S. attacks. Essentially, Pakistan is threatening war with the U.S. if we continue to take the war to the enemy sheltering inside Pakistan.

Pakistan's strategy clearly includes:

1. Allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda free reign to do as they please OUTSIDE Pakistan.

2. Use the Paki military to protect these vermin from the U.S. if we try to take the war to their safe havens inside Pakistan.

3. Allow the U.S. to continue to supply our troops in Afghanistan, in exchange for the many billions we are pouring into Pakistan.

In other words, Pakistan wants to have it both ways. It's a great strategy if it works. The terrorist attacks inside Pakistan would stop. The U.S. would continue to pour billions into Pakistan (and the pockets of its politicians). And the safe havens provided to the Taliban would guarantee the war in Afghanistan would drag on indefinitely. The gravy train would never stop. From Pakistan's perspective, what's not to like?

What should the U.S. do?

If we allow Pakistan to shelter the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the war in Afghanistan will be severely compromised. Worse, we can count on new attacks by Al Qaeda against our homeland.

The attacks on our homeland will have been planned from safe havens in Pakistan. They are likely to be worse than 9-11, quite possibly including weapons of mass destruction. We will not tolerate this, and we are certain to go after the perps inside Pakistan if we are attacked. As it stands now, this would most likely mean war between the U.S. and Pakistan.

In other words, the current situation in Pakistan hurts us in the short term, and will quite likely lead to war between the U.S. and Pakistan in the long term.

From our perspective, it seems pretty simple: Pakistan should cooperate with us to put a stop to it now. The alternative is to go to war with Pakistan after our homeland has been hit with a devastating attack.

How does Pakistan see it?

Pakistan thinks they have the winning hand in this game of high stakes poker.

1. They can cut off our supply lines to Afghanistan.

If Pakistan did so we would have to withdraw from Afghanistan in defeat.

2. If they cut off our supply lines we cannot do anything about it unless we are willing to launch a military attack on a scale equivalent to Iraq, or even larger.

Pakistan does not think we have the stomach for this. In other words, they think they can get away with an action that would lead to our forced withdrawal from Afghanistan, and we will do nothing about it.

3. Pakistan's people are virulently anti-American.

One reason they think we would do nothing is that Pakistan has 170 million people, almost all of whom hate the U.S. Taking over Pakistan would involve forceful occupation of a large and hostile population. Our troubles in Iraq would pale in comparison.

4. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Another reason Pakistan feels we would not dare take them on is their nuclear weapons. They also have delivery systems for these weapons that give them the ability to hit all of India, and perhaps even take out a U.S. carrier group. They believe we would not dare to take them on because of this.

We have two very high cards:

1. We can wipe out much of their military capability from the air, without actually putting boots on the ground.

We can probably, but not with certainty, destroy their nuclear weapons stockpile.
If we failed to destroy their nukes, and they used one, we would bomb them back to the stone age.

2. We can completely destroy their economy, simply by blockading their coast.

The use of these cards depends on how the U.S. Presidential elections come out.

Obama would not play either of these cards under any circumstances. Pakistan (and the whole world) knows it.

But if Pakistan forced the U.S. to abandon Afghanistan, John McCain just might.

We have two lesser cards that would be politically easier for us to play:

1. No more aid money for Pakistan.

This might be at least partially effective. No more diversion of these funds into corrupt pockets in Pakistan.

2. Economic sanctions.

Sanctions would not hurt them much (Europe would not go along), but it would have at least a small effect.

All in all, neither of these cards is high enough to give us the winning hand if Pakistan decides to go “all in”.

Conclusion

All in all, it's easy to see how Pakistan could think they have the winning hand.

But they don’t.

IF Pakistan is foolish enough to play this hand, and the U.S. backs down, an awful day of reckoning will surely come.

Al Qaeda is alive and well in Pakistan. We don’t know when, but they WILL attack the U.S. homeland again. The next attack on our homeland by Al Qaeda will be much worse than 9-11.

We WILL come after them, big time, when it happens. We WILL do whatever it takes to Pakistan at the same time. Count on it.

President Bush knew how to play this hand of poker, and President Musharraf knew enough not to call his bluff. It appears President Zardari also knows not to call his bluff. Because President Bush is not bluffing.

A President McCain would know how to play this hand just as well as President Bush has.

On the other hand, a President Obama should not even try to play this hand. If he did, everyone in the world would know he was bluffing.

If we are unfortunate enough to elect Obama, we would still respond with overwhelming force. Eventually. The most Pakistan could hope for is a delay until we elect a new President. Neville Chamberlain preceded Winston Churchill. Unfortunately, the Pakis may not know this.

In other words, if Pakistan plays these cards they will have set the stage for their own destruction even if they win the first round. But if Obama is President, Pakistan may not know this.

Perceived weakness invites aggression.


FINAL NOTE: Everything in this update is supported by information in the TRR Pakistan thread. Some may object to the way I have connected the dots, and the conclusions I have drawn. All comments are welcome, even if you disagree vehemently. If you disagree, please let me know why. Thanks!

Towards a Clash of Civilizations: Update on Pakistan

Much has happened in Pakistan since my last blog on Pakistan. All of the information in this update is chronicled in the TRR Pakistan thread.

The trends discussed in my original blog have continued at what seems to be an accelerating pace. Some new information has emerged as well. Enough has happened that an updated summary is called for.

NOTE: I have listed post numbers from the TRR Pakistan thread as an aid to those who wish to verify my interpretation of the data, or would simply like more information. In most cases more information is available than just the posts I cited. Some topics have so many posts, and the information is so widely available elsewhere as well, that I did not list all of the relevant post numbers.

Appeasement of the Taliban: Pakistan has continued to negotiate and sign agreements with Taliban militants, pretty much regardless of what the Taliban do. Almost all captured Taliban have been released, Pakistan has paid ransom and promised to provide financial “aid” for development, Shari law has been enacted in many areas, withdrawal of troops has been promised (and already implemented in many areas), and a blind eye is being turned to any and all Taliban activity in Afghanistan.

See: Widely available info, plus many posts (for example, post 186).

For an example of the general outline of the agreements being signed, see post 158.

Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan are Way Up: The Taliban’s safe haven in Pakistan is already paying dividends in Afghanistan for the Taliban. Attacks are way up, and the U.S. and our allies are increasingly vocal about the problem. We and Afghanistan are threatening hot pursuit, and Pakistan is threatening unspecified retaliation if we do. Some Paki politicians are threatening to carry that retaliation all the way to war.

See: Widely available info. For info on the latest Paki threats if we operate on their soil, see posts 257 and 259.

Peshawar: The Taliban have gained control of the countryside around Peshawar, and roam Peshawar unimpeded at night. The Paki government made a fake show of force to push the Taliban back, which has now ended with no actual change in the situation on the ground.

See: Posts 246 and 248.

The leader of what is now the most popular party in the country, Nawaz Sharif, has sided with the Taliban in the Peshawar situation.

See: Post 249.

GAO Assessment of the Terrorist Threat from Groups in Pakistan: The GAO has issued an official report saying an Al Qaeda attack originating from safe havens in Pakistan is likely and we have no plan to stop it. The GAO explicitly stated that the last elements are now being put into place.

See: Posts 120 and 121.

Threat to Assassinate President Bush: The Taliban claim they have fully developed plans to assassinate President Bush, with the people to do so already in place. They made a similar claim about Karzai, AFTER the first attempt on Karzai’s life had failed.

See: Post 222.

More Terrorists are Headed for Pakistan: Several posts and other media have noted that Pakistan has now become a bigger draw than Iraq for new Al Qaeda recruits, and training is much more secure. Pakistan has also taken explicit steps that will increase the terrorist presence in Pakistan. Apparently, Pakistan is now allowing unrestricted foreign money into Pakistan to support Pakistan’s radical Madrassas, and is allowing foreign “students” to study at them.

These so called schools teach the Koran and how to use weapons, and very little else. They were a major reason for the rise of the Taliban. After 9-11 Musharraf tried to shut them down (probably at U.S. urging).

See: Post 200.

Major Adverse Shift in Public Opinion: Public opinion in Pakistan has shifted markedly against the U.S. We are heavily disliked by all sides.

See: This was discussed/debated extensively in posts 150-157. It was addressed conclusively by new polls shown in post 219. Popular opinion in Pakistan is heavily against the U.S.

Control of the ISI: Control of the ISI (the Paki intelligence service) has been taken away from Musharraf and placed under the direct control of the new Prime Minister. This is an especially important point in light of the ISI's role attacking Afghanistan and India.

See: Post 174.

The ISI is Actively Attacking Afghanistan and India: The ISI is implicated in several MAJOR attacks in Afghanistan and one in India, with both Afghanistan and India claiming they have proof of acts of war perpetrated by the ISI against their nations. Examples:
1. An attempt to assassinate Karzai. See post 169.
2. A gigantic jail break in Kandahar. See post 215.
3. A large bombing in Jaipur, India. See post 181.
4. A large bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. See posts 250 and 261.

The attack on India’s embassy in Afghanistan seems to have been nearly the last straw for India. Their National Security Advisor has gone public with the claim that India has proof that Pakistan’s ISI was behind the attack, and that India should retaliate in kind.

The Indian position is that Pakistan should eliminate the ISI. This will not happen, and what happens next is not clear. India claims to have information that more attacks are planned by the ISI.

See: Post 261.

Sale of Nuclear Secrets: Pakistan refuses to cooperate in international investigations into the sale of Pakistan’s nuclear secrets, including sale to Iran. The secrets sold include advanced designs that could be used to create small warheads suitable for use on Iran’s missiles.

See: Widely available info and multiple posts.

Strengthened Ties with China: Pakistan and China have moved much closer.

See post 118.

Nuclear Weapons and Advanced Delivery Capability: Pakistan successfully tested a terrain following cruise missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. It would be very hard to stop once launched, and gives Pakistan greatly extended nuclear range against both India and U.S. ships at sea. Pakistan appears to have terminated our support helping secure their nuclear weapons.

See post 175, successful test of a terrain following cruise missile.
See post 122, terminated our help safeguarding nukes.

Economy in Shambles: Pakistan’s economy is in shambles and getting worse. Availability of gasoline, electricity, and food is uncertain, and inflation is rampant.

See posts 185, 252 and 254 (plus many others scattered throughout the thread).

Government in Shambles: The new coalition government is in shambles. The top objective of the new coalition was to reinstate the judges Musharraf sacked within 30 days of taking office, followed by sacking Musharraf himself. Neither of these has happened.

Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) is now the most popular political party in Pakistan. Sharif’s party won the second most seats in the last elections, but his party would easily win the most if elections were held today. He has positioned himself as the most anti-American of the national politicians, and his popularity has skyrocketed. He is far and away the most popular politician in Pakistan today. Sharif has set July 31st as the date he will pull his party out of the coalition if the judges are not reinstated by then.

See: Post 219 and 249, plus various places throughout the TRR Pakistan thread.

The Military: The new coalition cut the military’s budget and has tried to make it harder for the military to take over the government. It is not clear if these moves would be effective if the army decided to step back in, but neither is it clear where the army stands. For instance, the new top general has publicly distanced himself from Musharraf, and said Musharraf should go.

Even if the top generals gave the order, it is not clear that all the troops would be willing to take up arms against fellow Muslims. Many of them believe they would not go to their version of heaven if they died in combat against a fellow Muslim.

See: Post 140.

Because the military plays such a major potential role, some quotes from Post 140 may be worthwhile:

”There is evidence that some soldiers have been so influenced by religiosity as to have doubts about their being regarded as Shaheed in the event of being killed in conflict with fellow Muslims who are held (by extremist clerics) to be engaged in fighting against infidels,” Cloughly writes. “This has resulted in incidents of refusal to take part in operations in the tribal areas, which indicate a serious malaise.”

“Statements [by terrorists captured during an army operation] and [other sources] leads to one inevitable conclusion, that deep in their hearts . . . [some of the] troops have sympathies for AQ/Taliban who, in their perception are fighting a holy war against non-Muslims now occupying Afghanistan. This feeling has got further impetus and strength because of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and a partisan approach towards the Palestinian issue. Print and electronic media, anti-US sentiments among the general public, bitter criticism by opposition leaders of our government’s policy regarding Afghanistan [and] support to the Coalition (US) forces in combating terrorism . . . and the anti-Islam propaganda by the west, have further reinforced the perception of the common man that Muslims all over the world are being victimized. These feelings have obviously . . . penetrated the rank and file of the Army despite our best efforts that whatever we are doing is in the overall best interests of the country.”

Military May Side with the Taliban Anyway: Our own intelligence services are not sure which side the Paki military is on. Democrat Senator Carl Levin let slip some info he probably should have kept quiet.

Quoted from post 192:
“Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters after a three-day trip to the region that U.S. officials have little confidence that segments of the Pakistan government, particularly its army, are working actively to stop the flow of Taliban fighters and weapons into Afghanistan. In some cases, these groups might even be providing support to terrorists, he said.”

A Rand Corporation study reached the same conclusion. They give multiple examples of explicit and substantial aid given to the Taliban in Afghanistan by both the ISI and the Pakistani army.

See: Post 206.

Obama: Obama has changed his tune towards both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He now insists he will “finish” the war in Afghanistan, and “rethink” the way we deal with Pakistan. His new position can easily be interpreted as the same cut and run position he has in Iraq, but it has received almost no press coverage in the U.S.

See posts 255 and 258.

Possible Collapse of Pakistan: Inflation is running rampant, fuel, electricity, and food are in short supply, the Taliban are unchecked and seemingly unstoppable, and the political alliance forged in the last election has already come apart.

Articles are appearing in the Pakistani press about possible collapse of Pakistan as a nation.

See: Posts 247 and 253.

An outstanding summary of the situation in Pakistan and Pakistan’s influence on the situation in Afghanistan as of June 10th can be found in the Asia Times. This article is headlined “Pakistan at the Mercy of Marching Lawyers”, but it is really about the overall situation.

See: Post 206.

Stratfor has concluded that, “Pakistan appears to be spinning out of control and it is difficult to say with any clarity what will happen in another year, other than that there does not appear to be much out there to counter the current trend toward anarchy, even if the military steps in.”

See: Post 251.

Conclusion: The Stratfor conclusion quoted above pretty much says it all. Pakistan will not collapse immediately, but the die seems to have been cast.

What happens AFTER the collapse will be critical.

If Pakistan goes the way of so many other failed nation states, a dictator will eventually take control. In Pakistan’s case it may be split into at least two nations when that happens, one of which would be under Taliban control (I’m assuming Baitullah Mehsud will eventually consolidate his control of the Taliban). Alternatively, Pakistan may re-emerge as a single state under one person’s control. If it remains as a single nation, it seems the military is a spent force and one of the existing generals would not emerge on top. Instead, I suspect the Taliban is the strongest contender.

Regardless, the new nation/nations will have access to nuclear weapons and sophisticated means to deliver them. It is almost certain to be Islamofascist in nature, and to consider the U.S. an enemy.

If that were all, the situation would be cause for substantial concern. But it is certain that attacks against the United States homeland are being planned by Al Qaeda from safe havens inside Pakistan, and the threat is growing. A public GAO report says they are nearly ready to launch a major attack.

At a minimum, the current Pakistani government is providing protection to these terrorists, and may very well be complicit in much more (the ISI is an active enemy, and it is under the new PM's control). Under these conditions, a major attack on the U.S. homeland, planned from Pakistan, could easily lead to war.

We tend to focus on ourselves when assessing things like this, but India is threatened and under attack as well. War, if it comes, could involve both countries.

Towards a Clash of Civilizations: History Happens

Historians of the future will look at this week's events as a defining moment. Sometimes key events in history slip by, unnoticed, when history happens. It just did.

As I wrote in my blog yesterday, Israel is faced with a momentous decision with potential life or death consequences for the modern nation of Israel. The nation of Israel has faced life or death crisis before, but this one may be the most severe.

Iran is ruled by fanatics who cannot be deterred by the threat of their own destruction. According to a new UN estimate, it appears Iran may be as little as six months away from having their own nuclear weapons. (TRR thread "Nuclear Hourglass") They have threatened to obliterate Israel regardless of the consequences to Iran (and to the entire Muslim world, for that matter), and believe that simply making the attempt may be enough to bring back the Mahdi. In other words, they truly believe they are doing their God's will by killing millions of people.

If Israel must fight a war with Iran, they need a war leader (Netanyahu?). Instead, they have Ehud Olmert, literally the world's weakest appeaser. Incredibly, Ehud is on public record as saying, "We are tired of winning." His wife and children are extremely liberal, "peace at any cost" activists. Olmert and his family make Obama look almost moderate. The idea that Olmert could possibly be the leader of Israel in a war with Iran is appalling. The idea that Ehud Olmert would ever authorize a pre-emptive attack on Iran, regardless of the existential threat Iran poses to Israel's very existence, is nearly inconceivable.

The hour is late, and Israel has only three remaining choices:
1. Do nothing.
2. Launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran BEFORE Iran gains the ability to obliterate Israel, and while President Bush is still President.
3. Wait until the last possible moment to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran, which risks the possibility that Barack Obama will be President of the United States at the time.

These three options were discussed in my blog yesterday. At the time, it appeared that Israel was going to remove Olmert, opening the door to a war time leader. But Olmert was able to negotiate a deal last night that eliminates that possibility. (He may be a corrupt weakling, but he is certainly quite a politician.)

This week was Israel's last chance to install a government capable of taking pro-active action against Iran before President Bush leaves office. Beginning the process to change the government was needed NOW if the new government was to have time to do anything before President Bush leaves office. Since another opportunity to replace Olmert is unlikely to occur soon, this was the last chance. Time has now run out.

By keeping Olmert in power, Israel has made its decision. The answer: Do nothing.

So now we know: Israel will wait until Iran strikes first.

Israel will be attacked at a time of Iran's choosing, in a way that Iran considers likely to result in an outcome satisfactory to Iran. Israel will gamble that Barack Obama will either not be elected, or will support Israel if he is. Israel will gamble that the U.S. can and will supply equipment and anti-missile technology sufficient to stop the incoming missiles, that Israel's security services will be able to block the smuggling of WMDs into Israel, that their army can stop Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria, all at once, that the other Muslim nations will not join in the fight against Israel, or that Israel can beat the lot of them if they do, etc. It is a "bet your life" gamble that leaves the initiative with the enemy.

It is easy to miss defining moments like what we have just seen because nothing momentous seems to have happened. Yet just as the seeds of WWII were sown by appeasement long before Germany invaded France, the seeds of the gathering storm are being sown now. We have just witnessed a defining moment in the history of the modern nation of Israel, and a defining moment leading the whole world Towards a Clash of Civilizations.

The moment has come and gone. The key step needed to stop Iran was not taken. Israel has decided, even though most people did not notice a decision was even being made.

The next step is now up to Iran. The attack, when it comes, will be so devastating that Iran will expect to obliterate Israel. Let's hope and pray they do not succeed.

The die is now cast. History happens.

Towards a Clash of Civilizations: Israel vs. Iran

We usually do not know the defining moments in history until after they are past. This time is different. As all those “with eyes to see” already know: We stand at the threshold of a defining moment in history.

The U.S. Election: The choice between Barack Obama and John McCain could not be more stark. One represents a catastrophic loss of national will, the other represents a determination to fight on. This alone would be enough to make this a defining moment.

(I dislike almost everything about John McCain, but I admire his gritty determination to fight on, come hell or high water.)

Israel: The impending U.S. election is more than just a possible strategic defeat for the U.S.

Israel, more than any other nation including the United States, has the most at stake. Iran is sworn to destroy Israel, and it is certain to eventually gain the means to do so unless something is done to stop them first. Even more so than the U.S., Israel faces a defining moment. At this late stage, even choosing to do nothing is a momentous decision.

What are Israel's Options?

Sanctions? It is abundantly clear that sanctions will not stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Wait/Hope for Pre-emptive U.S. Action? It seems highly unlikely that President Bush has enough political support to initiate a pre-emptive strike against Iran. It seems even more clear that a President Obama would not be willing to do so, even if he had the political clout.

Talk? Obama’s vaunted “talk” with Iran is the least likely to work of all.

Pre-emptive Action by Israel? Iran is very far away, and the targets are very difficult to destroy.

The Obama Factor. Whatever decision Israel makes must consider the possibility that the U.S. will elect Barack Obama. Because election of Obama could easily change the nature and reliability of U.S. support for Israel, Israel faces a critical decision in the next six months. The decision could easily mean the difference between life and death for the modern nation of Israel.

If Israel does nothing, Iran is certain to eventually gain the ability to destroy Israel. Israel’s ability to retaliate in kind seems unlikely to deter the maniacs who rule Iran.

That means Israel only has three basic choices:

Israel will choose the option offering the greatest chance of national survival. None of the options are good. Ultimately, the key decision factor will be Israel’s assessment of Obama, and how likely they think it is that he will be elected.

What Will Israel Do?

Until very recently I was nearly certain Israel would choose to do nothing. Iran is so far from Israel that striking Iran is very difficult at best. Just getting to Iran requires overflight of Muslim nations (including Iraq) that would be unlikely to give approval to any Israeli military aircraft. And even if Israel can deliver a strike, the Iranians have designed their nuclear facilities to be nearly impossible to destroy from the air. Follow-up attacks are almost certain to be needed, and they will be even more difficult to deliver than the initial surprise attack.

Any attack on Iran is certain to lead to direct retaliation against Israel by Iran (long range missiles), and by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel’s borders. If Iran can fan the flames of war enough, other nations may jump in as well, particularly Syria. Use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction against the Israeli civilian population is likely, even if Iran does not yet have nukes at the time of the strike.

The most important factor of all may be that Israel is led by one of the weakest appeasers on earth, Ehud Olmert. As long as he is leading Israel, it is hard to see Israel taking any effective action. Hence the most likely scenario has been that Israel will choose to do nothing until the Iranian attack actually comes.

This may be about to change.

Most importantly, President Bush is still strong enough politically to support an Israeli initiated operation. If Iran chooses to draw the U.S. into their response, as seems likely, President Bush will be able to retaliate strongly.

Israel may be too far away to inflict the necessary damage on Iran alone. But if the U.S. is drawn into the fight Iran can be beaten. Since President Bush does not have the political support to initiate action on his own, the ONLY way the U.S. can take the decisive action needed against Iran may be for Israel to take action first.

A pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran is a desperate move. But the motto of many Israelis is still, "Never again." If Israel is going down, these people intend to go down fighting. The political weakness of President Bush and the danger of a possible President Obama may mean Israel must choose to take action on its own within the next few months, or choose to wait for an Iranian first strike. Waiting for Iran to strike first may be national suicide.

If Israel concludes, as many would, that President Obama could not be counted on to help them in a time of peril, then they really have no choice. It is easy to see how the Israelis could conclude their only option is to launch a pre-emptive strike before President Bush leaves office. It would be very high risk, but high risk is better than certain destruction.

As of this writing, new elections in Israel seem almost certain, with November as a likely date. If Obama wins the U.S. election, this would leave little time before Obama takes power. However, if the rumors of Olmert resigning before then prove to be true, then an Israeli move under new leadership could occur before then. Since it will take some time for a new government to take control even if Olmert resigns, I would not expect to see any action immediately under any circumstances. But it certainly seems possible that by some time in September Israel could be in position to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

If Israel attacks Iran, it seems certain that part of Iran’s retaliation will include terrorist attacks here in the United States. It also seems certain that if Iran has weapons of mass destruction pre-positioned in the United States, they will use them. If Israel attacks Iran, WE could be in for a very rough ride as well.

Towards “A Clash of Civilizations”: Pakistan

To cut to the chase: We have suffered a major set-back in Pakistan. Pakistan has lost the will to fight, and is seeking an accommodation with the Islamofascists in its midst.

The full scope of the set-back has not yet been determined, and the extent of the set-back depends on events that have not yet occurred. It is quite possible that “set-back” is too mild a word.

This story has not made it to the MSM. They are asleep, as usual. However, everything I am about to summarize here is fully documented in the TRR Pakistan thread. The thread is here:
TRR Pakistan Thread

The TRR Pakistan thread has a large collection of “dots”. This blog connects those dots.

What Has Happened: Pakistan has a new coalition government. This new government has made it a high priority to seek an accommodation with the Islamofascists among them, in exchange for ending terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.

An abbreviated chronology of how all this happened is in the Pakistan thread linked above.

The Pakistani Government

The Pakistani government has made it abundantly clear that they intend to take no steps against Islamofascist groups operating inside Pakistan (explicitly including the Taliban and Al Qaida) as long as these groups leave Pakistan alone. The government continues to say they oppose terrorism conducted outside their borders, which is the position they have to take if they wish to avoid open war.

Pakistan has not taken the final step of open state sponsorship of terrorism, and the current government seems unlikely to do so.

However, if Pakistan refuses to do anything about terrorist groups operating inside Pakistan, it is irrelevant that they “oppose” terrorism conducted by Pakistani groups outside the borders of Pakistan. By providing these groups with a safe place from which to operate Pakistan has provided implicit support as well.

It is certain that Pakistan’s military will no longer attempt to defeat the Islamofascists operating inside Pakistan. They tried under Musharraf, but they failed. The new government has made it absolutely clear that these attempts are over.

Likewise, the new government has made it a priority to put a stop to missile and other attacks inside Pakistan. This will end our ability to strike against Taliban and/or Al Qaida targets inside Pakistan. We launched a much publicized flurry of strikes just prior to formation of the new government, but the strikes have now stopped.

CIA Assessment

The head of our CIA has recently stated, publicly, that Al Qaida and the Taliban have both already succeeded in establishing safe havens inside Pakistan, and that there is very little we can do about it. Now that the government of Pakistan has thrown in the towel, these safe havens are certain to grow.

Improved safe haven in Pakistan means the Taliban will be more effective against our troops in Afghanistan. We faced a similar situation in Vietnam. We are better at this kind of fighting than we were then, but a safe haven for the enemy to run to is something we may not be willing to accept. If Pakistan attempted to enforce their borders against us, the chance for direct conflict with Pakistan would be high.

Al Qaida has already established safe haven in Pakistan, and the CIA says they are currently actively training “western looking” terrorists there for the next big attack against our homeland. Pakistan could not stop this even before they gave up the fight, and they certainly cannot stop it now.

All that can be said with certainty is that Al Qaida’s ability to operate with impunity within Pakistan will improve still more, and that they will be operating inside a country with a sophisticated air defense system and nuclear weapons.

It was not discussed in the recent public statements by the Director of the CIA, but our intelligence capabilities in Pakistan may also be about to be degraded. A recent bombing in a previously secure part of Pakistan killed or wounded a number of FBI agents, including the person reputed to be the top FBI agent in Pakistan.

Another recent incident was the murder of two plain clothes Pakistani counter terrorism agents in broad daylight, while walking down the street. It was clearly a planned hit, and no one has been caught.

These attacks are examples of how the government of Pakistan can change their entire position on terrorism even without formally changing a thing. Nothing official need be announced, but our ability to gather intelligence inside Pakistan would be drastically degraded.

It is certain that Pakistan would not cooperate with our intelligence needs if they felt there was a chance that they might find themselves at war with the U.S. It is easy to see how Pakistan may conclude this is a possibility.

What support from Pakistan is still possible?

Perhaps Pakistan will continue to allow our war planes to overfly Pakistani air space on their way to Afghanistan. And perhaps they will continue to allow us secure supply lines to Afghanistan by land through Pakistan.

If we are lucky, Pakistan might continue to share selected intelligence with us. They may even turn a blind eye towards some of our intelligence operations. Perhaps they will conclude it is not in their best interest to allow the next 9-11 to be openly planned and launched from inside Pakistan.

As the Taliban and Al Qaida gains more strength within Pakistan, it will become increasingly difficult for Pakistan to provide these kinds of support. They can’t have it both ways.

Possible Military Intervention (a coup)

A military coup might or might not restore some of Pakistan’s resolve to resist Islamofascism.

Given the recent elections and the mood of the country, a military coup is certainly not in the immediate future. It will only come, if it comes at all, when the nation has fallen into dire straights and the military believes it would be seen as saving the nation once again from its corrupt politicians.

However, things are changing rapidly with the military as well. A military coup today might not result in anything favorable to the U.S. A high level military delegation from China has just concluded important new agreements with Pakistan. Pakistan went to great lengths to show support for all Chinese positions, including unification of Taiwan and the suppression of Tibet. In return, the Chinese emphasized strengthening their “Strategic Partnership” with Pakistan.

China has just completed the first of four frigates they are building for Pakistan, with one of the remaining three frigates planned to be built in Pakistan to help with the transfer of technology. Another in a series of joint naval exercises is planned soon.

Musharraf’s attempt to subdue the tribal areas failed, and the military is unlikely to try again even if they retake power in a coup. Furthermore, the junior officers and the enlisted troops are reputed to be more favorably disposed towards Bin Laden than the senior leadership, and this would raise further questions.

All things considered, the Pakistani military cannot be considered a reliable source of support for the U.S. It might even be the opposite.

Worst Case Scenario

The worst case scenario is just that: A scenario. It is not guaranteed to happen.

The worst case scenario is extremely serious:

• Afghanistan: Supply lines are critical. We could be forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. If we lose our supply lines through Pakistan we will be dependent on Russia. If Russia withdrew its permission for our supply lines we could easily be forced to withdraw from Afghanistan.
  
• A Possible Major U.S. Defeat. Withdrawal from Afghanistan would be rightly seen as a major U.S. defeat. The geopolitical consequences would be enormous.
  
• War with Pakistan. Ultimately, if devastating attacks against the U.S. homeland are launched by people trained at secure Islamofascist bases inside Pakistan, it could lead to war between the U.S. and Pakistan.

1. Afghanistan: Supply Lines are Critical

We cannot supply Afghanistan with everything needed if we do not have secure lines of supply. Without secure supply lines, we could even find ourselves forced to withdraw.

Supply cannot be done solely by air. Since Afghanistan is completely land locked, we have been bringing in supplies through Pakistan. We now have agreement with Russia for an alternative supply route.

Loss of the secure supply lines through Pakistan that we have been relying on for Afghanistan is quite possible. We were already sent a warning that this is coming when a convoy of more than 50 fuel tankers were blown up, inside Pakistan, with minimal casualties. It had to be an inside job. This was more than just an attack. It sent a message.

The only other possible land line to supply Afghanistan with is from the north. This land line is long, expensive, difficult to use in the winter, runs through a large amount of Islamic country, and must cross territory controlled by Russia. In a highly significant breakthrough at the just concluded NATO summit, Russia has agreed to allow us to move supplies through their territory, thus opening up this line of supply.

The down side, of course, to relying on supplies brought in through this route is that we become dependent on the continued good will of Russia if we wish to sustain our operations in Afghanistan.

2. A Possible Major U.S. Defeat

Withdrawal from Afghanistan would rightly be seen as a major U.S. defeat. Defeat in Afghanistan would be a clear victory by Al Qaida against the United States. Such a victory in Afghanistan would most certainly lead to immense prestige and a rejuvenated Al Qaida. This strengthened Al Qaida would be operating with more safety than ever before, and from within a nation with an air defense system and nuclear weapons.

3. Possible War with Pakistan

Al Qaida is already safe inside Pakistan, especially if we are no longer able to launch strikes against them. Soon they are likely to be able to operate openly, much as they did in Afghanistan. When Al Qaida eventually launches their next attack against our homeland (and they will), we will be unable to strike back without risking war with Pakistan.

Hence it is easy to see how the current turn of events could eventually lead to war between the U.S. and Pakistan. Even if the worst case scenario actually happens, it will take years to unfold. Hopefully it will not deteriorate that far, but the unequivocal conclusion has to be that we have suffered at least a serious set-back in Pakistan. If a way cannot be found to salvage the situation, we stand on the threshold of a major strategic defeat.

The Perfect Storm

Edited to add: Rev Wright and Obama's response has changed my view on this. I've added a LOT of further comments.

Some of you may remember the movie, “The Perfect Storm”, or perhaps the book of the same name. The storm was real. Three storms came together in the North Atlantic to create a gigantic storm, much bigger than any of the storms individually, at the place they met. The weather man in the movie referred to it in awe as the Perfect Storm.

In my opinion, we face a similar Perfect Storm in political terms today. The dems have a charismatic candidate leading a religious revival in their godless church. He has arrived at a perfectly timed low point in our history. Opposing him is the weakest candidate we could have possibly fielded.

Storm #1, A Religious Revival in a Godless Church: The dems have a charismatic candidate leading a religious revival in a godless church.

Barack Obama is no mere politician arguing over who has the best ideas. He is offering to fix our broken souls. Those who know no other salvation are enthralled. The liberal media would call this chilling if they were on the other side.

Thus far, no antidote to the Senator’s message of salvation has been found. The Clinton political machine has been beaten soundly in 11 straight states, and stands on the brink of defeat even in its “firewall” states of Texas and Ohio. A few short weeks ago she held commanding leads in both states. The Obama revival is so strong that a victory by even the thinnest of margins would now be welcomed with relief by the Clinton campaign.

Storm #2, A Low Point in Our Nation’s Morale: Barack Obama has arrived on the scene at an emotional low point in our nation’s history.

One side is convinced the nation has never had it so bad. There is no evidence to support this, but it is passionately believed. The apparent cause is that we have a conservative, Christian President. The cure is to vilify him in all ways, blame him for everything including even the weather, and most likely to pursue him and former members of his administration even after he has left office. Only by crucifying this man can these people regain their sense of well being.

Storm #3, A Deeply Flawed Republican Candidate: John McCain is the most flawed and weak Republican presidential nominee in my lifetime, and perhaps ever.

Unfortunately, a flawed primary process, a fragmented field which took too long to sort out, and an unknown number of dem crossover votes in critical states at critical times allowed a media selected candidate to be shoved down our throats.

Not only has John McCain spent years insulting the very people he must have to win, he has thrown away his credibility on nearly every distinction between a Republican and a Democrat.

There is only one issue in which he has a clear advantage against Barack Obama: national defense. If John McCain can manage to frame the election as a vote on national defense, he has a chance to win. Senator Obama and his media allies know this, and will do everything possible to keep this from happening. I see no sign that John McCain is a good enough politician to successfully frame the election in this way.


Our Nation Stands Divided

Our nation stands divided, and not just on the war in Iraq. The divisions are so deep that many on each side define the other as evil.

Not only are we divided on Iraq. We see the threat posed by Islamofascism in completely different ways. In many ways, the liberals see the United States as the guilty party, and our defeat as both justified retribution and necessary expiation for our sins. Once we stand defeated, the peaceful nature of Islam will shine through and we will all be able to just get along.

We are divided over much more that Iraq and the global war on terror. We even define critical concepts differently, such as “right and wrong”, “freedom”, America’s proper place in the world, and the proper role of government.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Abraham Lincoln.


The World Has Been Here Before

The world has seen situations similar to this one before. One was the rise of Bolshevism in Russia. There are differences of course, but the Tzar was overthrown at a similar low point in Russia's history, by a similar personality leading a similar religious revival in the same godless church.

Obama has advantages Lenin and his friends did not have. In particular, the vast majority of the news media is in Obama's pocket and the population has been trained to worship celebrity. Many of our people have adopted the moral values of Hollywood and abandoned right and wrong.

But we are not Russia. Our founders foresaw this moment. We have a Constitution designed to make it harder for an Obama to seize power even if he is elected in a tsunami that sweeps away most of his opposition. We have the Internet and talk radio to at least partially circumvent Obama's hold on the dissemination of news, even after he is elected. It will be hard to silence our voice.

Most important of all, a core of strength remains. The members of this small site are part of that core, and we are not alone. We are fighting back, and we have shown we can be effective. Perhaps our influence exceeds our numbers. Like salt, perhaps we can help preserve what is worth keeping.

Perhaps this time the result will be different.

Towards “A Clash of Civilizations”?

The term “A Clash of Civilizations” has been popularized by Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. They were among the first to define the coming clash, but this is not a rehash of their ideas. We have moved beyond theoretical future possibilities and must now deal with current reality.

The question now is immediate: Will the election of Barack Obama move the world towards A Clash of Civilizations?

We stand now at a pivotal point. If Barack Obama wins the next Presidential election in the United States, the United States will stand defeated in Iraq.

Will defeat usher in an era of peace between Islam and the rest of the world? Barack Obama and the Democrat Party says it will.

Or will defeat move us closer to a world wide religious war, the likes of which the world has never seen?

The United States stands ready to support Barack Obama. Those who deny the truth of what is said here should continue their support of Barack Obama. All others should consider what is at stake.

The answer depends on what happens after we have withdrawn from Iraq. Two things are certain if we are forced to withdraw:

1. Islamofascism will have won a great victory.
2. Iran will gain defacto control of Iraq.

1. Islamofascism will have won a great victory. Does anyone doubt that this is true?

Our defeat will be perceived as a sign that Allah is with Osama Bin Laden, and that those who follow him cannot fail. It will take time for his movement to consolidate it’s new position of power, but once it has done so the movement he heads will be far more powerful than it was before 9-11.

In spite of the victory for Osama Bin Laden, it is likely that our defeat will strengthen Iran and its maniacal leader even more than it will strengthen Osama Bin Laden. Ahmadinejad will claim our defeat is proof that his apocalyptic vision of the future has the blessing of Allah. His opposition within Iran will melt away and he will emerge as the undisputed dictator of Iran.

Some will say that Islam is split, and that our defeat cannot be claimed simultaneously by both sides. But Islam is NOT split in its desire for world domination. Sunnis (Osama Bin Laden, et al) and Shiites (Ahmadinejad, et al) may be rivals for power sometime in the future, but they have already shown they are able to work together to defeat the West first.

2. Iran will gain defacto control of Iraq. Can anyone argue seriously against this?

With the United States gone, who inside Iraq will stand against Iran? Iraq is predominantly Shiite, as is Iran. The Shiites of Iraq will not stand against their fellow Shiites in Iran, especially when they know there will be no succor from the United States. With the United States forced to withdraw from Iraq, Iraqis who dare to oppose Iran will die a horrible death.

All in Iraq will know this, and there will be few inside Iraq who dare to oppose the force of Iran.

Victory does not require Iran to physically occupy the land of Iraq. The United States is certain to stand idly by as long as Iran rules by proxy. For that matter, it is likely the United States will stand idly by even if Iran takes overt control. Once we have retreated, we will not have the will to return regardless of the moves taken by Iran.

What will Barack Obama and the Democrats say?

In the beginning, the followers of Obama will say that the United States sinned by fighting this war, and we must atone for our sin. They will not use those exact words of course, because sin is too judgmental a term. But that is what the Church of Liberalism means when they say we must withdraw from Iraq, and that they, the leaders of the Church, will restore our good name with the rest of the world.

They will deny the inevitable consequences until after they have already happened. Then they will say that it was not their fault. Barack Obama and the Democrats will say that this was a war that should not have been fought in the first place, so the consequences of withdrawal are not their responsibility. When the blood flows, it will be blamed on George Bush and the evil ones who supported him.

What will happen then?

Iran and its allies will control Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. They will have global reach through Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States will have little reason to trust in the protection of the United States and will be forced to reach an accommodation with Iran. We will have lost control of a large part of our oil supply, the life blood of our economy.

Al Qaida and its Taliban allies (Sunni) are already quite strong in Pakistan, and its strength will grow when the U.S. is defeated. Saudi Arabia has spread the Wahhabi brand of Sunni Islam throughout the world and the strength of this militant creed will grow as well. It is possible that we will see Shiite Islam control most of the oil from the Middle East, and Sunni Islam control much of the Islamofascist movement inside the nations of The House of Unbelief/War (Dar es Harb).

Other geostrategic changes are also likely to occur.

It is possible that Iran will reach a modus vivendi with Turkey, with Turkey taking either defacto or direct control of the Kurdish sections of Iraq. Either way, we will be powerless to intervene. Turkey will have completed its move away from its former role as a putative ally of the United States, and become an outright foe of the United States instead.

Few nations anywhere within Islam will wish to stand against the apparent will of Allah by siding in any way with the United States.

Europe will find itself forced to choose. Will it risk loss of its oil lifeline to the Middle East and confrontation with its millions of unassimilated and increasingly militant Muslim minorities, freshly emboldened by U.S. defeat? Or will it choose accommodation and quietly fade into dhimmitude?

Israel will find itself in the most dire straights of its modern existence.

The stage is nearly set. Behold the Clash of Civilizations.

It will take time for the victors to consolidate their initial victory. I do not know how many years will pass before the next act will begin. But the stage is nearly set for the Clash of Civilizations seen in the writings of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.

We are not yet in an all out, full scale, world wide religious war. We in the West do not wish to have such a war, and we are trying to avoid it. But just as appeasement led to early Nazi victories in WWII, appeasement is leading to early victories by the Islamofascists in WWIV. And as surely as night follows day, appeasement will lead to a much bloodier war when war comes in earnest.

Even at this late date the die is not yet cast. We may still find the will to finish nation building in Iraq. The success of the new nation of Iraq may yet show the millions of Muslims looking to see the will of Allah that war is not the way. And Islam may yet decide to strive for men’s souls in the realm of the mind, instead of by the sword.

But the hour grows late, and our leaders are weak.