Conservatives are starting to get it

Ronald Reagan: Saints Row IV Edition
In which I note with a certain grimly amused satisfaction that the "mainstream" end of the conservative crowd is finally, however dimly and poorly and belatedly, beginning to understand what Islam really is- and how to defeat it:
The enemy is the Global Jihad Movement. And it is inspired, guided, and enabled by the Islamic supremacist doctrine its adherents call shariah. 
For much of this period, the U.S. government has pursued various approaches to the threats posed by that enemy – including selective military engagements, benign neglect, willful blindness, and outright appeasement. They have all shared one common denominator: They ignore the aforementioned realities and, as a practical matter, have exacerbated them. 
Yet, no one has advanced a more reality-based, more practical and more effective way to counter, let alone defeat, this ideologically driven enemy. [Didact: Wrong. I did, back in 2013. It's just that, in the scheme of things, I'm not important.]
Until now. 
At the National Press Club at noon on January 16th, an ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals will unveil an alternative plan of action that has been proven effective in protecting us against relentlessly aggressive totalitarian ideologues in the one environment that matters: the real world. The resulting approach, called the “Secure Freedom Strategy,” is modeled after the one President Ronald Reagan successfully employed to take down Soviet communism and the Evil Empire it spawned. [Didact: And what does Mr. Gaffney suppose I took as my inspiration?]
The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers a detailed prescription for a clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront and actionable steps for vanquishing it.
Frank Gaffney goes on to outline in broad strokes the basics of the strategy:
  • Understanding how and why Islamists think the way they do;
  • Establish the clear objective of rolling back the tide of Islamism;
  • Re-establishing the doctrine of "Peace Through Strength";
  • Fighting the war of ideas;
  • Using every trick in the counter-intel book;
  • Winning the economic war;
  • Attacking the enemy on the cyber-battlefield;
If this sounds at all familiar, it should. It's basically the same set of ideas that I outlined in my post from 2013, re-ordered, re-phrased, and with one or two new ideas added to the mix- the bit about cyber-warfare, for instance, wasn't something that I considered.

(You think maybe I should contact these chaps and tell them to stop plagiarising me? Personally, I couldn't be bothered, it's too much effort...)

Sadly, Mr. Gaffney's strategy doesn't go nearly far enough. As comprehensive as it sounds, it is still weak sauce compared to what is really required to not only defeat, but destroy Islam- and make no mistake, my friends, that is precisely what must be done.

Let's not equivocate about this- Islam is the single most dangerous enemy the West has ever faced. Even the psychopath's wet dream that was worldwide socialism did not have quite the same level of potential for destruction that the global jihad movement does.

This means that destroying this enemy requires, first and foremost, the willingness to confront its evil head-on. It means recognising Islam for what it truly is- a political ideology steeped in violence, destruction, intolerance, and bigotry. It means that historical ignorance of what Islam has done to other cultures and societies- including post-Roman Europe, by the way- is no longer excusable.

Most of all, it means having the willingness to confront Islam and its adherents on domestic ground, while removing every possible excuse for its followers to take the moral high ground overseas.

And it is where Mr. Gaffney and others like him constantly get it wrong.

There are two huge problems with Mr. Gaffney's arguments. The first, of course, is that he completely ignores the nature of immigration in this war. He fails to understand that the very first step to take in fighting Islam is to excise its cancer from the host.

That means stopping ALL immigration from Islamic nations, right now. It means giving Muslims who are already in Western lands a very simple and very stark choice: renounce the political ideology of Islam through conversion, or leave. And it means denying, now and forever, "birthright" citizenship. The privileges and rights of being a citizen must be earned through difficult and voluntary acts that demonstrate that one who wields the literally unlimited power of the sovereign franchise is fit to wield it.

Nowhere in his article does Mr. Gaffney mention immigration. Everything in it is predicated on the assumption that America must go abroad in search of monsters to slay- in direct contradiction of the one foreign policy doctrine that makes the slightest bit of sense.

The next step is to destroy the Islamic world's economies. In this, Mr. Gaffney is not exactly wrong, but he isn't willing to go anywhere near far enough in calling for policies that will work.

On the economic front, that means targeting and destroying Islamism's ability to fund itself.

This is less crazy and less difficult than it sounds- it's just not easy. Islam's inherent understanding of economics is... well, terrible, to put it mildly. This is part of the reason why every time a nation or culture has ever successfully stopped Islamic expansion, the Islamic world immediately goes into extended periods of severe moral, cultural, and economic decline.

To cripple an Islamic economy, you have to cut off its sources of funds. This can be done in much the same way that the old USSR's economy was destroyed by Reagan's war- through crippling sanctions on non-petroleum products in retaliation for aggressive acts and non-compliance with the terms of various treaties, and through letting oil and gas prices crash.

(Note: to a libertarian, economic sanctions are an act of war. Since the Islamic ideology has, according to its own internal founding documents, been "at war" with "everyone else" since its [supposed] "prophet" fled to Medina and established his power base there, this is not a problem.)

This is already happening, but not because of the West's actions- the Saudis have made a massive geopolitical gamble recently to try to contain Russia and the US. Evidence thus far indicates to me that it might be working- at least, in the short run.

Yet, Saudi Arabia- which, let us remember, is perhaps the world's largest source of funds for Islamic expansion and 4GW terrorism- is almost as dependent on oil and gas revenues as Russia is. Here is a graph showing how high oil prices need to be to keep most of the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) nations solvent:

OEPC Breakevens
The way to destroy these breeding grounds for Islam is to open up the taps domestically. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't about the illusory pipe dream of "energy independence"- most of America's oil comes from Canada and Mexico, only about 9% comes from Saudi Arabia and only 4% comes from Iraq. In reality, domestically the US has enough oil and natural gas to make itself largely self-sufficient- if only you Americans would actually let yourselves exploit those reserves!

No, this is about breaking Saudi Arabia's grip on global oil prices- by breaking its ability to influence oil prices in the market through flooding it with greatly increased supply from the US and other nations. It has been understood for nearly 100 years that the Arabs by themselves are basically useless at maintaining any kind of functional economy; prior to the discovery of oil in what is now Saudi Arabia, the monarchs of that god-forsaken country relied on the massive annual influx of hajj pilgrims visiting the "holy" cities of Mecca (the birthplace of the so-called "prophet") and Medina.

Break Saudi Arabia's control over oil, and you break Saudi Arabia- and by extension, much of the Wahabbist Islamic world.

The second major problem with Mr. Gaffney's arguments is that, like most of the warmongering conservative types that he writes for, he doesn't truly understand the nature of the enemy he's fighting.

Western conservatives keep thinking that they're facing a monolithic, centralised enemy with a single source of authority. In a sense, they are right- all Islamists accept the word of their "prophet", expressed through the Koran and the Hadith, as canonical examples of virtuous behaviour.

Yet this enemy has no real central authority. It cannot be fought the way most nation-states are used to fighting- with other nation-states. This is, and will be, a Fourth-Generation war, whereas most nations are used to fighting Second- and Third-Generation wars. (With apologies to William S. Lind- to whom goes almost ALL credit for anything I write on the subject of 4GW.)

Islam is not like Christianity in the sense that there is a single ultimate doctrinal end-point. For Catholics, that end-point is the Pope and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church; Orthodox Christians have a similar setup, as far as I know. I've no idea how it works for Protestant denominations, but in the end, most Christians have at least some central authority that tells them what is and is not acceptable. In Islam, any imam is effectively a Pope unto himself, and can issue decrees and declarations backed by the full force of... well, anyone who agrees with him.

(Yeah. It's a weird system.)

And because Islam doesn't have a single central authority, either religious or temporal, it cannot be fought by attacking an Islamic nation. That's just stupid- it simply encourages the bastards. The only way that such a strategy will work is if Western Christian nations literally launch a Crusade, with the explicit aim of conquering Islamic lands and converting every last occupant, by force, to Christianity.

Such a war would not only go against every last principle of the Christian faith, it would be logistically impossible for the West to carry out. So that's not even an option.

A better strategy, by far, is to simply abandon Islamic lands. Pull every last American and Western soldier out of third-world dumps like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, expel every last non-compliant Muslim from the West, and shut off all immigration from Muslim nations to Western ones, and then we'll see some progress.

Of course, precisely because these ideas are so radical and so shocking, conservatives like Frank Gaffney will never be able to countenance them. And that is why their strategies will never work- because unlike their idol, St. Reagan of the Right, they are not willing to do whatever it takes to win this war for their civilisation.

Let me close with one final point. As I stated above, what Mr. Gaffney is proposing is not all that different from what I've proposed well before he did. It would be easy for me to take credit for those ideas- but they're not mine.

Much of the inspiration for my original post came from reading about Ronald Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War. And Reagan's ideas, as comprehensive and as brilliant as they were, also were not his alone.

When it comes to fighting, containing, and ultimately destroying Islam, the strategies that work come from far older sources, starting with Christjaan Snouck Hurgronje. Now this was one very interesting guy- he was a Dutch civil servant in what was then the Netherlands East Indies who put together a truly comprehensive strategy to contain and defeat political Islam, while allowing religious Islam to continue its practices. It is his writing, and not mine that should be required reading for every conservative who wants to protect Western culture and civilisation from Islam.

But the ultimate guides to defeating Islam come from the men who actually did it- Pelagius of Asturias, Charles Martel, Alfonso I and II, Richard Coeur de Lion, Jan Sobieski of Poland, and countless others, who fought the armies of the "prophet" and prevailed, at least when it counted. They confronted the expansion of evil head-on, and it is to them that we must look for moral guidance in this next phase of the Long War.


Popular Posts