The State of the Jihad

The Fourth Rail has a superb roundup of each of the dozen or so fronts that the global War on Terror is being waged.  I would argue that Lebanon and Britain/France should also be included.  Nonetheless, if you read just one article on this issue in one year, this should be that article.  Nowhere else has the global nature of the conflict been so efficiently encapsulated.

It is frightening that a person in the position that Nancy Pelosi is in actually believes that the War on Terror exists only in Afghanistan and nowhere else, as she said on 60 minutes. 

Overall, it appears that jihadists are losing ground in slightly more theatres than they are winning ground in.  This is a reason for cautious optimism. 

Plus, another good article is here : 

When the Bush administration came into office, only Egypt and Jordan were functioning allies of the U.S. Iran and Iraq were already declared enemies, Syria was hostile, and even its supposed friends in the Arabian peninsula were so disinclined to help that none did anything to oppose al Qaeda. Some actively helped it, while others knowingly allowed private funds to reach the terrorists whose declared aim was to kill Americans.

The Iraq war has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the U.S. What past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush administration has brought about accidentally. But the result is exactly the same.

Imagine that.

Related : VietNam or Korea, which was better in the long run?

Comments

[A]

Notice how Jihad is everywhere. Every single place where there is a muslim presence knows Jihad.

islam and jihad are linked. They can only be destroyed together.

[GK]

A,

It is certainly not accurate to conclude that all Muslims are jihadis. Most Muslims are not directly harmful to others.

But it is true that we need more moderate Muslims to actively oppose jihad, rather than remain on the sidelines as neutrals.

[fawkesey]

Congratulations GK, the blog has now been restored to its former glory, with the dodgy politics & all!

I'll just refer you to this one article, from today, as a counterpoint to your typically absurd statement about Britain/France being in the jihad. You're in danger of fulfilling the desires of the fantasists with arguments that labels their narcissism jihad. (English people - somewhat used to terrorist attacks from the days of the Irish Republicans - are probably more concerned right now with our dismal showing in the Ashes!)

I wonder what you feel about the Republican wipeout in the mid-terms, which would indicate some disatisfaction in the US population with Bush's running of the "War on Terror" or "counter-jihad against the Islamofacist hordes"?

As ever, best regards.

[GK]

(English people - somewhat used to terrorist attacks from the days of the Irish Republicans - are probably more concerned right now with our dismal showing in the Ashes!)

You mean typical showing in the Ashes. Also, another event that England does very poorly in, the World Cup, is around the corner.

But I digress..

I'll just refer you to this one article

Your own article states that :

"He acknowledged that the country faced a different and more dangerous threat than in the days of IRA terrorism and that it had "all the disturbing elements of a death cult psychology"."

You probably disagree with this. Is this "Islamophobia"?

And did you read the article I linked to about "The State of the Jihad"? It is non-political, except to those who refuse to admit that Islamic extremism exist (something both Democrats and Republicans agree on, in the US).

I wonder what you feel about the Republican wipeout in the mid-terms,

Your understanding of US politics is poor. The center of gravity on the US congress has actually moved to the right, due to some of the new Democrats being conservatives.

The US Senate now has 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 independents. Joe Lieberman is one of those independents, and supports the Iraq War. He won easily against his anti-war Leftist challenger.

which would indicate some disatisfaction in the US population with Bush's running of the "War on Terror"

Not in the way that you think. The public (myself included) is unhappy that the US had not waged the war aggressively enough. The force applied is inadequate.

In addition to the Lieberman example, the only Republican who opposed the Iraq War, Lincoln Chafee, was voted out.

None of the items that the anti-US leftists hate, like the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, funding for the Iraq War, will get discontinued. Just watch.

Plus, it is the President who matters more than anything else. Just about any Democrat would rather have the Whitehouse than Congress, if they had to choose one. Note that the Republicans controlled congress for most of Clinton's Presidency.