By Andrew L. Jaffee

There can be no “negotiated” settlement between radical Islam and outsiders (infidels). The horrific war raging inside Islam is proof positive. Muslim versus Muslim terrorism confirms that Islam hates itself as much as, or more than, it does the Western World. Democratic leaders have ignored this internal Muslim conflict, choosing a peevish course, and misguidedly called our conflict with Islam a “war on terror.” They have forgotten the sacrifices required for victory in WWII. (Could we have “negotiated” with Kamikazes?) I fear that moderate Muslims will be unable to get Islam’s house into order near-term, leaving a solution to be forced on the radicals by the West. Consequently, our war of wars will last decades, not just years.

Experts like Daniel Pipes have pointed out in these pages the foolishness of calling the current global conflict a “war on terror”:

…it must be remembered that terrorism is just a tactic. As Pipes made clear, we did not call World War II the “war against surprise attacks” in response to Pearl Harbor. …

Dr. Steve Carol wrote here that “war against Islamo-fascism” is an appropriate term:

…The pairing of the two words “Islamic” and “fascism” conveys a precise message: the old fascism is back, but driven by a radical fundamentalist creed of Islam. …

ORDER YOUR BUMPER STICKER NOW!

The war within Islam has been almost completely ignored by our leaders, despite the fact that we see Shiite Muslims killing Sunni Muslims and vice versa almost every day in Iraq. By ignoring this internecine conflict, fallacious arguments about Muslims being “besieged” by the West will persist. This meaningless sophistry distracts civilized societies from doing what must be done: smashing Islamo-fascism in the same way as Japan’s neo-Bushidō imperialists and Germany’s Nazis were stopped in WWII. Islamo-fascism = communism = fascism = any other name given to utopian, anti-democratic, totalitarian ideologies (”a [black, stinky] rose by any other name”).

The Muslim vs. Muslim violence we see today exposes the current state of Islam as a whole. It is a 7th century mindset — a round peg — trying to force its way into a 21st century square hole, and literally killing anyone in its way. The West is fooling itself if it thinks it can “negotiate” a settlement with radical Islam (just as Neville Chamberlain signed a worthless peace treaty with Hitler). Radical Islam is not civilized.

One would think that after all the Arab/Muslim on Arab/Muslim carnage, like the Samarra bombing; or the Amman, Jordan bombing; or Al-Qaeda’s slaughter of 88 innocent Egyptians; or Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990; or Kuwait’s ethnic cleansing of 400,000 Palestinians in 1991; or Jordan’s killing of thousands of Palestinians during Black September; or a 30-year Lebanese civil war; or the Iran-Iraq war which claimed 1 million casualties; would all be enough to convince the Arab/Muslim world that it has a problem with violent infighting.

Let’s not forget the annual violence at Mecca: three-hundred trampled to death in last year’s Hajj; 1,426 killed in the 1990 Hajj; 251 in 2004; etc. There are moderate Muslim voices, but they are few and far between, and live under constant fear of reprisals from the dominant radicals.

There has been no massive outcry by the world Muslim community to take responsibility for its sad state of affairs. Sure, we’ve seen a few protests, but mostly we hear lots of excuses, e.g., Muslims are in disarray because of Western “imperialism.”

The starkest symbol of internecine Muslim conflict are al-Qaeda’s (Sunni) savage attacks on Shiite Islam’s most holy shrine in Samarra, Iraq. A picture is worth a thousand words:

  
Samarra before and after.

The golden Shiite dome was blown up in February 2006. Two remaining minarets of the shrine were savagely knocked down by Sunnis last Wednesday.

Yes, Arab/Muslim leaders are warning about Islam’s divide, but not in the spirit of healthy dialog:

Egypt’s president questioned Shiites’ loyalty to their countries, Jordan’s king warned of a coming Shiite crescent from Iran to Lebanon, and last month King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia denounced what he called Shiite proselytizing. …

Shiites make up less than 15 percent of Saudi Arabia’s population, many of them in the oil-rich Eastern Province. The austere Sunni religious establishment considers them heretics. One cleric, Abdul Rahman al-Barak, considered close to the royal family, has called Shiites “infidels, apostates and hypocrites.”

And, of course, let’s not forget al-Qaeda’s official position on “fellow” Shiite Muslims:

People of discernment and knowledge among Muslims know the extent of danger to Islam of the Twelve’er school of Shiism. It is a religious school based on excess and falsehood whose function is to accuse the companions of Muhammad of heresy in a campaign against Islam, in order to free the way for a group of those who call for a dialogue in the name of the hidden mahdi who is in control of existence and infallible in what he does. Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders.

To end WWII, President Truman and his advisors were faced with ordering thousands of American soldiers to their deaths in taking the Japanese mainland. How many men would we have lost? 250,000? 500,000?

American soldiers who fought in Europe were tired. After cleaning up Hitler — the battles of the Bulge, Anzio, Normandy — how much more could we have asked of these men? Men like my father. He and his compatriots were certain they would have been killed in an invasion of mainland Japan. They read Stars and Stripes. They knew that thousands of Americans were killed taking tiny Pacific islands.

“It’s us or them.” Call me old-fashioned, but I believe this saying is true when you are fighting for survival.

What are we to expect in our war to preserve civilization — the war against Islamo-fascism? The choice should be clear, but because of human nature, it is not. God forbid, but it just may come to scorched earth — again.

In one scenario, we will continue fighting a half-hearted, Vietnam-style, war of attrition — our “war on terror” — and things will never seem to get better… Until the Islamist savages do something horrendous on an unimaginable scale: set off a dirty bomb in downtown Chicago; use a suitcase nuke in Moscow; unleash a canister of cyclosarin in Tokyo or Paris.

Then the wrath of the West will be finally awakened. “ENOUGH!,” the people will cry. “We fight and fight, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.” Then an American, French, British, or Russian cold-war missile will be aimed and fired on Tehran, or Medina, or Lahore. If this does not convince the Muslim world to give up terrorism, one more nuke will — just like the second bomb on Nagasaki convinced Hirohito to surrender.

Of course, this scenario is completely avoidable if we choose our words wisely and finish the fight sooner rather than later. Example: We can a) occupy and clean up Iraq with 500,000 soldiers, b) bomb Iraq into submission while ignoring the civilian toll, or c) pull out completely and lose. The same applies to Iran: we can deal with a nuclear Hitler now and decisively, or we can let Ahmadinejad fester until New York City is turned into ashes. Whether the Western World has the resolve to fight the good fight — and the right fight — remains to be seen.

From $4.95/month!

---

---

Related: Islam, Society, War Against Islamo-fascism

---