Why we make War


Ken Wu

Guest Author

Key to American’s global dominance and national security lies with the strength of our hegemony. American people needs to understand that the fact no foreign invaders have fired a single round of bullet into the US territories since Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is due to the effective use of our network of allies and a successful efforts in mutual defensive cooperation. We started NATO to not only neutralize the Soviet iron curtain, but to create a buffer zone between potential threats and American soil. However, this objective would not sit well with our allies in the buffer zone unless we stay focused to protect their interest and be committed about their own safety.

If you all followed news, you could see the US responded tactfully to avert a possible NATO melt down and world war 3 during the Russian invasion of Georgia. It was closest the world ever got into WW3, no exaggeration. Let me ellaborate a bit, Russians invaded Georgia under the banner of “humanitarian aid” and “peacekeeping” claimed by Putin and his foreign affairs front. When Georgian president pleaded help from US, the US government responded after careful thought process by sending its own ships and planes to Georgia and also called it a “humanitarian aid”. If you did not get what has just happened right there, Bush pretty much called Putin’s bluff right there. Soon after that, Putin declared that they temporarily lost control of the front line soldiers and they were not responsible for the Russian army actions there, and then they backed off.

What is really exciting here is this is one of the biggest battle of wits by Russian and American leader in this century. What Russians hate the most is having NATO watching over them, it sticks out like a sore thumb, to think Americans will be able to add two former Soviet states(Ukraine and Georgia pledged to join NATO per IPAP) to the defensive pact is very unsettling for them. I mean, the Baltic states were never really Soviet-friendly, Russia could take their defection with reasonable understanding. But Ukraine and Georgia?! the most important part about United States engagement in Iraq is to create a “Middle East Corridor” for strategic purpose and connect US allies and forces from Persian Gulf to the NATO allies. Take a look at the beautiful middle east map here.

As we know, we are buddies with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar. That gives us a good deal of control over Persian Gulf ever since old Bush achieved that from Operation Desert Storm. If you watched the movie “W”, you will realize what George W Bush was talking about when he said he needs to finish the job that his father did not finish. Take Iraq. if you look at the map again, you will see how controlling Iraq does give a free access from persian Gulf to our pledged NATO allies in Georgia, Ukraine, and rest of Europe. THAT strategic value alone is worth 10 times of Iraqi oil reserve. THAT, my friend, is the big picture, and what our sons and daughters died for. I dont even want tio start on the strategic importance of Afghanistan being one of the most sought places in the history of mankind by many powerful empires ever existed.

Strength of America relies on strength of its allies, like NATO. And strength of NATO comes from confidence of member states. American government in the most recent showdown with Russia proved that US is committed to no member state is left behind principle, the very principle that guarantees the sustainability of the alliance. We do not want to demonstrate weakness by showing fear. Many pundits claimed that the US would do nothing to help Georgia on grounds of technicality for Georgia is merely a “pledged member” as America was spreading thin with all the war events. I am very glad that the Bush administration that time realized the danger of succumbing to that solution provided by pundits.

Back to our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to stay since we have invested so much into this already. the regions are not yet stable, so we need to make sure we still have enemies to fight with. hence the limited disclosure on capture of key culprits. There is no point to stay if we have done what we claimed to do — kill terrorists. Once the regions are stabilized with proper democratic systems put in place, Americans can then be more liberal about these information for people no longer care about Osama or Omar and their terrorist cronies.

About these ads

6 responses to “Why we make War

  1. Great article Ken, I’m a bit confused by your ending. There is no point to stay if we have done what we claimed to do — kill terrorists. ) It is my understanding from reading the Stratfor Intelligence Report, that our primary reason for being in the area in the first place is to destabilize Islam. All the whining about oil, Bush and Cheney was ill placed. We buy oil from Iraq at market price, we were among many countries to gain contracts to rebuild their infrastructure. We will remain in this area until we defeat Islam, we have done it every time they have made their move back to the Crusades, losing once in Turkey. We will continue to fight them on their turf until the quit trying to penetrate our culture, our laws, and every institution in America. What say you? Welcome, I’m J.C.

  2. As for my ending “There is no point to stay if we have done what we claimed to do — kill terrorists, ” the point I was trying to make is that if we claimed to be fighting a war against terrorists and if that is what we advertise to the world as a justification for our stay in the troubled region, then we would have no reasons to stay once the culprits have been captured and terrorists annihilated. We need to extend our presence to achieve our ultimate objective– neutralize our enemies by making them our friends(thanks, Abe Lincon!). We obviously want to stay there long enough to make sure we bring peace to the region and not only that, prosperity to them and our fellow Americans back home, so the people of those regions can trust us enough and become the next Japan or Germany. The US had presence in German and Japan for decades, and now you do not hear them whine about US invasion as if it is a bad thing.

    Stratfor Intelligence Report is authored by a private intelligence company, Strategic Forecasting, Inc. Not saying they are wrong, but I certainly do not believe them to be the gospel for I do my own predictions from time to time. However, I have no read the relevant report on this so I will try not to interpret or evaluate the report out of context. To America, Islam its self is not a threat, just those Muslim extremists who are willing to give their lives to bring America down because they believe America is anti-Islam.

    America is anti-terror, not anti-Islam. America is anti-terrorists, not anti-Muslims. America is about taking care of the American citizens and preserve the American way that has inspired the free world and led to their subsequent prosperity. To do that, the US needs to make sure the country has the means necessary to ensure its livelihood. For the security of our allies in NATO and Middle East and for the welfare of America, we are willing to lead our troops into those regions and topple the tyrannies so we can create new friends who will eventually enjoy higher quality of living. As you said, we buy oil from Iraqis at market price, and the American taxpayers pay for the heavy subsidies of Iraqi consumption of oil(people there at one point pay 5 cents per gallon http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0606-04.htm )… US is doing all we can to try to restore order and maintain peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think try not to repeat Vietnam would probably be an analogy I would prefer. The above statement I wrote was originally a follow-up response to the article on lack of disclosure by White House on capture of Omar. Sorry for the confusion.

    • Actually the information I spoke about came from the book the next 100 years from the founder and CEO of Stratfor. You are incorrect we are not in an anti terror war, terror is a concept you can’t fight a concept, Islam is the enemy, make no mistake about it. Any doubt, YouTube Colonel Allen West and listen to his thinking on Islam. We are far from done killing Islamic terrorists. As I said previously, this has been going on since the 7th century. There is no such thing as a war on terror, it’s Islam we are at war with and the limp dick sitting in the oval office can’t seem to get his arms around that concept. Seriously, check out Allen West on Islam, your thinking just may be jolted a bit. Thanks for the comments, I’m Jim

  3. I believe Islam is an ideology and it is no different than a concept, by the logic you cannot fight a concept, you can’t therefore fight Islam. And I would agree with the theory that you cannot easily war with a concept, but you can, indeed fight against an action or way of carrying out ideology. Terrorism is a way of carrying out ideology or attempt to achieve an objective in a way that induces fear so it would lead to general compliance. This conflicts with our value in America and conflicts with our way of doing things. We are fighting against those who use this heinous tactics in the name of Islam, not Islam its self. Allen West obviously failed to mention the great injust Christian terrorists have done in the past, Sabra and Shatila massacre by Kataeb Party, Spanish inquisition, crusades that ravaged Asia minor, and more. West also repeated Islamic “terrorist” as our enemy time after time, it can only be deduced that it is the terror-doers we are having problems with, not the religion its self. Also, there are many countries in the world with significant Muslim population and they do not seem to be as problematic or troublesome as the Islamic terrorists in the war zones. We dont even see that much IEDs exploding in the US.
    Let’s read some passages from Qu’ran that could be interpreted as “warmongering”.

    “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. [al-Ma'idah 5:51.11]”

    - It is interesting how Jews and Muslims worked together to fight against Crusades in the Seige of Jerusalem in 11th century. Obviously they understand enemy of enemy is a friend. Also, bible ha similar passages. “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”(Matthew 10:5-6) Bible obviously had something against non-Israelis. If there are bible extremists you and I would not be able to be Christians per that passage.

    And take a look at this…

    “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (al-Ma’idah 5:70)

    Some people like to say Qu’ran encourages Muslims to war on Christians with this passage,
    ” O you who believe, you shall fight the disbelievers who attack you – let them find you stern – and know that GOD is with the righteous. “(Sura 9:123). But note that this passage focuses on disbelievers who ATTACK YOU, so the passage is about defensive war, not offensive. If the terrorists want to define American influence as an “attack”, that is the terrorists’ fault for misinterpreting, not Islam its self.

    Christian bible has similar passage-
    “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:11-13)

    I actually can go on and on, but I shall stop right here and I do welcome any discussion on Qu’ran and bible. I am a God-believer and I understand bible more than Qu’ran, but from what i have understood thus far, this is a war fought by many peoples and for various reasons. We all support or against the war for different reasons. For me, I support the war effort for the reasons I have mentioned above, America’s global interest, and I believe that to be more plausible than we travel thousands of miles to Persian Gulf to pick a war on Islam. If that is the case, we would be invading Indonesia(largest Muslim population with 215 million believers), Bangladesh(145 million), Nigeria(80 million), Turkey(71 million), Malaysia, Niger, and more! What about the Arab allies we talked about earlier, or the ethnic Albanian state Kosovo we liberated from Christian Serbs? No sir, this is definitely not a war against Islam. This is a war for American interest, and we have waged war on terror because these terrorists have done things to hurt American interest. If these terrorists are Christians, we will be bombing them with our Predators just the same.

    • I believe Islam is an ideology and it is no different than a concept, by the logic you cannot fight a concept, you can’t therefore fight Islam. And I would agree with the theory that you cannot easily war with a concept, but you can, indeed fight against an action or way of carrying out ideology. Terrorism is a way of carrying out ideology or attempt to achieve an objective in a way that induces fear so it would lead to general compliance.

      Ken I believe we have our wires crossed here and trying to say the same thing while using different terms. As I originally read your comments you said that we are in a war against terror. I suggested that we are in a war with Islam, when I should have stated Islamic terrorists.

      Allen West also repeated Islamic “terrorist” as our enemy time after time, it can only be deduced that it is the terror-doers we are having problems with, not the religion its self. Also, there are many countries in the world with significant Muslim population and they do not seem to be as problematic or troublesome as the Islamic terrorists in the war zones. We dont even see that much IEDs exploding in the US.

      Good point, above, and West does recognize Islamic terrorists. (We dont even see that much IEDs exploding in the US.) YET! Let’s not forget the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, The Holy Land Foundation among others operating in America. Why are they here? To cause and aid Islamic Terror!

      But does the Koran incite violence?

      It is self-evident that some Koranic verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that fighting is “good for you”: “Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not.” (2:216)

      The classical approach to violence in the Koran was neatly summed up in an essay on jihad in the Koran by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid, former chief justice of Saudi Arabia: “So at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory: (1) against those who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims)… (2) And against all those who worship others along with Allah.”

      At the beginning, in Mohammed’s Meccan period, when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: “Many of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) wish that they could turn you away as disbelievers… But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings his command.” (2:109).

      Later, after persecution and emigration to Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage in warfare for defensive purposes only: “Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors.” (2:190) Back at yam Jim

      As the Muslim community grew stronger, and conflict with its neighbors did not abate, further revelations expanded the license for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam.

      Sura 9 distinguished idolators, who were to be fought until they converted – “When the sacred months are past, kill the idolators wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush” (9:5, the ‘verse of the sword’) – from “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), who were to be given a further option of surrendering and living under Islamic rule while keeping their religion: “Fight… the People of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled.” (9:29)

      The following excerpt from Ibn Kathir, whose commentary is one of the mostly widely used by Muslims in the West today, illustrates how the doctrine of abrogation can be applied to reconcile the Koran’s verses: “But forgive and overlook (2:109)… was abrogated by the verse kill the idolators… (9:5), and Fight…[the People of the Book] (9:29). Allah’s pardon for the disbelievers was repealed… It was abrogated by the verse of the sword. The verse till Allah brings His command gives further support for this view.… the Messenger of Allah and his Companions used to forgive the disbelievers and the People of the Book, just as Allah commanded… until Allah allowed fighting them. Then Allah destroyed those who he decreed to be killed…”

      The resulting doctrine of war has been elaborated by numerous Muslim scholars, including the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun, who like the Saudi Arabian Grand Mufti, adhered to the ‘three option’ theory: “To discuss or argue… with them is not up to us. It is for them to choose between conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death.” (The Muqaddimah)

      All this explains Sheikh Abdel Aziz’s response to the Pope’s speech. Alluding to the distinction between the Meccan and Medinan periods of revelation, the Grand Mufti invoked the doctrine of Sura 9:29 (cited above), that fighting against People of the Book continues until non-Muslims convert or surrender.

      Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious legitimacy of “defensive jihad” – including the Palestinian struggle – but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad. Most would emphasize the defensive aspects of Mohammed’s numerous military campaigns, claiming that his attacks on others were only to pre-empt future aggression against Muslims. It is also often asserted that Mohammed’s military exploits were context-specific responses to the unique situations he encountered in his lifetime, and not binding on later generations of Muslims.

      However the idea of a purely defensive jihad is hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its first 100 years. For centuries the validity of the doctrine of expansionist jihad just seemed self-evident to Muslim scholars, as it was validated by the military victories it had delivered across the greater part of the Christian world, as well as Zoroastrian Persia and Hindu India.

    • Thanks my friend, apologize for not visiting your site. Been over my head. Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s