Thursday, September 25, 2008

The Islamic Way of War

"At the inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) back in April, presenter LTC Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration. Though military studies have traditonally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine--such as Clausewitz's On War, Sun Tzu's The Art of War, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch--Islamic war doctrine, which is just as if not more textually grounded, is totally ignored. ... As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or now it might be countered. Today, seven full years after September 11, our understanding of the Islamic way of war is little better. ... While one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the exploits and strategems of the prophet Muhammad--his 'war sunna'-- still serve as an example to modern-day jihadists. For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present ... ; the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible ... ; and that the only function of the peace treaty or 'hudna,' is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years. ... 'Taquiyya' ... permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that the renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: 'In the Hadith, practising deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage.' ... Because the 'Whisperers'--Walid Phares's apt epithet for the majority of Middle East/Islamic scholars and their willing apologists in the press--have made anathema anyone who dares to point out a connection between Islamic doctrine and modern-day Islamic terrorism. ... Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare--Sun Tzu's ancient dictum, 'Know they enemy' the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy", Raymond Ibrahim (RI) at, 11 September 2008.

One issue with RI: Islamic war doctrine prohibits making peace treaties with infidels. The hudna he refers to is not a treaty but a cease fire. No contract can be made with an infidel. RI's taquiyya point, also spelled takiwa, can be enlarged: no Moslem's oath with regard to infidels' disputes should be believed. Why? Takiwa encourages the Moslem to lie to non-Moslems to advance the cause of Islam. Hence, no no infidel court should permit Moslems to testify in any matter involving Moslems. The Defense Department should not hire Moslem translators. Really. As for using missiles against non-combatant infidels, permitted. My conclusion made years ago, when at war with Moslems, adopt Islamic methods: wanton killing of non-combatants, no prisoners, etc., etc. The more killing, the better. This is not the "Western" way of war. So? The US should never had a detention center like Abu Gharib. We should have followed Islamic treatment of prisoners: behead them. We should close Gitmo. What should we do with the Gitmo inmates? Read them the story of the Banu Quarayza tribe in 626 AD. Then behead them chanting "allah akbar". They will understand and respect us for it. Israel recently exchanged about 400 terrorists for two Israeli soldiers' corpses. Are the Israelis crazy? Israel should execute all prisoners it holds for terrorism lest it be tempted to exchange them for anything.


Joseph Moroco said...

As I say ad nauseam, the war with Islam is a not a war, but an immigration failure.

Yes, if we are going to fight them, ruthlessness is the only way. It is doable, the only problem is

1 we have to apologize to the Nurembergers we hung and to Tojo.

2 we have to try on the word genocide because a people who will kill themselves with far greater abandon than kamikazes are only encouraged by a video of Americans beheading their comrades.

It would be better to break off the war and be choosy about who comes in.

After all, as we are finding now, a trillion dollar war here, a trillion dollar financial meltdown there can start to add up to real money.

As to Israel, their situation is pretty fraught. Israel needs to think through its strategy.

She thought the Arabs would be stupid forever. Hezbollah took their measure and devised a good enough to counter a country too prosperous to want to get out of their Merkavas and low crawl up to bunkers to destroy them.

Israel could have defeated Hez, but the word pyrrhic would have applied without a vast change in tactics.

The fence is a good idea, but it has to be total and sensible. Building it so it encompasses every settlement will be self defeating. One of its goals would be to make Israel as forgettable as possible to its neighbors.

Otherwise, more prisoner swaps.

Independent Accountant said...

Christendom's war with Islam began in 710 AD when Moslems invaded Spain from Africa. The current flare up in this 1300-year war began in 1979 when Jimmy Carter pushed out the Shah of Iran and brought in the Mullahs. As someone at wrote, Bush's policy is: "Invade the world, invite the world, in debt to the world". We could reduce terrorism in the US by ending immigration from Islamic countries and deporting visa holders from Islamic countries.
Arabs use of suicide bombers doesn't faze me either. If we responded with massive wanton destruction the would-be sucide bombers neighbors would stop them. Not because they love us, but because they will know death is their alternative. Study your Machiavelli.
Genocide? Let's look at World War II. 6.9 million Germans and 2.2 million Japanese died in the war. We or the Russians planted our flag in the enemy's capital. What capital(s) would we plant our flags on today?
We give aid, including weapons to the Palestinians who danced on rooftops on 9/11. Why? Let them starve. You might be amazed with how quickly they will forswear terrorism when faced with starvation. One of my friends fathers was in the 1946 Army of occupation in Japan. He never had any problems there at all! Japan was pacified!
I agree, Israeli tactics in the recent Hezboallah war were stupid. They emulate us.
After 1948 950,000 Jews were forced out of various Arab countries and had their property seized. They are forgotten. There was also a "population exchange" when Pakistan was carved out of India in 1947. It's time for the US to tell the Arabs "no mas". No more Palestinians. Resettle them. Or else. Then start the "genocide". I suspect in about 30 days, the Arabs will realize we mean business and the Palestinians will be resettled.
You do not win a war on the defensive.
As long as I'm responding, we should withdraw recognition of Kosovo and tell the Czar, "go for it". My guess: repairing our relations with Russia will terrify the Arab world. If we sufficiently terrify it, the various Arab nations will squash terrorism.

Joseph Moroco said...

Hey, as the Neutralist, I've always been against foreign aid.

The Palestinians are not our problem unless we make them our problem. I want to leave them and the Israelis to work out whatever they work out.

As our army stands now, thirty days would be about all they have. The army is fast disintegrating. Soldiers fighting with anti depressant perscriptions is not good. Enlisting CAT IVs is worse.

Why do you think we haven't invaded Iran, just talked about bombing. The Mullahs don't bat an eye. They seem to be saying, "yeah, you and what army?"

Bring the forces home and let the Middle Easterners get back to what they do best, killing each other.

Joseph Moroco said...

Another thing. The Moslem world would be impotent completely but for one thing. Oil. They produce nothing on their own.

I lived next to a town that had a mosque. This was in the fifties. The Lebanese and Syrians congregation was assimilating fast. Without Saudi money, the thing would crash.

Independent Accountant said...

Your point about Saudi Arabia (SA) is valid. In the 1960s there was a small Islamic community near Atlantic Avenue and Court Street in downtown Brooklyn, NY which appeared to be well assimilated. I regularly ate in a Lebanese restaurant there. SA money has radicalized Islam by spreading Wahhabism throughout the world. SA has funded about 10,000 madrassas in Pakistan which radicalize Pakistani youth. SA also sends Imams to Indonesia to radicalize Indonesian Islam.
One reason I opposed our Afghan adventure (AA) is: I thought our troops should have been sent to SA; the AA being Bush's effort to divert attention away from SA.
The Saudis and Iranians are the world's principal sponsors of terrorism. I think we should seize SA's oil fields and crush Iran. Now.

Joseph Moroco said...

With all due respect, IA, are you willing to volunteer for that mission? The pool of new recruits is subpar. That would be the death knell. They would disable the wells and fight a guerrilla war forever.

The best way to defeat them is not through warfare.