Bush Devised a Losing Strategy

By John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Original Date April 6, 2009

UPDATED August 25, 2023 CPCR

I often feel like the Lone Ranger because I defend President Bush’s action of invading Afghanistan and Iraq to take on fanatical Islam in one nation and secular genocide exploiting radical Islamic beliefs in the other nation.

Now I come upon an anti-Jihad writer in who I have tremendous respect for – Bill Warner of Political Islam.

Here I am saying my main message that Islamic doctrine as written in the Quran and other Mohammedan texts demonstrate a Theo-Political ideology (even I may say a cult) which any kind of political, monetary or military power will result in a Islamic Imperialism at worst or Islamic Supremacism at best.

Enter Bill Warner with an extremely hostile essay concerning President George W. Bush. You can imagine my mixed feelings prior to reading the message.

After I read Warner’s essay I had to agree with him. Warner is saying the kind of engagement with the enemies that attacked America’s homeland on 9/11 was a strategic error.

President Bush from the beginning tried to separate Islamic tenets from radical Muslims by calling them terrorists; ergo a Global War on Terror. From what I derived from the Warner essay is that it was a huge mistake to narrow the focus to a few by calling them terrorists. We should have recognized it was very tenets of Islam itself that the 9/11 attack was justified.

I have to say in retrospect I have to agree with Bill Warner on strategy which he says is a strategy of destined to failure.

On the other hand President Bush’s courage to go after what he would call radical Muslim terrorists was a decision I doubt a Leftist Democratic Party President would have had the cajones to pursue. Also I think it was worth the effort to try to build a democratic infrastructure in nations that have only known totalitarianism or tribal blood.

I say “worth the effort” for it appears that gamble probably is not compatible with an Islamic culture demands either full Sharia Law or watered down versions of Sharia Law. Even watered down Sharia Law is not compatible with Western concepts of Civil Rights and Liberty.

For Iraq that jury will be in when occupying American soldiers leave (or stay as an ally like in Saudi Arabia). If Iraq disintegrates into religious and tribal strife (Sunnis, Shias and Kurds) then the goal of at least some democratic infrastructure will be a total failure. If Iraq maintains a democratic Republic infrastructure even it is inimical to American National Interests then I would consider that a partial success; indeed it would be a foundation as an example for other Muslim States.

Of failure or success only time will tell. Unfortunately I suspect a good gamble may be a lost hand.

As to everything else Bill Warner writes about I absolutely agree with him. Unless the West and/or America changes its tactical outlook on what is threatening its existence, all things Western will slowly submerge into Islamic despotism.

So perhaps the Global War on Terror (GWOT) should be renamed. Let’s see how about something like Global War on Islamic Totalitarianism (GWOIST). Since Mohammedans have been trying to spread their Theo-Political ideology from the day pseudo-prophet Mohammed managed to conquer Medina and Mecca, we could even say GWOIST 2 or GWOIST 3 or 4 or 5. We could probably extend the numbers after consulting an honest historian.

O yes, the Obama Administration wants to redefine the GWOT as well. Unfortunately Leftist Appeasement is the New Administration strategy of the day. So far the Obama Administration definition for our Western existential crisis is “man-caused disasters”. [Blog Editor: The link originally embedded – http://hoekstra.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=117469 – is a dead link. Peter Hoekstra no longer is is Congress. Using DuckDuckGo and “man-caused disasters” associated with 2009 and Peter Hoekstra’s name I found this criticism of Obama double-speak from 2009.]

JRH [Blog Editor: Typically the embedded links are to my initials are to the old SlantRight.com site. In this case it is to the Blogger censored link which cross posted the Bill Warner title “The Bush Islamic Doctrine”. I’m updating this CPCR post to reflect that] 4/6/09

****************************

The Bush Islamic Doctrine

 

By Bill Warner

April 3, 2009

Political Islal/CSPII

We were introduced the power of political Islam on September 11, 2001. For a few people 9/11 was a declaration of war against our civilization and those people have been struggling against Islam. It is time to stop and ask: How are we doing? We are losing on every front.

A definition: Kafirs are the non-Muslims who are fighting against Islam. Dhimmis are the apologists for Islam—the media, Obama, George Bush, the professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis.

Why are the kafirs losing? Because Islam is so strong? No, because we are waging war with a strategy that is destined to fail. We are losing because we using a losing strategy. George Bush planted the seeds of our strategy when he declared that 9/11 was an act of terrorists and he laid out the strategy that would lead to our cultural self-destruction. Here is the Bush Islamic doctrine:

• Islam is a religion similar to Christianity. Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god.

 

• The problem is terrorism, not Islam, hence, “The War on Terror.”

 

• There are moderate Muslims and a few extremist Muslims.

 

• A good Muslim means that Islam is good.

 

• “Radicals” cause the violence.

 

• Islam is found in the Koran.

 

• The “bad stuff” in the Koran is just how it is interpreted.

 

• Good Muslims will reform the “terrorists.”

Not a single item is true. [Blog Editor Bold Emphasis] Each and every one is false and has no basis in Islamic doctrine. But everybody bought it. Why? For the same reason that Bush said it. It was the academic doctrine of Islam that the Ivy League taught. The media, professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis had all been taught the same doctrine to interpret Islam. The Bush doctrine is not only unquestioned, but now has achieved the status of revealed truth. To deny it is to be a bigot.

So Bush did not create the doctrine, he was just a spokesman for the elites. There is a great irony in calling it the Bush doctrine, since more progressives/liberals/Leftists/Democrats believe it than do conservatives. Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama are advocates of the Bush doctrine.

Let’s see how the Bush doctrine works to prevent actual learning about the truth of Islam. Take the jihad in Mumbai, India where several Jews and hundreds of Hindus were injured and murdered. The words “Islam” and “Muslims” were barely mentioned by the media. The problem was terrorism, not jihad. The dhimmis did not want to malign the moderate Muslims by bringing up the Islam angle. It was just a few radicals who had highjacked Islam who attacked the kafirs in Mumbai.

How many mindless (mindless on the part of the Christians and Jews) interfaith dialogues have we seen? Religious leaders all get on stage and go on about how they worship the same god. Not one of these so-called Christian and Jewish leaders has actually read the Koran. It is the Koran that defines Allah and if you don’t know what is in it, you don’t know anything about Allah. But not to worry. The Bush doctrine holds it to be true and that is enough. What religious leader has had the time over the last eight years to read the Koran or the life of Mohammed? They have had plenty of time, but they don’t need to do so; they are comforted by the lies of the Bush doctrine.

The Cork in the Bottle

Let’s say that you are talking to a dhimmi and you bring up some evil of Islam. What do they say?

• Christians did bad things, too.

 

• There is violence in the Bible, too.

 

• They (jihadis) are some fundamentalist/radical types. All fundamentalists are bad. Most Muslims are just like everybody else.

 

• The ultimate mind cork: “I know this Muslim at work. He is nice. Subtext: I can’t hear you.” (A good Muslim means that Islam is good.)

Every thrust is parried with the Bush doctrine of Islam. The Bush doctrine is the cork in the bottle. Every time we try to pour some wine of truth into a dhimmi’s head, it is corked by the Bush doctrine.

Terror

And how have we responded to the Bush Islamic doctrine? For the most part, we have bought the Bush terror model of Islam. We try to stuff everything into terror/jihad. Since no one likes terror/jihad, it can be condemned. But Islam is very clever. There are four kinds of jihad—sword, pen, tongue and money. If they skip the terror part and go straight to the soft jihad, then the kafirs talking about the terror/jihad approach to Islam are soon ignored. The media skips the terror/jihad now. There have been numerous jihadist events in America, but the FBI and the media never admit that Islam is involved. The worst was Mumbai, India. It was pure jihad, the attack on the Jews proved that, but Islam and the Muslims were never mentioned. No Islam here. Move right along. There is no man behind the curtain.

The terror approach bears a relationship to crying “Wolf!” After while, no one really worries about terror and the lack of it proves that Islam is good.

The major problem with dealing with “terror” is that it takes away from watching the real destructive force in America—Sharia law and the slow Islamification of our culture.

Education and Debate

When you are trying to educate someone about Islam, it helps to go over the Bush doctrine and point out that not a single statement in it is true. Up front, challenge their beliefs.

Bill Warner

Copyright © 2009 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.