In part 1, I discussed how one of the long-time veteran commenters at Jihad Watch (that bastion of the Counter Jihad Mainstream), agreed with Obama's recent solemn speech averring that "we are not at war with Islam" (joined at the hip with "we should not be at war with Islam"). More curious, as I noted, was how for two days this commenter, one "PRCS", remained unchallenged by his peers.
Then finally, another long-time veteran Jihad Watcher, one "gravenimage", took him to task with kid gloves on. The reason I left the previous essay open for a second part was I was waiting for PRCS to respond back to gravenimage. I see now that he has. I'll be right back as I go read it...
Well, I read it. Of course, PRCS doesn't respond to 90% of the points gravenimage brought up, which she had in direct reference to his points. Instead, he takes a broad tack, reiterating his overarching view that "we do not go to war with ideologies". His argument is tedious, but one thing he said almost breezes by parenthetically, yet it is the crux of the whole problem:
THEY are engaged in an ongoing 1400 year conflict against the rest of the world–per their idiotic religious beliefs–not WAR as defined by International Law, and we are not obliged to play along. We resist, and/or retaliate against aggression as appropriate. Being attacked by a nation (no, not the ummah)–without regard to ideology–would be an act of war. [bold emphasis mine]
Notice PRCS summarily dismissing the Umma as a vehicle & agent of the war against us. In his dismissal of this crucial factor of this new war (actually the Longest War in history, in addition to being a world war), PRCS is guilty of that tendency that has marked strategists of modern warfare, from the Napoleonic Wars to this day -- the tendency to fight the present war "like the last war". In a word, to refuse to adapt to new or unforeseen strategic circumstances, but rather to conduct the present war stubbornly according to outmoded paradigms. The trans-national character of our new enemy (actually our oldest enemy) is surely one of the more important facets of this war. The war waged against us by the Communist Soviet Union also had a trans-national character; yet it always had a "home base" of a nation, the U.S.S.R. So now that we see, from educating ourselves, that this latest (and oldest) enemy also has a trans-national structure, but no particular home base, its military inspiration and strategy instead disseminated through a trans-national form for which we have no historical precedent (except in the very same enemy that has been trying to conquer the West for 1,400 years), are we obliged, like the stubborn ox PRCS, to assume that there is no entity at war with us, because it does not fit the mold of a "nation"?
I discuss this problem in detail in three older essays. I would direct the reader first to the one that introduces the subject, A different kind of war. From there, the reader should take a look at a much longer and more detailed discussion, The Four World Wars: An interesting dynamic. Finally, to round off the whole topic with a summary adumbration that goes to the heart of the matter, the reader would do well to consult my essay, Asymmetrical World War.
P.S.: I notice just now that another member of the Jihad Watch "Rabbit Pack" (see part 1 for why I use that term), one "Mirren", responds belatedly to PRCS. Let's see what she has to say, shall we...?
Well, well, well; Mirren actually responds with appropriate distemper to PRCS; and though she is correct that his argument is overall "silly splitting hairs", she could have gone into some detail explaining why it is so. For one thing, PRCS is as stubborn as a fine old ox, and he will remain impervious to her castigation; since his argument in his mind is weighty, not "silly", and involves some deeply important notion of the lofty wisdom of our "not letting them [the Muslims] force us to play their game" by opposing their war against us with a war against them.
The larger point is, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream should tackle this problem head-on, not in random, extemporaneous, incomplete swipes. God knows that Jihad Watch comments regularly and for years has generated many discussions in comments fields where many Jihad Watch regulars (and newbies) join in to hash out some issue or other (often a relatively trivial issue fomented by some Leftist or Muslim troll). And yet, when one of their veteran peers, PRCS, posts oxshit like this about one of the most crucial aspects of the horrifying danger in which the West finds itself increasingly embroiled, the vast majority of them completely ignore it, and only one of them actually parks her car to issue a mild citation, while a second one can't be bothered to do more than to slow down her car and say a few things out the window before she drives on to some other destination? When PRCS posted that first comment on December 8, then replied to that weak response with more of the same oxcrap, there should have alighted in that battle space of the war of ideas the full participation of the entire Rabbit Pack as well as at least a dozen other regular commenters, along with a few newbies, to join the matter and escalate it into a full-blown, explicit and frank conversation.
See Part 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment