On this site there is a report titled, “Militant Ideology Atlas.” It gages and groups the Middle East into four major categories determined by the amount of support for violence- extremism. While it does not give numbers on militants, it does break down the Middle East into usable Subgroups from the General Muslims, then Islamists, to the Salafis, and then to the smallest group- the Jihadis. This group is a subset of the Salafis.

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/atlas/Atlas-ExecutiveReport.pdf

The Jihadis are the minority and the ones that practice terrorism. They do not represent the entire Middle East. This report shows in clear terms some of the misconceptions we have in how we wage war in the Middle East. As mentioned below, just the use of certain terms can either help or hurt us. Some may consider this being P.C. I do not. I consider it understanding the culture and using this understanding to make better policy.

The methods and tactics we use in the War on Terror and in Iraq matter. They can either benefit us or hurt us. Brutal Force without a coherent plan, strategy, or the use of Diplomacy has gotten us nowhere.

I have not heard of one Democrat calling for the end of the War. They are calling for a better policy. Some of us want new Leadership.

This is a good report for all on this site to read.

One recommendation from the report:

Label the entire Jihadi Movement “Qutbism” in recognition that the Jihadis cite Sayyid Qutb more than any other modern author. Muslim opponents of the Jihadis (including mainstream Wahhabis) use this term to describe them, a designation Jihadis hate since it implies that they follow a human and are members of a deviant sect. Adherents of the movement consider “Qutbi” to be a negative label and would much rather be called Jihadi or Salafi. Calling the movement “Qutbism” would also remove potentially offensive words from the lexicon of public officials (like “Islamofascism”) and disassociate the movement from Islam.

The conclusion of the Report “Militant Ideology Atlas.”

Finally, a word about “moderate” Muslims. The measure of moderation depends on what type of standard you use. If by “moderate” one means the renouncement of violence in the achievement of political goals, then the majority of Salafis are moderate. But if by “moderate” one means an acceptance of secularism, capitalism, democracy, gender equality, and a commitment to religious pluralism, then Salafis would be extremists on all counts. Then again, there are not many Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East that would qualify as moderates according to the second definition. Until there are, the international community should focus on alienating Jihadis from the broader Salafi Movement. While it may be distasteful to work with non-violent Salafi leaders, they are best positioned to delegitimize Jihadi violence and monitor the activities of the more militant elements of their movement.

The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism
By John Hawkins
Friday, February 23, 2007
Send an email to John Hawkins

Some interesting conversation from around Noon of the 24^th through Midnight; if you want to check it out. Of course, it is mixed with a lot of the usual “more of the same yadda-yadda” remarks thrown in.

Hey, here it is.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2007/02/22/democrats_disingenuous_in_their_anti-war_rhetoric

==================================================================

The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism
By John Hawkins
Friday, February 23, 2007
Send an email to John Hawkins

Some interesting conversation from around Noon of the 24^th through Midnight; if you want to check it out. Of course, it is mixed with a lot of the usual “more of the same yadda-yadda” remarks thrown in.

Hey, here it is.

  Re:
bones writes: Thursday, February, 08, 2007 7:04 PM
wjriii writes: Thursday, February, 08, 2007 6:40 PM

 [Note: the list being referenced is a comparison of the Republican and Democrat members who have served in the military. It can be found in the comments of the article linked at the end of this post.]

The point of the list is to show that not all military personal support this war. In the last election, a number of veterans ran as Democrats. They are still American veterans. To simply ignore them because of party politics prevents us from forming a better strategy. To date, Bush has made all decisions. The Democrats and a number of experts have been forced out of the debate for the last three plus years concerning this war. You or anyone can wish to discredit the messengers like Wilson, but he had a career before the smear campaign began. He has been stationed as an ambassador and worked closely with the CIA. You may wish to ignore him, but that does not make me foolish for not doing so. Watch this video. It is a debate between William Kristol (Publisher of the Weekly Standard and operator of the neo-conservative think tank, Project for a new American Century,  that is behind the policy of this war) and Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

(Watch this movie)

You can want to end debate, but the country just voted and demanded change. Bush has had three years to perform, and perform poorly is what he did. There is no reason to suggest that he will accomplish anything new now.

He continues to ignore expert advice. This administration is still following a narrow perspective of how to win this war. The neo-conservative agenda in Iraq has not worked. To date, all they have accomplished is to destabilize the Middle East. They have emboldened Iran by bogging America down in this quagmire. This would have happened if I spoke about the policy or not.

To ignore that the President continues with the tired policy of “stay the course,” is to invite further failure. Now is the time to debate- how else to teach a new country in the ways of Democracy than to practice it. The fact that we have been prevented this is why our country is divided and why we are failing in all policies that concern us- specifically the Iraq war.

I have a quote from Franklin on my blog, here is the link:  (Read this speech)

Franklin is addressing the very political environment we are operating in today. Debate is just the start of what we need to do if we truly wish to succeed in Iraq and in all our foreign policies. We need to respect and follow our system of government. Ignoring the Constitution and sidelining Congress did not provide us strength. To continue in this method, which Bush seems to have chosen to do, will continue to cause division in our Country and will still affect the rest of the world. The President has sidelined the majority of the Baker/Hamilton report and continues to ignore generals and other experts.

Refusing to be silenced by catcalls of treason is a patriotic duty. Debating the course we are on, not only in the Middle East, but with all our foreign policy is a necessity if we wish to get all American on board the plan. If the leadership in this administration continues to divide us by ignoring us, then maybe it is time to change leadership- so that we may be able to succeed in Iraq.

(Link to original article)

I posed myself a question the other day, well not really, a friend did while logged in as me. Under the comments on the post titled ‘Lincoln/Douglas debate,’ he asked why quote historical figures? How do they apply to the events of now? Why not discuss the issues of the day. These are valid and reasonable questions and they may lend to understanding the root of our societal ills today- - we have forgotten what made us great.

Current political events are irreverent. Whether you are looking at domestic or foreign policy, the battles between parties seem to take precedence over common sense. While I do believe one party to be worse than the other at exploiting divisions, both seem oblivious to the gradual decline from our previous stature. None of our problems will be solved with the current amount of divisions in our country. Waging war, either politically here at home, or literally in distant lands, has solved none of our problems.

The Constitution was specifically designed to break the grip of factions in our society. One group was prevented from forcing its will onto the rest of society through mechanisms built into the Constitution’s checks and balances. Regardless of the groups’ make-up, religious, business, workers, or politicians, no one group could operate under any rules other than the common law. But to live under a common law, we have to understand the necessity of giving every individual the ability to live free. The system of government our forebears created was specifically designed to protect this freedom. Our current leaders ignore our Constitution and system of government it created. Because of this, our government is failing in its responsibility of providing a just society.

While the Constitution is a set of rules designed to regulate the decisions in which we live as a society, it is more importantly a philosophical idea describing how to live in peace. It is a system that allows all the differing sections to acknowledge one set of laws and to abide by them regardless of religious beliefs or individual differences.

But, this lesson cannot be learned if we do not understand the origin of the Constitution and the reasons the Forefathers created the device they did. We can not only look back at what they said, but how they said it. The history of our differing debates is interesting and long, but there was only one time before this when it fell silent to divisions. If we don’t look back, how to we prevent following into those footsteps?

Our past is filled with brilliance. Historical figures from our inception, all of which are better suited to guide us than the bucket of bolts we now have in office, describe problems exactly as we face today. My attempt at quoting Lincoln was to show that he was against the Mexican War and stated it without being called a traitor. He could debate the war and still ensure our troops safety. He had a responsibility as a citizen and representative and did not cower down to political expedience. As an American citizen, he held a responsibility to speak his mind even when we were at war. Maybe I did not explain it well, but that was the intent.

If our current bucket is half full or empty, I don’t care. Our present state is running havoc on the only world we have. Defending ourselves against terrorism is not a reason to abandon the ideals of this country. We were described by Franklin as “the last beacon of light for the world.” If we are living up to this title today is debatable. The conduct of this war has fallen beneath us. That we even debated torture as a national law or practiced secret renditions, when neither provided real benefit, shows a vast misunderstanding of our purpose as stated by Franklin. Real historical perspective is lacking in today society and it shows. There is not one problem we face today, that we cannot go back to our founders and beyond to find some reason- - an ideal to guide us- - a principle to let stand.

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, on Monday, September 17, 1787 Franklin addressed the convention about the importance of the Constitution they created:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right…

Is it really ironic that on the last day of the convention, Franklin addresses the very political and societal environment we live in today? While he is addressing the eventual temperance of man, he is asking for the approval of the very device they created to prevent this temperance from breaking apart our society- - our Constitution.

If this administration has breached the technical law of our Constitution can be debated further, but their having failed to live up to our purpose of this country is beyond denial. If they understand anything of our country is a serious question.

Another great leader to look back on is Harry Truman. He used the most lethal weapon ever devised to perform his duties towards the preservation of freedom, but yet when he spoke, he used a mild language to explain his actions. In every speech President Truman gave, he expressed a profound understanding of our Founder’s intent. He was able to reconcile his actions and policies to be in the best interest of the country by respecting our system of government to achieve them. In an enduring speech delivered in Chicago in 1949, he spoke of the American process in a way that highlights the present administrations failures to gain any support for this current war. President Truman described our American system with these words:

In this Nation, foreign policy is not made by the decisions of a few. It is the result of the democratic process, and represents the collective judgment of the people. Our foreign policy is founded upon an enlightened public opinion.

The importance of public opinion in the Untied States is not always understood or properly evaluated. Public opinion in a country such as ours cannot be ignored or manipulated to suit the occasion. It cannot be stampeded. Its formation is necessarily a slow process, because the people must be given ample opportunity to discuss the issues and reach a reasoned conclusion. But once a democratic decision is made, it represents the collective will of the Nation and can be depended upon to endure.

Those that rule by arbitrary power in other nations do not understand these things. For this reason, they do not realize the strength behind our foreign policy.

The major decisions in our foreign policy since the war have been made on the basis of an informed public opinion and overwhelming public support….

Momentous decisions are the decisions not of the Government alone, but of the people of the United States. For this reason, it is clear that this country will steadfastly continue, together with other nations of like purpose, along the path we have chosen towards peace and freedom for the world.

The formation of foreign policy on the part of the democratic nations may be a slow and painful process, but the results endure.

In the lead up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration prevented us from following this American process. There was great effort to ensure the public’s opinion was kept uniformed. Security experts were viciously attacked for questioning the evidence supporting the stated reasons for war. Generals were fired for not supporting what we now know was an inadequate plan that was poorly orchestrated. Economic advisors were let go for questioning the stated cost that would be accrued as a result of the Iraq war. The opposition party and traditional allies were chastised and declared ‘against us.’ The congress was undermined. Constitutional checks and balances were ignored. A Unitary Executive was declared, and prior to the war, as now with the new talk of a surge, the general public’s opinion is deemed unimportant.

America is weaker today because we have failed to understand our own history and we ignored those elements of our history that make us strong. The Democratic Process created by our Forebears is our strength. The system they created was designed to find the best and most reasonable solutions to any of our problems. But we have to understand the importance of the Constitution to use this strength. Our leaders have to respect the system in which they operate and use it for just causes. And we, the people, have to demand that our Government is not undermined by a fraction of sour apples operating for the select interest of a few.

There are many great leaders in our past. Their words and actions can be used to guide us through any situation. Their vision for our nation is enduring, but we have to reach back and understand it. We have to learn the lessons of the past to forge a better future.