Nemesis

HIZB al-TAHRIR: HATCHERY OF ISLAMIC RADICALISM

Con George-Kotzabasis

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s spokesman Washim Doureihi’s claim that his party’s goal ‘was not to change the nature of Australia’, is either blatant dissembling-characteristic of Muslims-or historically ignorant. The establishment of a caliphate in the Indonesian archipelago and beyond, which is the goal of Hizb ut-Tahrir, with a population of more than five hundred millions, would not merely ‘change the nature of Australia’, but would irrevocably obliterate Australia and New Zealand as the outposts of Western civilization in the region.

However, the statement of John Howard, as reported in The Age, on January 30, 07, should be of some concern to Australians. He stated that ‘people…should be able to say ridiculous things in democracy without that language constituting violence and extreme incitement to violence’. This judgment of the PM is based on rational criteria. The trouble is that all the actions of the terrorists are based on a patent of irrationality, and indeed, their whole movement of jihad has a ridiculous base, i.e., religious fanaticism. And it’s by propagating these ridiculous things that their propagandists, such as Dr. Ismail Yusanto, chairman of the Indonesian arm of Hizb al-Tahrir, who was the main speaker at the conference of the latter last weekend, are getting their deadly recruits of terror. That is why political leaders who have committed their military forces to fight global terror, have to take these ‘ridiculous things’ with seriousness. They cannot allow a hatchery of Islamic radicalism to function in the midst of their countries as a fifth column of global terrorism.

LEADERS MADE UP ON THE ROLL OF THE DICE.
Con George Kotzabasis

The folowing is an extract from my book Unveiling The War Against Terror, written on September 24, 2003

There was always a lurking suspicion, that Gareth Evans’ projection on the firmament of Australian politics as Foreign Minister, was not propelled by the force of egregious merit, but by the force of the “roll of the dice”, as played in the numbers game of the “witless men” of the Labor Party. This suspicion was confirmed by the former Minister himself, by his intellectually tasteless and insipid, not to say brutal and banal, Hawke Lecture, mocking and deriding American Foreign Policy in the bombastiloquent, colorful, and jesting terms of a court jester. Obviously, your Chairman was more concerned with entertaining and beguiling his audience than enlightening it, although one must admit, that enlightenment cannot burst forth from an ‘eclipsed star’.

His “hors d’ oeuvres”, to quote him, was the most eclectically bitter anti-Americanism one could taste. It was either the reaction of a prima donna who had been shunned, or of a political guru whose advice and pearls of wisdom were not allowed to trespass the corridors of power. After a litany of syndromes of medical and clinical psychology, which are so alluring and beloved by the progressive intelligentsia, after an array of run-of-the-mill accusations against the Bush Administration, such as “current enemies used to be friends” etc., which seem to reveal more the caliber of his diplomatic and political acumen, than the fault lines of the Administration’s foreign policy, and after his crude and brutish metaphors, such as “the top dog on the global block” (one can only ask about such a literary creation, was it an outcome of a syndrome of deprived imagination?), oblivious of the fact or shuffling it away, that it was this “dog” who saved the world from the twin miasma of Nazism and Communism, and that it will be the same dog who has the means and will to defeat global terrorism. At the end of this drivel, although he concedes that all these accusations might be “unfair”, he nonetheless does not abstain from the ignominious temptation to make a ‘big fair’ out of them.

The English essayist Chesterton observed, “where is the best place to hide a leaf? In a tree.” Mr. Evans, apparently observes, where is the best place to hide a truth? Paint it in the colors of failure. The truth about global terrorism is that you cannot defeat it without also fighting the rogue states that directly and indirectly support it. It is therefore preeminently a two front war. And Iraq was a quintessential part of this strategy. Furthermore, only one nation in the world has the technological and military power, and will, to defeat global terrorism. The free nations of the world depend on America’s triumph in this deadly contest with the terrorists. And as in all critical contests, there have to be tradeoffs between independence and dependence. Your Chairman would have known this, since he reads Isaiah Berlin.

This is the truth that the liberal intelligentsia is so abhorrent of and runs away from. All the accusations against the Howard Government’s erosion of Australia’s independence are, therefore, grossly erroneous and lack historical insight. As for his criticism of pre-emption, your Chairman completely disregards the fine distinction between pre-emption as an option, which is applicable to a world that is under discontinuous threats, and pre-emption as a doctrine, which is applicable to a world that is under continuous threats, as presently posed by the terrorists. And as for his hypocritical statement of standing with America, “but when we were needed on the big issues, we were always there”, one is tempted to ask, is global terrorism not a big issue?
Lastly, all his expatiations about international rules and laws that bring order in an anarchic world are totally inutile. Only when peoples and nations abide by these rules and laws, can the latter be effective. The trouble is that neither the terrorists nor the rogue states are prepared to submit to such a legalistic regime. Recent examples of this are Rwanda, Serbia, Kosovo, and Iraq.

All the colorful bubbles that your Chairman presented in the guise of serious arguments in his lecture, will not survive the Aeolian winds that erupted on September 11.Your Chairman, for his own reasons, is a fugitive from reality. History has shown, that in hard times only the “hard men” can prevail. The wets and the wimps are cast aside. Alas, one can only summon the squatter diplomat, Gareth Evans, to “remove his belongings” from the domain of Talleyrand.

Dear readers of Nemesis,

I’m republishing this proposal sent to President Bush as Washington politicians are presently attempting to micro-manage the war.

THE WAR CANNOT BE WON IF ITS COMMANDERS
ARE HOSTAGES TO POLITICS.

Con George-Kotzabasis

The following was written on April 11, 2004 and was sent to President Bush on the same date. It’s republished now, as the Bush administration is forging a new strategy for Iraq that hopefully will be victorious against the murderous insurgents.

Dear Mr. President,

The present armed insurgency, threatening to become a general insurgency against your forces in Iraq, unless its momentum is promptly nipped in the bud, of Shiites and Sunnis against the Coalition, threatens to put off balance your whole strategic project for Iraq and the Middle East in general, which would have tremendously negative effects on the war against global terror.

Needless to say therefore, the stakes are infinitely high.

At the present moment these fanatic thugs are fighting your forces under the misperception that they have the “upper hand” in this confrontation. It is for this reason therefore, that any conciliatory move your Authority in Iraq will be making toward the insurgents will be perceived by them to be a sign of weakness by your side. A current example of this is the ceasefire in Fallujah, that Paul Bremer was probably compelled to declare as a result of pressures put upon him by some members of the Interim Governing Council (IGC). This was done to presumably give the opportunity to diplomatic palaver to resolve some of the issues that are contested between, in my judgement, irreconcilable opponents. These talks are bound to fail, as you will confront the hardened positions of these fanatics, which arise from their false belief that they will be bargaining from a strong position, that will be totally incompatible with your military plans against the insurgents, and therefore will be rejected by your side.

It is neither surprising nor unreasonable, that some members of the IGC have condemned your military actions in Fallujah and have opted for negotiations with the insurgents. What is unreasonable however, about the stand of the IGC – which apparently does not have political and military strategists among its members – is the futility, except as a public relations stunt of doubtful value, of these negotiations on the core issues between the belligerents, and the loss of valuable time that could be expended instead by your military commanders in putting, urgently and immediately, a stop to the momentum of the insurgency that threatens to engulf the whole country.

Paul Bremer therefore, has the responsibility to awaken these members of the IGC from their somnambulistic illusions, and spell out to them the high stakes involved, which can only be resolved by the use of major military force by the Coalition. However, despite these negative aspects of the ceasefire in Fallujah, it can be used positively by enabling women and children to evacuate the town, hence saving them from becoming collateral casualties from a future attack by your forces.

The paradigm of Vietnam has shown conclusively that your brave commanders and troops could not win a war that was politically restrained, as to the appropriate kind of weapons used against their enemies, by the hands of “micro-politicians”. In any major critical military engagement, military considerations should have the upper hand over political considerations. Certainly, the overwhelming military response of your forces against the insurgents will have local and international repercussions and will spark a “wildfire” of protests against your Administration. But despite this, the priority of the military over the political must not be modified and must prevail. It is the price that statesmanship must pay.

Moreover, what is of the utmost importance in this conflict is to inflict such a deadly blow on the insurgents in selected towns of Iraq, from which they will never be able to recover. It is not enough to capture or kill them in small numbers, but to do so in the largest number possible. Their capture or killing en masse, will have a powerful psychological effect upon other insurgents in other towns, and will irreparably breakdown their morale and their fighting spirit. To achieve this goal, you Mr. President, as Commander-in- Chief, must direct your commanders on the ground to use the weapons that would inflict this devastating blow on the insurgents. That means that incendiary bombs, and the “daisies cutter” be used as a last resort against the insurgents, whose total defeat is so pivotal to your historic project in Iraq and to the war against global terror.

Sure enough, as I said above, there will be multiple political repercussions on a world scale. But one has to be reminded that wars are won or lost by military actions not by political repercussions. It is a terrible situation to be in for a Commander-in-Chief, but the question for free, open, and civilized societies, is to be or not to be. It is by such tragic and historic burdens that your leadership and Tony Blair’s are weighed with presently. But the mantle of statesmanship falls on Churchillian shoulders, such as yours and your British counterpart.

OVERTHROW OF HUSSEIN WILL DEFEAT
GLOBAL TERRORISM AND ITS STATE SPONSORS.

Con George-Kotzabasis

The following paper is an extract from my book, “Unveiling the War Against Global Terror”, written on March 14, 2003

The critics of the war against Iraq are, or pretend to be, blind of the fact that this war is directly correlated to the war against global terrorism and its state sponsors. One cannot comprehensively defeat global terror without linking it to its state sponsors and the rogue states which have the potential to deliver weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ) to their terrorist clients. Even if at this moment, there is no unqualified evidence of such a link between terrorists and rogue states, one can reasonably estimate from recent terrorist attacks the high probability that the coupling of these forces will soon be consummated, especially if the terrorisrs will continue to be successful in their operations. This probability will be even more amplified, if the rogue states happen to be of muslim provenance.

In the case of Iraq, although as yet there is no conclusive evidence linking the regime to September 11, there is ample evidence that this link with terrorists affiliated with bin Laden already exists, as Iraqi intelligence was involved both in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and in the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. More recently, evidence has been excavated, that the Jordanian terrorist al Zarqawi, with links to al Qaeda, has been given aid, succour, and domicile in Iraq. According to one suspect arrested in Italy, he told interrogators that a Zarqawi group was supplied with toxins by Iraq, which could kill Americans like flies. It has been reported also, that two dozen al Qaeda affiliates followed Zarqawi to Baghdad, after the fall of the Taliban, and remain there. The Zarqawi connection was part of Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. Security Council in mid February 2003 when he made his case against Iraq. And in this context, more ominous is a CIA analysis predicting ‘a 59 percent probability that an attack on the U.S. homeland involving WMD would occur before March 31 2003, and a 35 percent probability an attack would occur at a later date’.

It is this risk of cosmic dimensions that statesmen have to countenance and countervail before it happens. But in the club of statesmen, whose exemplary members are Blair and Bush, as a result of their political acumen, historical insight, and moral strength to swim against the populist tide, Chirac, Schroeder, Putin and all the other minions, including the Australian variety, are ineligible to enter as members in this club of spiritual fire. – even if they entered by some populist whim, they would be singed into ashes by its flames – Chirac, as an outcome of his supercilious cultural pride, pretensions of grandeur, and political ambition to be the leader of a United Europe. Schroeder and Putin, as an outcome of their distorted political pragmatism, and lack of historical insight. Tony Blair and George Bush, and might one include our own PM John Howard, have dared to enter the dark cave of the twin dragons of terrorism and its state sponsors, and have seen the potential great danger that would befall upon the civilized world by this coupling of monsters. Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin like blind bats in the same cave, only by their hooting cries, temporarily, can avoid from crashing into the dragon’s teeth.

In the realm of human affairs uncertainty is the absolute sovereign. No individual or human collectivity, no matter how intelligent and knowledgeable, can attain certainty and make its decisions on its basis. To borrow a term from quantum physics, probability is the axis upon which intelligent and knowledgeable people consider and make their decisions. No serious political leader worth his salt, would temporize his crucial decisions until he caught the elusive butterfly of certainty into his net. Statesmen, in contrast to political shysters, whose play with politics has one aim only, the acquisition and holding of power, even if this acquisition is at the expense of the vital interests of their nations, dare to make their decisions on the odds of probabiliy, especially at critical times. Timorous temporization and avoiding to grasp the bull by its horns is not of their making. It is enough for them to know that usually a red cloth in front of a bull will make the beast aggressive, and act on that probability.

After September 11, and October 12 in the Bali bombing, can any one doubt that if these fanatics would ever possess WMD they would not use them unhesitatingly agains the infidels of Western civilzation? And can any one doubt the high probability that these WMD would eventually be delivered to the terrorists by rogue states, if the latter are not prevented, such as the regime of Saddam Hussein? Moreover, can any one reasonably argue, that if this nexus between terrorists and rogue states is likely to occur in the near future, that the plausible future victims of an attack by this “lethal mixture” should not take preventive measures to foil this nexus? And why do all the civil libertarians and the anti-war protestors get so terrified and get shivers in their spine, whenever they hear the phrase pre-emptive attack? If one had asked them whether they would support the taking of preventive measures against disease and against crime, they would all answer to one with a resounding live Yes. Yet for some inscrutable reason, they are responding with a resounding deadly No, in regards to taking preventive measures, pre-emptive action, against a biological or nuclear attack, which would be by many orders of magnitude more devastating for the future of mankind than disease and crime. It is by this meretricious inconsistency, that the civil libertarians and anti-war protestors are carrying the banner of liberty and of humanity on their wobbling and rickety feet. And it would hardly be a long shot not to expect of them, that with the first onslaught against their principles and beliefs, as it has already been foreshadowed by the events of September 11 and October 12 in Bali, they would quickly throw this banner of liberty and democracy off their hands, crying simultaneously that they are pacifists and they are unwilling to go to war, take note, in defense of the values they so strongly believe in. But the “warmongers” will do this for the pacifists. So the latter will continue to indulge in the illusions of their “wet-dreams”, as well as continue to be “free riders” on the back of the values of freedom.

The war against Saddam Hussein is morally, politically, and historically, totally justified. The defeat of his brutal regime will not only liberate millions of Iraqis from his dictatorship, but will also liberate hundreds of millions in the rest of the world from the fear of being attacked by terrorists with WMD. It is necessary to emphasize and to remind people who are not convinced of the case for war against Iraq – although this is as tiresome and embarrassing as it would be to a teacher repeating a lesson several times to slow witted pupils – that this war became a casus belli only after the murderous and ominous events of September 11. Hence, the arguments that the motivations of the war, as Gore Vidal asserts, lie in American Imperium, and as others claim, in the interests of oil cartels, are a base canard and a bedtime fairy tale.

The Bush administration is awake and alert–in contrast to the self-satisfied administration of his predecessor Bill Clinton, who would not allow any action carried out by global terrorism, no matter how heinous and portentous, to disturb his blissful soporific complacency and his dalliance with populism–to the mortal danger that global terrorism poses to America and to the world at large, and has the moral and intellectual strength to take decisive, per-emptive, and relentless action against this great threat. It is aware, that the ultimate and decisive defeat of global terror will only be accomplished with a two front war, involving also its state sponsors. And the strategic offensive of its military power against one rogue state, in this case Iraq, and its complete defeat, will have domino effects upon all other rogue states. Hence, making it unnecessary for the U.S. to go to war against another rogue state. Lastly, it will inflict a devastating blow on the morale of global terrorists and will abate, if not stop, the deadly actions of the latter against the cities of the West, as well as accelerate their total defeat. One must recognise, that it is the ability of terrorists to launch successful operations against America and against the cities of the West, that attracts suicidal recruits into their ranks. But once one deprives them of this ability, one also dries up the well that supplies these recruits of death, as the terrorists themselves will realize, once they lose their potency to launch successful operations against the infidels, that Allah is no longer on their side. Moreover, the inability of terrorists to undertake successful operations against the West, will in turn totally discourage rogue states to finance and supply terrorists WMD. This is the way to defeat global terrorism!

The Bush’s administration strategic foresight to fight on two fronts, both against global terror and its state sponsors, will be a win win against this twin monster on all fronts. The defeat of Hussein will lead to the defeat of global terrorism and to all rogue states. This is why the war against his regime is so necessary. And in the years to come, humanity will be grateful that the leadership of Bush, Blair, and Howard, did not falter and abdicate from the historical responsibility to carry the world, like Atlas, on its strong shoulders against the populist tide, to a safer place, and deliver it from the scourge of terrorism.