Ramadan Begins

[Taking a break from the all-Palin, all the time blogosphere:]

Today is the beginning of Ramadan, a holy month for followers of Islam. During this time Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset. As-Salamu Alaykum to all my Muslim friends.

If you are not Muslim, keep in mind that the ability to convincingly pretend could be very useful at some point in the future. This is especially true for atheists and others who deny the existence of God, as well as those residing in Europe. Now is your chance to practice.

A Revival For Islam

The story I mentioned a couple of days ago about the Pope baptizing Magdi Allam, a Muslim convert, is getting a lot of play. Someone, and I can't remember who right now, cautioned against taking a triumphant tone. I think this is good advice. Yet I think we may look back on this someday as a very significant event.

One article you must read comes from the mysterious Spengler (via Rod Dreher). Spengler thinks the door is opening for widespread conversion of Muslims to Christianity, and this may change the entire equation of Islamic-Western relations.

Muslims suffer from a stultifying spiritual emptiness... Muslim traditional society cannot withstand the depredations of globalized culture, and radical Islam arises from a despairing nostalgia for the disappearing past. Why would Muslims trade the spiritual vacuum of Islam for the spiritual sewer of Dutch hedonism? The souls of Muslims are in agony. The blandishments of the decadent West offer them nothing but shame and deracination. Magdi Allam agrees with his former co-religionists in repudiating the degraded culture of the modern West, and offers them something quite different: a religion founded upon love.

Over a year ago, I mentioned stories about a quickening of conversions in Islamic countries. Chuck Colson (via Leticia) confirms it is still happening. Some Muslims and Christians are finding common ground in resisting the Culture of Death. I'm still cautious, but a lot seems to be happening under the radar.

Think about this: the combined efforts of Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher brought down the Soviet Union in only a few years. Can the same happen with radical Islam? It's a different kind of war now, obviously. We are in a struggle for the hearts and souls of men. Spengler argues that if Benedict can create an environment in Europe that allows Muslims to convert without risking their lives, the dam could break.

Today's Europeans stem from the melting-pot of the barbarian invasions that replaced the vanishing population of the Roman Empire. The genius of the Catholic Church was to absorb them. If Benedict XVI can convert this new wave of invaders from North Africa and the Middle East, history will place him on a par with his great namesake, the founder of the monastic order the bears his name.

This is bold talk, but stranger things have happened. In the 1980s I was a young Army officer, and I can assure you that none of us expected the Soviet Union to simply crumble away. Yet a few years later it did. We also did not have to wonder whether that evil empire had weapons of mass destruction; we knew what they had, and we knew they could be launched our way any time. If a threat that great can disappear so quickly, anything is possible. We have a Pope who is ready to lead this Crusade. I won't be surprised if it costs him his life. Yet he will press on.

So what can we do to help? Pray. Hope. And if you know any Muslims, show them the love of Christ. We can win this war - one soul at a time.

Benedict Baptizes A Muslim

Both the news media and religious blogs are chattering today about Pope Benedict's baptizing of a prominent Italian Muslim named Magdi Allam. Reaction is all over the board. Some call it a provocative move that might derail the ongoing Catholic-Islamic dialogue. That may be, but if so it will be because the Muslim side makes that choice.

I heard some people on Fox News wondering whether the Vatican made a public relations "blunder" in having the Pope publicly baptize Allam. This is, to put it lightly, absurd. The Pope is completely aware of how Muslims react to these things and is not afraid to face it. Benedict is a shepherd, and he was doing what shepherds do: welcoming new sheep into the flock. The decision to convert was made by Mr. Allam himself. He wasn't kidnapped by Swiss Guards and forced into the baptismal font.

One point that is at least partly valid, however, is what kind of challenges this action will create for Christians who live in Muslim countries. Abu Daoud has a good response:

But will this bring persecution on the Christians in [Middle East/North Africa]? Well, the honest answer is they already have it. Living fearfully and sheepishly and hiding our lights under baskets is not the way of the Kingdom of God. Good for el papa. Let your light shine before man. Allam is a Christian now, and a son of the Catholic church. That is good news and we are to shout it from roof tops if at all possible. In Rome it is still, for now, possible. The day is coming when it may not be...

Christians in MENA will indeed live with this for years. They will live with the image of the best known Christian in the world baptizing a Muslim. It will give them hope. It will encourage other Muslims to convert. It will, in a few Muslims' minds, occasion the question, "What if I left?" Most of them have never even considered the possibility. Many of them don't even know that people DO leave Islam.

This is great news for the Catholic Church as well as the mission to Muslims. Muslims respect the Catholic Church and the pope because he is powerful. That is a language that they can understand. They know that he holds more sway around the world Christians than does any single person in Islam. They know he has a country of his own. They know his office is very ancient. These things, to the Muslim mind, and specifically to the Muslim Arab mind are often attractive. Becoming a non-denominational Christian with no clear affinity or relation to anyone else is not always appealing to a Muslim considering conversion.

So yes, will there be persecution? Of course, but at least this time it will be for a good and glorious reason: the public confession of faith of a Muslim hajji in the best-known church in the world on the holiest day of the year by that city's bishop.

I would be very interesting in knowing if the decision to have Allam baptized on worldwide TV by the Pope himself was made before or after this week's Osama bin Ladin tape. The Al Qaeda leader accused the Pope of taking part in a "crusade" against Islam. If this was the Vatican's response to Bin Ladin, then they are clearly willing to play rhetorical hardball.

In any case, it was most definitely not a P.R. blunder. Welcome to Christianity, Mr. Allam. Your example will bring much good into the world.

Pakistan After Bhutto

People want to know what I think about the Bhutto assassination in Pakistan. Here are a few quick points and some links for you to follow.

First, we cannot forget that the human tragedy of the last few days. Not only Ms. Bhutto but dozens of other people lost their lives, in a place where violence seems to be the most common way of settling differences. Here in the U.S. we have our share of problems, but not like they do in Pakistan. We should be grateful for this, and pray for the souls of those lost and for their families to find peace.

Second, I'm not sure the removal of Ms. Bhutto from the equation will make a lot of difference in the long run. People can debate her character, but even if she was the political hero that her supporters claim, I'm still dubious she would have been able to stabilize Pakistan. In fact, one could argue that Pakistan is inherently unstable because it is an artificial entity pieced together by colonial powers. It is, in many respects, a case study in Islamic Dis-unity. Military strongmen have held this conglomeration together by brute force, but for a variety of reasons that is ceasing to be a viable option. The global trend is toward de-centralization, so the breakup of Pakistan into its constituent parts is a real possibility.

Third, if the current crisis leads to a radical Islamist regime taking control of Pakistan, the Global War On Terror will take a dramatic turn for the worse. An Iran-Pakistan alliance would be a formidable foe even without nuclear weapons. Hopefully the Bush Administration would at that point finally decide to stop kicking hornet nests and leave well enough alone. The alternatives would be very bad indeed.

Fourth, I'm not terribly concerned about Pakistan's nukes falling into the wrong hands. They are no doubt well-hidden and well-guarded. Some reports suggest U.S. special forces know the location of these weapons and have contingency plans to seize or destroy them. Even if radical elements capture them, then what? Exploding a nuke is not like pushing the button on your garage door opener. They have multiple safeguards and interlocks to prevent unauthorized use. Furthermore, transporting such weapons from Pakistan to a worthy target without being detected would not be easy. The bigger risk is that someone would disassemble the warheads and use the nuclear material to build a radioactive "dirty bomb." That would be bad, but not nearly as destructive as a nuclear detonation in a major city.

Fifth, the timing of all this in interesting in relation to U.S. domestic politics, with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary only days away. To the degree the electorate in those places is paying attention, it probably helps the strong-leadership candidates like McCain and hurts those whose appeal is primarily domestic, like Huckabee. But I really think the impact will be minimal. Larison has some interesting thoughts.

For ongoing commentary I recommend you visit Born at the Crest of the Empire, where Mike is posting a wealth of links and interesting thoughts.

So Much For "Peace On Earth"

Seven people were injured on Thursday when Greek Orthodox and Armenian priests came to blows in a dispute over how to clean the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

Following the Christmas celebrations, Greek Orthodox priests set up ladders to clean the walls and ceilings of their part of the church, which is built over the site where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born.

But the ladders encroached on space controlled by Armenian priests, according to photographers who said angry words ensued and blows quickly followed.

For a quarter of an hour bearded and robed priests laid into each other with fists, brooms and iron rods while the photographers who had come to take pictures of the annual cleaning ceremony recorded the whole event.

A dozen unarmed Palestinian policemen were sent to try to separate the priests, but two of them were also injured in the unholy melee. [more]

This is certainly a turnaround: Muslims stepping in to quell violence between Christians in the very place where peace should reign. Apparently no one stopped to ask "What Would Jesus Do?"

Panic in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Police and soldiers emboldened by state of emergency powers swept up hundreds of activists and opposition members on Sunday, dragged away protesters shouting "Shame on you!", and turned government buildings into barbed-wire compounds. [full coverage at Yahoo!]

It is difficult to overstate how much the U.S. strategy in the Middle East depends on Pakistan. That's why this is a very serious situation any way you look at it. It will be difficult for the Bush Administration to continue arguing that its goals are freedom and democracy for all if it allows Musharraf to become even more blatantly dictatorial than he already was. Reports indicate that the government has shut down all independent media, arrested the Supreme Court's chief justice, and suspended the Constitution. These aren't minor steps.

Neocons and other war hawks will argue that this is just the price we have to pay to win the War on Terror. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The people of Pakistan just have to grin and bear it until we get around to liberating them, too. Therefore, the U.S. must do whatever it takes to prop up the Musharraf regime and prevent Muslim extremists from taking over Pakistan. He's an SOB but at least he's our SOB. Steven Taylor isn't buying it.

The real irony here is not that there aren’t real problems associated with Muslim extremism in Pakistan, there most assuredly are. Indeed, it was elements of the Pakistani intelligence apparatus that helped the Taliban establish itself in Afghanistan. And yes, there are clearly jihadist elements in Pakistan. However, the notion that a strong dictatorship will make this situation better is problematic.

At a minimum, if authoritarian rule was the elixir that cured the world of jihadism, it would have been wiped out some time ago. Or have we not noticed that this type of extremist thinking and actions was conceived, gestated and born in the context of mostly secular authoritarianism in the Middle East and Central Asia? A “strong hand” is not some automatic fix. Indeed, such strong hands often inspire further radicalism. No doubt, for example, these “preventive arrests” will inspire the opposition to greater ties and sympathies with extremists, not diminish them. In simple terms, if the opposition wishes to continue its fight, and Musharraf is shutting down existing political mechanisms to do so, what choice will they have but to deepen their connections to radicalized elements in Pakistani politics?

It may be that the immediate crisis will subside, but the best case is that the U.S. now faces a very uncertain long-term problem in Pakistan. Keep in mind that, unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Now imagine a radical Islamist regime taking power there. All of a sudden Iraq and Iran will be the least of our worries.

Arise a Knight

In Kingdom of Heaven (2005), a young man living in the Middle Ages learns his fate is to be a knight - an honor and burden he does not seek but nonetheless accepts. This is the Oath he must take:

Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Be brave and upright that God may love thee.
Speak the Truth always, even if it leads to your death.
Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong.

I have no idea if this language is historically accurate, but they aren't bad rules to live by. We would all do well to adopt them. Yet, as Balian learns in the film, keeping his oath is much harder than it seems.

Click here if you don't see video embedded below.

Saudis Release Terror Suspects

Here is a disturbing story. The U.S. recently transferred 55 suspected terrorists, all of them Saudi Arabian citizens, from the Guantanamo Bay facility and gave them back to Saudi authorities to be kept in prison there. Presumably the U.S. government received assurances that the prisoners would be kept securely locked up.

It seems that the Saudis have “temporarily” released all 55 to spend a Muslim holiday with their families. Furthermore, each prisoner was given $2,600 with which to celebrate. They are supposed to return to custody and eventually stand trial. We’ll see. I think there is reason to be dubious.

Now there are two possibilities here. Either:

• Our so-called allies, the Saudis, think it is well and good to let dangerous terrorists out to roam the streets, creating who knows what kind of problems, and the Bush Administration let itself be duped once again; or
• These 55 prisoners are actually not dangerous terrorists - as we are often told the residents of Guantanamo must be - and were being held by the U.S. under false or incorrect charges.

Neither scenario is particularly comforting.

Hat tip: Born at the Crest of the Empire

American Torture

Mark Shea unloads on the Rubber House Right, its supporters and defenders, in a long and colorfully illustrated post today.

It is a painful thing to face and I don't enjoy it any more than you do. But the facts are really quite plain. The reality is Abu Ghraib was not an isolated event. We have been torturing people in other facilities. What happened at Abu Ghraib was that some morons who loved their work thought it would be fun to take pictures and those pictures shocked the world. Naturally, the Bush Administration could not say, "Yeah! We support that!" Of *course* they repudiated it and made sure the lackeys got punished in order to distance the Administration from the awful press.

But the reality is that after Abu Ghraib, the Administration labored--intensely--to make sure that the abusive techniques used at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere would remain part of what the President calls his "tools" for fighting the War on Terror. You can read all about it here.

The White House response has been, I must be blunt, to lie through its teeth in the knowledge that it has broad support from a people that don't want to look too closely at what we are doing. Indeed, past polls have shown that Catholics have a higher rate of support for torture than the general population.

The lie is simple and plain: President Bush continue to look us in the eye and say “This government does not torture people.”

But the reality is, it does. Bush made certain of this by loading the Justice Department with toadies who gave him what he wanted:

In two separate legal opinions written in 2005, the Justice Department authorized the C.I.A. to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Note that word "including". This is not an exhaustive list. Much of the degrading stuff you saw at Abu Ghraib isn't even life-threatening, so it falls well below the threshhold of "torture" for this Administration's Justice Department, as far as we can tell. And when we speak of "simulated drowning" or what our Vice President lightly laughs off as "dunking" we are looking at prima facie evidence of the Administration's careful mendacity. [Source]

You must read the whole thing. The doubletalk we get from Bush defenders about this is astonishing. It boils down to "Torture is fine. We don't torture." Which is it? If there's nothing wrong with torture, why all the gymnastics denying that the U.S. does it? This bunch can't even keep its lies straight.

In the combox at Mark's post, someone asked a chilling question: is there any example any time in history of a government that tortured its enemies but not, eventually, its own citizens as well?

The Line Held at Lepanto

Today is the 436th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto. On October 7, 1571, against overwhelming odds, a ragtag fleet from the Christian West faced the Ottoman Empire. Christianity had been retreating for the last thousand years. Islam had conquered North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Portugal and part of France.

At Lepanto, the retreat stopped. It was a turning point in history that is all but forgotten today.

The two greatest naval forces ever assembled — 280 ships in the Turkish Armada, some 212 on the Christian side — came into each other’s sight on the brilliant morning of October 7. So confident was the Turkish admiral, Ali Pasha, that he sailed proudly at the center of his own Armada, bringing with him on vessels just to his rear his entire fortune, and even a part of his harem.

Historians tell us that all over Europe a pall fell. Few had hopes that the Christian fleet could avoid the doom that seemed to hang over Italy. The pope had urged all Christians to say the rosary daily on behalf of the brave crews on the Christian galleys. The rosary is a simple prayer that can be said in almost any setting, and had already achieved a certain popularity among humble folk. With each decade of the Hail Marys they had been taught to reflect upon a different event in the life of Jesus. The beads went through one’s fingers as regularly as the blood through one’s body, as regular as heartbeats and the breathing of the lungs.

To make a long story short, Don Juan aimed his own galley directly at the heart of the Turkish armada, directly at the clearly colored sails of the Ali Pasha’s galley, with its great green flag, inscribed 28,000 times with the name of Allah in gold. The Venetian vessels sailed furiously into the Turkish right wing, and with the help of the revolt of the galley slaves collapsed that wing. Six of the largest Christian vessels had been outfitted with a platform elevated above normal levels on which rows of devastating cannons were arrayed. Blasts from these new cannons were withering, and within minutes sank dozens of Turkish ships. The sea, witnesses said, was covered with flailing sailors, floating turbans, pieces of wood and sail.

The passion for defending their own civilization against ruthless invaders also strengthened the muscles of those engaged in the close, bloody, violent hand-fighting when one vessel came alongside another. But it was mainly the new firepower of the smaller Christian fleet that quickly sank galley after galley until, after not too many hours, the Turkish center also collapsed, as if cut through by a hot knife. The Admiral’s galley was captured, along with 240 more Turkish ships. Only on the other flank some Christian vessels hesitated, approached the enemy half-heartedly, and thus spurred defections by still other vessels. Although even there some acts of heroism appeared, a number of Turkish vessels were able to slip away through that gap in the battleline.

The Christian victory was far more complete than anyone had dreamed. The victory seemed to many quite miraculous, and victory was immediately attributed to Our Lady Queen of the Rosary — soon to be called by a new title, Our Lady Queen of Victory. All over Europe, from city to town, church bells rang out continuously when news of the impressive victory arrived. MORE

Today, with Islam again menacing the West, we would do well to remember Lepanto and honor the Queen of Victory. She is with us still. Be not afraid.

Interesting Links:
Clash of Civilizations: Battle of Lepanto Revisited
Wikipedia entry: Battle of Lepanto
Remembering Lepanto
Poem: Our Lady of Victory
Video: Men of the West

One Picture Says It All

This photo has been circulating around the net for a couple of days now. It's a little dark so in case you can't tell, the TSA agent searching the elderly nun for weapons is wearing a Muslim headscarf. Bigger image (along with some interesting comments) here.

It is possible, I suppose, that terrorists could disguise themselves as elderly nuns, sneak aboard planes and cause violence and mayhem. Therefore the authorities must be vigilant. However, given that all significant terrorist attacks in the West in recent years were perpetrated by young Muslim males of Middle Eastern origin, the continued insistence on politically correct, color-blind screening protocols is insane.

As for the nun, I am struck by her apparently docile acceptance of this outrage to her dignity. No doubt she regards it as an opportunity to turn the other cheek. Probably she would be just as calm if she were facing death as a martyr. I hope I could do likewise. I fear that many of us will find out in the next few decades.

The Battle for Malta

September 11 was a significant date in the history of Christian-Islamic conflict long before the year 2001. Do you know what happened on September 11, 1565? I didn't either, until I read this excellent article by Paul Cella.

By the middle of the 16th century, the Knights of Malta had been for decades a particular irritation to the Sultan of the Empire of the Ottoman Turks, then the world's premier superpower and the imperial power of the Jihad. The Knights were skilled and cunning seamen: the Christian answer to the Barbary pirates whose razzias or jihadist raids had, literally for centuries, terrorized the coastal lands of southern Europe. These pirates were slavers and pillagers, terrors of the sea. How many "sick and sunless" captives were made by them, consigned to the filth and misery of the life of a galley oarsman, can only be conjectured. They made prisons of great oared ships; and the fate of their prisoners was one of wretchedness beyond reckoning. Athwart this menace stood the ancient Noble Order of St. John of Jerusalem. One historian (voicing a consensus of historians) gives them this honor: "in skill, seamanship, and fighting ability there was no single vessel in the Mediterranean that could compare with a galley commanded by one of the Knights from Malta."

READ MORE

Fighting Them Over There

via What's Wrong With the World

Tough Choices: SEALS vs Goatherders

From a column by Diana West:

Dropped behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban kingpin who commanded between 150 and 200 fighters, the SEAL team was unexpectedly discovered in the early stages of a mission whose success, of course, depended on secrecy. Three unarmed Afghan goatherds, one a teenager, had stumbled across the Americans' position, presenting the soldiers with an urgent dilemma: What should they do?

If they let the Afghans go, the Afghans would probably alert the Taliban to their whereabouts. This would mean a battle in which the Americans were outnumbered by at least 35 to 1. If the Americans didn't let the goatherds go -- if they killed them, because there was no way to hold them -- the Americans would avoid detection and, most likely, leave the area safely. On a treeless mountainside far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.

It is agonizing to read their tense debate as recounted by Marcus Luttrell, the "lone survivor" of the disastrous mission. Each of the SEALs was aware of "the strictly correct military decision" -- namely, that it would be suicide to let the goatherds live. But they were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral.

The SEALs sent the goatherds on their way. One hour later, a sizeable Taliban force attacked, beginning a horrendous battle that resulted not only in the deaths of Mr. Luttrell's three SEAL teammates, but also the deaths of 16 would-be rescuers -- eight additional SEALs and eight Army special operations soldiers whose helicopter was shot down by a Taliban RPG.

Actually, Ms. West, what would be immoral is murder of civilians. The SEALs did exactly the right thing, both ethically and tactically. I doubt political correctness had anything to do with it.

As an Army officer and company commander I thought a lot about these issues. Here is the deal: American soldiers do not intentionally kill non-combatants. Never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever. We do not do it. Or at least we should not; sometimes it happens, and those who do it are deservedly punished.

Obviously, civilians will be caught in the crossfire at times and get hurt or killed. That’s different. Killing them was not our intent. We take reasonable steps to minimize it, but in modern warfare civilian deaths are inevitable. Everyone recognizes this.

That was not the case in this situation. The goatherders had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ms. West thinks that this was, in effect, a capital offense. The SEALs should have just executed these people in order to save themselves, she says.

The SEALs made the right choice. It is unfortunate that some of them paid for it with their lives, but should not be surprising. U.S. troops are all volunteers who know they may go into combat and risk death. Special Ops units like the SEALs are doubly so. The goatherders, on the other hand, did not volunteer for any such thing. They were simply going about their business, harming no one. If you want to blame someone for the American casualties, blame the commander who appears to have sent them into this situation without adequate plans and resources.

On a purely practical level, killing the civilians might have saved some American lives in the short run. It would also have ended any chance of further cooperation from the inhabitants of that region. Creating still more enemies when you already have enough of them is rarely a good strategic move. The end result would likely have been far more American deaths as the population turned hostile.

Ms. West concludes her column with a particularly despicable line: “A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the "unarmed civilians" — spies? fighters? — whom they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war, it isn't showing much interest in its own survival.”

Let me rephrase: a nation that allows, and even encourages, its sons to kill unarmed civilians in cold blood will not only lose its wars. It will lose its soul.

The Rape of Europe

An e-mail called "The Rape of Europe" is circulating around the net, apparently; I got it for the first time this weekend. Steve Ray helpfully linked back to what seems to be the original source. Here is how it starts.

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Read the rest, and then check out Steve's article on The Skyline of the Future for a similar outlook. I wrote about this subject last year. Here is a slightly more optimistic view. Demographic forecasts are based on a lot of assumptions, of course, but the short-term trend (i.e., the next 50 years) seems to be locked in.

The big question is how native Europeans will respond. I'm not so sure they will fade silently into the night. They will, however, probably avoid doing anything until the only remaining alternatives involve a lot of violence and brutality. It won't be pretty.

Fr. Corapi 9-11 Video

Earlier this week I posted the transcript of Fr. John Corapi's 9-11 message. I have since found the video version on YouTube. Click here if you don't see it embedded below.

We're In Iraq To Stay

With this week’s reports to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the Bush Administration appears to have bought itself some more time in Iraq. As a result, the withdrawal - if there is to be one - will almost certainly happen under the next president. There will be some token redeployments next year, but these will at best return the U.S. presence to its pre-surge levels.

We were told this week that violence in parts of Iraq has fallen as a result of the increased U.S. military presence. This is wonderful news. However, what reason do we have to think the prior trends will not resume once the Americans leave? Violence will most certainly return unless the Iraqis decide in mass to become religiously tolerant, politically diverse, and economically altruistic. That hardly seems likely, at least not in the near future.

The latest American strategy of empowering local leaders, which was turned to in frustration after the central government proved dysfunctional, will probably create problems of a different kind. By installing multiple power centers with varying self-interests, there will now be a kind of feudal system of independent city-states with little incentive to cooperate for the common good.

Victory is still possible in Iraq, we are told. But exactly what is "victory?" No one can answer that question. The furious debates about the various statistics and benchmarks ought to tell you something: no one knows whether we are winning or losing this war. And if no one knows, then it will likely never end.

"Trust General Petraeus," the White House says. Fine, except that the same White House wants us to ignore General Pace, General Casey, Admiral Fallon, Secretary Gates, the GAO, former Secretary Baker and the entire Iraq Study Commission - all of whom offered radically different recommendations to the President.

Why is it we are supposed to trust this one expert while ignoring all others? Simple: the President has already made up his mind that there will be no troop reductions. The fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are, by law, supposed to be the president's primary military advisors is conveniently forgotten because the JCS will not offer the advice the president wants to hear. General Petraeus is, apparently, willing to be a scapegoat for Bush, so it is his opinion that we are told is most important. Everything else is just political maneuvering.

Bottom line: the U.S. is in Iraq to stay. There is no exit strategy. The Democrats are unable to force a policy change on Bush, so the train will keep on going. Where the tracks will take us, no one knows, but we're all aboard for the ride. The troops shovel coal into the engines while the rest of us relax in the lounge. Nonetheless, we are all going the same place.

A little advice: fasten your seat belt.

9-11: The Approach of Midnight

9-11: Six Years Later

The Approach of Midnight

by Rev. John A. Corapi

Six years ago on September 11, 2001, time stood still in a spasm of black smoke, death, and destruction. It had never happened before, but now it had, proving definitively that it could happen. An era ended. Indeed, we would never be the same.

For a time, it seemed to those still possessed of any ability to see spiritual things at all that perhaps the world might correct it’s blind and headlong flight over a precipice and into a moral abyss. People rushed to churches, synagogues, and mosques. There were long lines for confession in the Catholic churches. Others made their amends with God and each other in whatever way they could, not sure what was next, not taking any chances.

The very heart of the pornography and abortion industries suffered a near fatal case of cash register arrest. Close proximity to death tends to bring reality into focus.

Time heals all things, it is said. Yes, and in this case even moments of moral lucidity and spiritual clarity were “healed” and replaced by business as usual. Mankind has a short memory despite the constant reminders of history.

In the six years since 911 has a society crippled by ease, debilitated by political correctness, and close to death from the moral malaise that has plagued it for decades learned anything? Apparently not, for today even most religious leaders are loath to link 911 with the reality of sin. The word itself has been exiled, much like God himself, from our schools, often even from churches, and, indeed, from our very consciousness.

The fact is that we reap what we sow. What goes around, comes around. The greatest nation on the earth has the greatest moral responsibility. Indeed, “to the man given much, much will be required. To the man given more, more will be required.” We were entrusted with the welfare of the world, and all too often the trust was betrayed. Under the specious pretext of freedom—which was really license—we became purveyors of pornography, abortion, greed, deceit, murder and mayhem.

The clock is ticking and midnight is approaching. Illuminated by the false light of affluence and ease, success and power, we became blind to the darkness, and yet midnight approaches, with all of the certainty of time itself.

Have we learned anything in the past six years, or are we yet more blind, more deaf, more steeped in sin? Actions have consequences. 911 was a warning shot fired over the bow of a sick society. The warning has gone largely unheeded.

The clock is ticking. Midnight is approaching. Prayer is now the only thing that will avail change, so pray my dear friends, pray like your life and the life of all you hold dear is at stake.

For it is, it is.

God bless you and protect you and yours,

Rev. John Corapi
September 11, 2007
Six years later, and counting

Click here for video of this speech

Balls of Blasphemy

Another example of why U.S. troops should not be in the business of nation-building: the gift by U.S. troops of soccer balls to Afghan children. These particular balls were colorfully decorated with the flags of various nations.

Soccer balls are intended to be kicked. While people in certain parts of the world may relish the thought of kicking an object that displays the American flag, that was not a problem in this case. The issue was the Saudi flag that was included on these balls. The Saudi flag contains Arabic words from the Koran, including the name of Allah. Muslims regard these words as sacred and treat them with great respect. They do not kick them around.

At least some branches of the U.S. military are aware of this fact, since those who guard Islamic prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere are not permitted to touch the prisoner's Korans unless they are themselves Muslim. You would expect that whoever is in charge of winning Muslim hearts and minds in Afghanistan would have at least a passing knowledge of local customs and taboos. Apparently not. So they managed to insult the people's sensibilities in three different ways:

• Printing sacred words on decidedly non-sacred objects such as soccer balls
• Dropping these objects from helicopters to land on the unclean ground below
• Enticing Muslim children to kick the balls with their unclean feet

As odd as these religious customs may seem to Western minds, they hold great importance for common people in the Middle East. Ignorance of them reinforces the "Ugly American" stereotype that U.S. forces must dispel in order to pacify places like Afghanistan. The fact that our military commanders are still making such amateur mistakes six years into this mission does not bode well for long-term success.

Hat tip: Islam & Christianity

Wake Up, America

Here is wisdom from Leticia at Causa Nostrae Laetitiae:

The Islamofacists aren't merely against us because America is the land of freedom (as President Bush insists); they are against the gross misuse of freedom of expression in this nation which shames our Judeo-Christian moral heritage. If American popular culture had any of the respect for the dignity of womanhood and family life, which it had in the 1950's, it would be less of a target. I am not painting the Islamofacists as arbiters of morality, far from it, but we must admit the excess depravity which fills our media and corrupts the world's TV sets, is highly insulting to all people of faith. 'If this is Christianity, then we'll have none of it', may well be the statement our culture provokes.

Then there is the issue of the lifting of the veil of protection which God has seemingly kept over this nation. We hadn't been attacked in the Continental US since the Mexican-American war. We enjoy unparalleled prosperity, and are the envy of the world, as evidenced by the millions of immigrants who enter our land. And how do we repay this bounty? By saying we can't afford children, and aborting them, by abandoning our marriages to no-fault divorce, and deserting our children to 'fulfill ourselves' in the workplace, buying bigger homes and more gadgets than we need. We neglect the starving of the world while we are dying of obesity. We can't fit church into our weekend entertainment plans, yet we sit in front of TV shows which mock God and our morality, belittle women, by making them into sex objects, emasculate the men by mocking them in sitcoms, and we say nothing.

A loving God would let us have a wake-up call before we find ourselves before Him in the Judgement Seat. On 9/11/2001 we got the message, and for two weeks we filled the churches. Our Lady has been warning us of a coming chastisement for centuries. Must the hand of God be harsher to get our attention?

Sadly, the answer to that last question seems to be "Yes." I saw some similar thoughts elsewhere a few months ago, and I have to say the outlook isn't getting any better. Fr. John Corapi says it better than I can. Watch this: