The New York Timesreports that President Obama has sent a formal letter of apology to Afghanistan’s ingrate president, Hamid Karzai, for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The only upside of the apology is that it appears (based on the Times account) to be couched as coming personally from our blindly Islamophilic president — “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. . . . I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies.” It is not couched as an apology from the American people, whose frame of mind will be outrage, not contrition, as the facts become more widely known.
The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.
Advertisement
Of course, these facts may not become widely known, because no one is supposed to mention the main significance of what has happened here. First, as usual, Muslims — not al-Qaeda terrorists, but ordinary, mainstream Muslims — are rioting and murdering over the burning (indeed, the inadvertent burning) of a book. Yes, it’s the Koran, but it’s a book all the same — and one that, moderate Muslims never tire of telling us, doesn’t really mean everything it says anyhow.
Muslim leaders and their leftist apologists are also forever lecturing the United States about “proportionality” in our war-fighting. Yet when it comes to Muslim proportionality, Americans are supposed to shrug meekly and accept the “you burn books, we kill people” law of the jungle. Disgustingly, the Times would inure us to this moral equivalence by rationalizing that “Afghans are fiercely protective of their Islamic faith.” Well then, I guess that makes it all right, huh?
Then there’s the second not-to-be-uttered truth: Defiling the Koran becomes an issue for Muslims only when it has been done by non-Muslims. Observe that the unintentional burning would not have occurred if these “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Afghans had not defiled the Korans in the first place. They were Muslim prisoners who annotated the “holy” pages with what a U.S. military official described as “extremist inscriptions” in covert messages sent back and forth, just as the jihadists held at Gitmo have been known to do (notwithstanding that Muslim prisoners get their Korans courtesy of the American taxpayers they construe the book to justify killing).
Do you know why you are supposed to stay mum about the intentional Muslim sacrilege but plead to be forgiven for the accidental American offense? Because you would otherwise have to observe that the Koran and other Islamic scriptures instruct Muslims that they are in a civilizational jihad against non-Muslims, and that it is therefore permissible for them to do whatever is necessary — including scrawl militant graffiti on their holy book — if it advances the cause. Abdul Sattar Khawasi — not a member of al-Qaeda but a member in good standing of the Afghan government for which our troops are inexplicably fighting and dying — put it this way: “Americans are invaders, and jihad against the Americans is an obligation.”
Because exploiting America’s hyper-sensitivity to things Islamic advances the jihad, the ostensible abuse of the Koran by using it for secret communiqués is to be overlooked. Actionable abuse occurs only when the book is touched by the bare hands of, or otherwise maltreated by, an infidel.
As our great Iraqi ally Ayatollah Ali Sistani teaches, touching a kafir (“one who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness”) is to be avoided, because Islamic scripture categorizes infidels as equivalent to “urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors,” and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats filth.” That is what influential clerics — not al-Qaeda but revered scholars of Islamic law — inculcate in rank-and-file Muslims.
And they are not making it up. Sistani came upon this view after decades of dedicated scriptural study. In fact, to take just one telling example (we could list many, many others), the “holy” Koran we non-Muslims are supposed to honor proclaims (in Sura 9:28), “Truly the pagans are unclean . . . so let them not . . . approach the sacred mosque.” It is because of this injunction from Allah that non-Muslims are barred — not by al-Qaeda but by the Saudi Arabian government — from entering Mecca and Medina. Kafirs are deemed unfit to set their infidel feet on the ground of these ancient cities. You don’t like that? Too bad — grin and bear it . . . and, while you’re at it, surge up a few thousand more American troops to improve life in Kandahar.
All I can say is "AMEN!"
"If you really want to promote freedom in Islamic countries, an immigration policy based on civil-rights reciprocity would be a lot more effective, and a lot less expensive, than dispatching tens of thousands of troops to build sharia “democracies.” It would also protect Americans from people whose countries and cultures have not prepared them for the obligations of citizenship in a free society."
Andy, This is your most stinging rebuke of "The Religion of Peace" I have you seen write here. What is the answer to our people being fooled by Islam and what steps can we take in keeping this silliness out of our country?
"If our government believes the Taliban and other factions are our enemies, allied with al-Qaeda to kill Americans, then we should unleash our military to destroy them..."
From the very start of the Afghan war, this is what I maintained we should have done. Bombed them into the stone age (wait, they're already there) and then left them to their own devices, limited as they are, telling them that if they come for us again, we'll be back. If thtey don't like that they can clean up their own house and try to actually enter the 21st century.
We made the same mistake in Iraq, and not just the second war. We should have moved from Kuwait into Iraq and deposed Saddam then while still under the auspices of an international coalition supported by the U.N. But our lack of will, and lack of confidence in the goodness of our own Western beliefs, prevented us from doing the long-term right thing.
My naval-reserve neighbor is in Afghanistan and is due to return in June. I pray he makes it home, along with the rest of our troops.
Regarding your comment on the first Iraq War, we had a very good reason for not doing so - we promised the Saudis we would not depose Saddam so they would let us use their country to launch the invasion from. We had nowhere else at the time to do so, and thus, the goodwill of the Kingdom was necessary for our goal at the time - to liberate Kuwait from its aggressor. Remember that the Saudi gov't wanted Saddam in power, or at least wanted a stable Sunni-led government. For them, this wasn't about religion for the sake of religion. It was about not having a potential puppet of Iran replacing the money/power-hungry lunatic between them and Iran. Saddam was the more stable option for them.
Regarding the Afghan war, I agree, but to be fair, no bombing campaign would have achieved our goals. Our initial goal was to go into Afghanistan after Al-Qaeda targets. The Taliban were given the choice in the days immediately after the attacks in the US to support us or stand against us. They chose to stand against us, probably in the mistaken belief that we would simply lob a few bombs into Tora Bora as Clinton had done in 1998 after the Khobar Towers bombing. In Afghanistan, the only thing which would have gotten the leadership targets we were after with anything approaching certainty would have been the use of tactical nukes (or possibly even larger nuclear weapons). There was simply too much land and if we wanted to go the conventional route of land warfare it would have taken the entire US Army to secure that much space, if it could have been done at all.
A conventional war wouldn't really make sense in Afghanistan. If we'd leveled Kabul, the Taliban wouldn't have cared one bit. If we'd leveled every population center with cruise missiles and fuel air explosives (which we didn't have but a handful of at the time, since they were still in development), the Taliban leadership would not have cared at all (presuming they weren't killed). Any who weren't killed in the strikes would have simply melted into the mountains and joined up with the militants they were protecting.
Once we'd decided on the course chosen - using the NA and special forces to overthrow the government and chase the militants, we were committed to the path we're on. It was decided to be the lesser of the bad choices available, more than likely. It probably was. However, the problem with a long-term counterinsurgency is always the will of the people back home. The population and the politicians.
This was the problem with the Iraq invasion (as related to Afghanistan). It was said that by going into Iraq, Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan. In a way, this was purely a political ploy by the opponents of the administration. Afghanistan wasn't that kind of war. It was never going to be that kind of war. It was always going to be messy and filled with political and diplomatic maneuvering and it was always going to involve US troops (and intel ops) on the ground in some fashion for many years to come. It wasn't something the CIC would be involved in the strategy of every single day. Counter-insurgency operations don't work that way. They're largely autonomous to the commander on the ground. However, because this allowed the Presidents political opponents to make the argument that he wasn't focused on the "important" war, they made themselves right in that regard. The message becomes the reality in this type of campaign because counter-insurgency operations such as this depend more than anything else on the will of the people at home. That's what caused the failure in Vietnam. The lack of will by the US citizens at home. That is the great disservice men like John Kerry did our country. I'm not talking about his speaking against Vietnam, but his undermining the CIC in Afghanistan every chance he got for political gain during the 2004 election. All the harping about Iraq Vs Afghanistan ate away even more at the US resolve. When Obama became President, the enemy knew all they had to do was make it bloody and public as often as possible and that the new President would bow to the pressure of his own party and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as he could.
We'll be back in Afghanistan/Pakistan in this century. We may even find we have to put troops on the ground in Iraq again - though Tom Clancy may be proven right in that and it will no longer be Iraq, but the UIR (United Islamic Republic). God forbid that we (or the Israelis) don't deal with this nuke problem in Iran decisively before that scenario unfolds.
As Nicole Kidman said in The Peacemaker: "I'm not afraid of the man who wants 1000 nuclear weapons. I am terrified of the man who only wants one".
The US was once the greatest power in the world. Through its prosperity and strength of arms, the country knew peace. As both of those are being diminished, the troubles will grow, and the wolves will circle, as wolves do when they sense weakness. I pray that we, the people, are strong enough to stand for what it right. To stand for freedom. If not the USA, then who will?
As satisfying as deposing Saddam during the Gulf War would have been and, it certainly would have been far less expensive in lives and economic costs, in wasn't an option for Bush senior. As the M.E. contingent of the international coalition would never have accepted it. Bush gained the participation of many of our allies in the coalition by giving his word that the sole goal of the US was the ouster of Saddam from Kuwait. That they need not fear further intervention of American power in the region. The paranoia of feared American territorial ambitions to secure and protect oil resources, by the Saudi's et al demanded that promise as a condition of participation.
Hey, Obama's much more experienced now. At least he didn't proclaim that our servicemen "acted stupidly" when they burned the books. In the next administration, will someone be charged with apologizing to our friends and allies for the actions of our current president? I certainly hope so.
Thank you for another excellent article, Mr. McCarthy!
But Heaven forbid Rick Santorum or any other Republican make the slightest intimation about his or her religious beliefs... that would make them a "zealot"...
One wonders what the "proper" and "approved" method of disposing of "defiled" Korans is... burning by an Imam, perhaps? Or do they just toss them in the regular trash?
Interesting sideline... had to click the "new captcha" arrow 21 times to get away from commercials and came up with "hissy fit"... how appropriate
You're actually correct; a religious cleric, imam or and other religious leader is authorized to dispose of it. There are two methods authorized for disposal: The first is wrapping it in a white cloth and burying it; the second is to wrap it in a white cloth, tie a rope around it with a rock or brick attached and then place it in a river to be washed away.
A far different method than the way they would dispose of non-muslim religious articles I'm sure...
I'm currently in Afghanistan advising the police. They shot and killed one of our mentor team leaders in the first week of being here. That was in May of last year. Yes, I'm still here... and my biggest threat comes from the very people I'm supposed to be training. Pretty ironic.
Our owner of the USA checkbook that happens to be Congress needs to cut the funding to these enemies of ours and all Countries that bad mouth us. Treat them as teenagers that won't mow the lawn for less than twenty bucks.
