Though referring to Pakistan, the argument is the same about crossing traditional faultlines in Islam and banding the whole people together. Scott says:
This meant glossing over the long running confessional fault-lines between Sunni and Shiite and appealing instead to the traditional discourse of anti-imperialism, drawing upon anti-Western rhetoric and symbols. Anti-Americanism then becomes the great glue that binds the disparate strands of the resistance movement together.
And so you get this curious hybrid, a strange kind of syncretism, a wholly alien and synthetic construct, with a transparent geopolitical dimension, stripped of any recognisable theological content.
Therein lies one of the problems and the other is the regional issue. Scott again:
Similarly, pan-Islamism has usually meant domination by one sect, be it the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia or the Shiite of Iran. That is why the great universalising projects, these great ideological constructs, have failed to take root, because of the salience of ethnicity. Put simply, there is a more ancient and enduring basis of legitimacy, that is, an ontological basis of group identity and allegiance that is missing in any purely ideological construct.
In Islamic or Arab eyes, it’s an attempt to match the global power of an interlocked, technically more adept west but what is even more galling for them is the poor material they have to work with, in global power terms. The Islamic way is to gather all the stone age peoples under one umbrella, all their local provincialism under one synthetic construct and it simply does not hold together – the glue is not strong enough.
In taking on the Taliban head-on, there are military victories at point of contact but the Taliban dematerialize into the landsape and pop up again later. It is a non-win situation and I’ve said before, the Russians also tried big stick politics there and failed. Why should America be any different?
And then there is the amterial they’re attempting to work with. Colonel Jeff Haynes:
“And the less capable units,” says Col Haynes, “are in real trouble”.
He reels off a bleak list of what he found in the poorer Afghan army units: “Disregard for the mission, criminal activity, poor equipment, a lack of fuel, a lack of water, uniforms that were not worn remotely the way they were intended to be.”
For Col Haynes – who is now retired from the US Marine Corps – the central problem was with leadership.
Much of the Afghan officer corps, he says, has not yet reached the point at which it can realise the potential of the tough, willing Afghan soldier.
“When you have poor leadership it starts at the top and it goes all the way down to the individual soldier.”
There had to be either magnificently funded overkill, with logistics under a central command and maybe a million troops on the ground and huge air support or else … nothing. Then it’s a case of locking them out of Europe, a stable door open situation.
To do it this way is, as Scott says, giving impetus to regionalism again and that puts those regions at the mercy of the warlords.
Europe and America
Until one accepts the principle that there is an interlocked power, mooted by Wilson, Eisenhower and many distinguished writers, of which Quigley is but one, that this power has a global agenda and spreads and locks down areas through such sub-organizations as Common Purpose, the psychological community’s old-boy network, the legal framework and so on and so on, then one can never understand the true nature of power in the west and why things are as they are.
Once again, ad nauseam, Jenner:
The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.
This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like ‘democracy’ in place of ‘representative government.’
… or Wilson in 1916:
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
… or Quigley:
There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act.
In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.
I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
If you need names, then these are some of the American names – John Jacob Astor, Irving Berlin, Luther Burbank, Henry Clay, Thomas E. Dewey, Henry Ford, Barry Goldwater, Samuel Compers, J. Edgar Hoover, Charles Lindbergh, General Douglas McArthur, Andrew Mellon, General John J. Pershing, Will Rogers, Sigmund Romberg, John Philip Sousa, Mark Twain, and Chief Justice Earl Warren, for a start. Add Cheney and Kissinger.
In Europe, take your pick – Sutherland, Mandelson, most of the EU top brass, heads of the ECB, BIS and so on and so on. Davignon, Morali.
For what purpose, even if you accept for the moment that these men who wrote these things were not hallucinating? The purpose was given in a previous post and is essentially to reconstitute society into a more controlled organization with an elite doing the command and control, themselves beholden to a higher group and then the serfs and plebs below – us.
Returning to the issue
Therefore, if we are to understand just what the Muslim majority nations are up against, they are up against an overwhelming power with obscene levels of finance which controls all major governments and whose agenda is the wiping out of obstacles to their complete control. It’s very much a characteristic of Them that though they essentially control the credit and means of production, they still resent single voices of dissent and expend huge resources to extinguish such dissent.
They fear a counter-idea very much and even a nobody like me is a target to be found, at great expense and eliminated. They judge whether it can be safely ignored but if not, money is no object. Like someone who has been spreading himself round the blogosphere in the last two days to bloggers who have had any contact with me, expending huge amounts of nervous energy to eliminate the one voice which can still expose him, if I could care enough, this is how They operate.
You could see it with Patricia Dunn at HP – so many HP resources, so much mental focus from her, all to discover who were the disloyal employees who were “whispering against her”. Perfectly prepared to break the rules to track these people down. Ditto Caroline Flint. Fear of anything less than total obedience and tribute.
The Muslim leadership finds the U.S.A. a convenient concept for Muslims everywhere to focus on. The reality is that they are up against a far more powerful force whose principles are unfortunately also enshrined in their own religion and social mechanisms.
Where we stand is that we do need, as a localized island people and in the U.S.A., the Constitution is the useful focal point to gather people together, we do need to stand firm together and resist anything which smacks of loss of sovereignty, loss of personal freedoms and loss of a moral position set at an elevated level. The freedom the west had as its ideal for so long, even if it was not a reality, should never be lost sight of.
Otherwise we’re gone.