Two Ways To Defeat Militant Islam

In the mid-to-late 1900's, America's awareness of terrorism was largely restricted to reports of attacks by groups like Sinn Fein, whose object was to unite Ireland and Northern Ireland by force of violence. Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement of April 10, 1998, all parties involved committed to "exclusively peaceful and democratic means" to determine the future of Northern Ireland.

Good thing, too. Imagine what life would be like on the Emerald Isle today if the Irish Republican Army had remained committed to constant escalation of violence unto eternity or until the advent of the British crown's retreat.

Practitioner's of terrorism today want much more than political control over a few thousand square miles of territory. Furthermore, the prospect of nuclear weaponry becoming available to terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations becomes increasingly, alarmingly more likely as nuclear warheads evaporate from the control of former-Soviet nations and nuclear technology proliferates in the hands of political forces who have sworn to annihilate the US, Israel, and its allies.

Consequently, there is much more at risk today and far greater threat posed to the rest of the globe by the threat of Islamic terrorism than ever existed prior to the Belfast Agreement.

What's the problem?

Since militant Muslims cannot agree among themselves what they want, it's hard to nail down the limits of the threat of Islamic terrorism:

• Some want infidels out of the Holy Land. Even the term "infidel" is subjective. Literally, "non-believers," this could mean atheists or non-Muslims; it depends who you ask.


• Some militant Islamic activists seek the overthrow of Israel and the return of the Holy Land to the province of the Palestinian state.


• Other jihadists seek to do the will of Allah by bringing the entire globe under Islamic law ("sharia") by placing the Taliban in charge of the entire world.


• Still others want Sunni Muslims to annihilate Shia Muslims, or vice-versa.

So it's tough to get a handle on exactly how much of a problem militant Islam really is, but if it can be said that militant Islam collectively seeks any one thing, it is a return to the glory days of the 7th century - the period between the years 620 and 720 of the Common Era.

In that period, Muhammad established Islam and, over the next 100 years, his successors spread his political and spiritual messages. By 720, the Caliphate, a loose affiliation of sultanates forming an Islamic theocracy, had displaced the Greek-speaking Roman Empire which had previously engulfed the entire Mediterranean. In this period, the Byzantine Empire's boundaries were moved mostly to the North of the Mediterranean, while the Caliphate expanded from a single-community cult in the Arabian Peninsula to an empire stretching from what is today Lisbon Spain, across North Africa to India.

In that age of religious conquest (both Islamic and Christian), violent clashes of men were mostly a hand-to-hand affair, with state-of-the-art combat restricted to swords, spears, arrows, and the occasional catapult. Today's warfare technology features detached devastation on massive scales: rocket propelled, delayed ignition weapons and remote-controlled bombs ranging from improvised explosives devices to intercontinental nuclear warheads. So, today, military technology allows a very few hands to exact extensive death, injury and damage. Overwhelming manpower no longer guarantees military success and minority numbers are no longer a harbinger of defeat.

Now let's suppose one's religious beliefs confer earthly high regard and heavenly rewards in the afterlife on those who martyr themselves or slaughter unbelievers. With that dynamic thrown in, suddenly the threat becomes even more formidable because the shared mutual fear of death - or the desire to avoid it – among opposing forces is not only removed but reversed. If only a marginally well-equipped enemy is willing to sacrifice its own members (men and women in bomb vests; children clearing mine fields), or vanquish the enemy along with non-combatants, how does one negotiate diplomatically with such a value system?

In World War II, the concept of diplomacy with Kamikaze ("divine wind") pilots was unheard of, and for good reason. There is no known way to mediate peace with armed religious zealots who fervently believe in the rewards of martyrdom and the slaughter of infidels.

It seems unlikely that Islamic terrorism will suddenly lose its attraction for the jihadists. So it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to somehow persuade militant Islam permanently into the diplomatic arena under something equivalent to the Belfast Agreement. And the clock is ticking.

For a basic understanding of Islam and its more enraged factions, see: http://militantislam101.blogspot.com/

What's to be done?

Pragmaticite's royal prediction is that the era we live in today in will soon be seen as a major historical milestone - one way or the other – because there are only two ways to defeat Militant Islam. One is peaceful, but improbable. The other is impossible - under western culture's modern rules of engagement - but could be inevitable.

Assuming fate will not eventually find us all living under the global authority of the Taliban, one of two things must happen to end Islamic terrorism:

Method A. - Internal resolution.

Muslim leaders must denounce terrorism and repudiate those who seek to further their ideology by inflicting violence on innocent civilians.

So far, this approach has not enjoyed sufficient practice by Islamic leaders with any credibility among militant Islamic terrorists. Today it remains much easier to find film clips of organized mobs waving weapons over their heads, chanting "death to America!" than it is to find clips of Muslim peace marches denouncing terrorism.

Method B. - External resolution.

Historically, we cannot expect militant Islamic terrorists to agree to binding, strictly diplomatic negotiations toward an enduring peace (compromise with Satan is forbidden). Consequently, absent successful employment of Method A., forces in opposition to terrorism must adopt a more brutal and compelling strategy that will force terrorists to abandon their tactics. World War II rules of engagement, featuring massive bombing strikes and profound collateral damage could - at horrible human cost - possibly dissuade militant Muslims from their ambitions of terrorism for the glory of Allah.

If there is another attack in America on the order of the events of September 11, 2001, or if there is a nuclear terrorist event anywhere in the world, we may expect rapid, dramatic changes in the military rules of engagement in the "war on terror."

Anyone who desires to live a peaceful life independent of Islamic militants should press and hope for Muslim leaders to take a more assertive role in distinguishing themselves from those who subvert the Islamic faith to advance political agendas of global dominion.

To avoid the devolution of US military policy (and you thought that wasn't possible!) into a "fight fire with fire" or "let God sort 'em out" approach, your "Method A" task assignment is shown below. (Method B is an failsafe position involving lots of Tomhawk missles. It will kick in automatically if Method A becomes obviously ineffective.)

Contact all the Muslim leaders you can find and repeatedly urge them to conduct public peace demonstrations and denounce terrorism.