Islam only respects force, which is why it attacks strong leaders first.
Western powers have known for at least a century that the best “attack dogs” money can buy are angry Muslims. After the First World War, Britain carved up the Middle East to get better control of the oil there, and in order to keep the Islamic groups unstable.
Over the next decades, the US-UK powers in particular intervened in Middle Eastern politics to favor secular leaders like the Shah in Iran or Hussein in Iraq. Once any of these leaders became too weak, the US-UK powerbrokers did the minimum to protect them. Look at how the Ayatollah ousted the Shah.
In contrast, once these Middle Eastern deputies of the US-UK interests become too strong–particularly with respect to the U.S. dollar standard–the powerbrokers move heaven and earth to oust them. Look at the fate of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghaddafi, and, potentially, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad once they removed their countries’ economies from the U.S. dollar standard (in 2001, 2009, and 2006, respectively). They get hanged, toppled, and attacked as threats to the interest of the Us-UK powers in the global order.
Even aside from the U.S. dollar controversy, once some leaders show too much strength, Islam targets them as threats to its visions of global dominance. The most recent example comes from the Philippines.
Seven military bodyguards of President Rodrigo Duterte and two other soldiers were wounded Tuesday in an ambush by suspected Islamic militants on the eve of his planned visit to the southern Philippines, the military and president said.
The southern portions of the Philippines have been racked with Islamic violence for decades, mainly because they are so close to Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. Muslim groups have waged a decades-long armed independence struggle in the south of the mainly Catholic Philippines that is believed to have claimed more than 120,000 lives.
Not surprisingly, Duterte’s planned visit came days after the military began operations against dozens of armed members of the Maute group holed up in an abandoned government building in the mainly Muslim rural town of Butig on Mindanao island, about 500 miles south of Manila.
The ambush came a day after the police said the Maute group left a bomb near the US embassy in Manila which authorities later safely exploded. The Maute gang was also blamed for a bombing in Duterte’s home town in the southern city of Davao in September that killed 15 people.
On Monday, Duterte said ISIS had linked up with the Maute gang, a departure from previous military denials of formal links between ISIS and local extremist groups.
This is the nub of the issue.
Battling terrorists is like a spiral effect. The more aggressive they become, the more explicit their opponents must be about their sources of funding and resources. Conversely, the more explicit anti-Islamic leaders become, the more rattled and violent the jihadists become. This is why Obama and the Democrats have tried to “fight ISIS” without even admitting that “radical Islamic terrorism” exists.
What does some faraway ambush in East Asia have to do with us? Sadly, we should expect similar attacks to take place against Trump, once he is inaugurated. To reiterate: Islam (which means “submission”) only respects force, which is why it attacks strong leaders like Duterte and Trump. That’s why the ambush on Duterte was a double warning, both to Duterte and to Trump. Oppose us, ISIS is warning any strong leaders, and you will end up like Duterte almost did.
This is how a supposedly moderate Muslim, who rejects ISIS as “not Islamic,” reacts to a strong leader like Trump.
The Duterte ambush is a snapshot of how ISIS intends to challenge strong nationalist leaders like Trump and Duterte. As far as I know, the Maute gang has been around longer than ISIS, so they have their own interests separate al-Baghdadi’s group. Yet ISIS is shrewd enough to cooperate with a small local force like the Maute gang to amplify its power outside its base in Iraq.
In America this would mean that ISIS cooperates with the vicious drug cartels of Mexico to tear into America’s underbelly like tiger claws into a dog. Over two years ago, those with eyes to see were aware of the “force multiplier”risk that an ISIS-cartel alliance could pose to American security.
“There seems to be at least a talking to each other,” said Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), a member of the House Judiciary Committee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
“[D]rug cartels use the same operational plan as terrorist groups do. They kill their opponents, they behead their opponents, they brag about it and they have operational control of many portions of the southern border of the United States.”
Give Rep. Poe a coat!
The drug cartels are “as vicious as some of these other terrorist organizations,” Poe went on, which is why we “need to recognize that this is an organized international crime group. And we have to deal with them as such.”
And then Barkoukis hits a home run with this conclusion:
The crisis at the Southwest border is about more than just the illegal immigration of tens of thousands of Central Americans—it’s about national security. Criminals, violent gang members, drug cartel members, and yes, terrorists, are also coming in and will continue to do so as long as this administration puts politics and political correctness ahead of security.
I don’t know if Barkoukis would stand by her conclusion today, now that being strong on border security means falling in with dread Trump, but let’s hope she’s still got enough courage to stick to her guns.
We know Trump will.