Use a Torpedo Next Time! - Jun 6

Hello again readers. I'm still on my 'hiatus' but I've decided to break the silence surrounding the recent brouhaha over the 'Free Gaza' flotilla. This video explains it all. As for me, I have nothing but contempt for these 'activists' and all the brainless anti-Semites who crawl out from under their rocks whenever Israel has the audacity to protect its people and its sovereignty.

Johnny Cash

"I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.
Zechariah 12:2,3

Dutch (Abomi) Nation - Feb 9

Pat Condell hits another one out of the park with his assessment of the Geert Wilders trial. As Pat says, authoritarianism mixed with cowardice will have deadly consequences. I fear that the forces of darkness are winning the cultural and spritual battle. The time of the church age is about to close. Will you be ready when Jesus comes?

Johnny Cash

The Battle For Pakistan - Aug 1

From stratfor comes a video about the troubled state of Pakistan. Marla Dial and Kamran Bokhari give us the gritty details. Enjoy!

Johnny Cash

Three Year Anniversary - Feb 8

Please don't try to eat this cake. The X-Def assumes no responsibility if you damage your computer!


The actual anniversary falls on the 12th but I've decided to start celebrating now. Yessir, the X-Def is now three years old. On to year four!

What's My Motivation After All These Years?

Whenever a milestone is reached, we often look back so we can look forward. I have four main directives which seem more pertinent now then what they were three years ago.

Proclaiming the Good News

This has and always will be the number one priority of the Christian Defender. Just think of the impact that Paul, Barnabas and all the other saints would've had if they had access to the world-wide web! Or imagine if Paul had the use of a simple bicycle? I ponder how many with an internet connection who could've made an eternal impact for the Kingdom of God but chose the easy way instead. Proclaiming the Good News comes with a price, usually a heavy one. Reaching out to the lost while under duress is certainly not for the faint of heart.

The 2 I's: Israel and Islam

One is to be supported and the other is to be shamed into oblivion. So while the world supports Islam and shames Israel, I'm proud to do the exact opposite. The battle between Hamas and the Israeli military in Operation Cast Lead may be over, but the battle over the existence of the Jewish state still continues. Despite all the caterwauling about the 'occupation' (Note to anti-semites and pseudo-academics: Israel left Gaza in 2005), the simple fact is Hamas is much more brutal towards the Palestinian people on a good day then Israeli forces will ever be on a bad day.

Secularists Behaving Badly

Which brings me to the fourth pillar of the X-Def: The ongoing culture war to pulverize Judeo-Christian civilization. President Barack Obama's (pro-choice and Marxist) politics will accelerate America's decline as a world power. Bad science, a left-wing elitist media and the normalization of evil are surely the birthpangs of the last days of this church age. We don't tolerate evil, we prefer its company! Is it any wonder that America cannot be found in Bible prophecy?

Giving Thanks To All Those Who've Supported Me

That includes all my detractors (whom will continue to go unmentioned). Any hate mail I receive simply confirms again and again my eternal destiny. The world is truly in the lap of the wicked one. Thanks for reminding me I'm one of Satan's enemies! My thanks also goes out to those fellow Christian bloggers who are courageously challenging this sensual thinking. Lastly, thanks to all those who've happened to stumble across my humble little blog. Only God knows what the eternal impact will be for all my hours of work. Whether you're a one-time viewer or a regular or a friend or an enemy, I feel nothing but gratitude and encouragement for all your visits. May God continue to bless this blog for the purpose of His glory!

Johnny Cash

The War Against The Taliban and Al-Qaida - Jan 27

Got another good here from stratfor on Obama's decision to surge into Afghanistan. Stratfor argues for a reduced role in conventional forces while maintaining a robust intelligence role. As in any war the locals will support the side that's winning. Unfortunately that side doesn't appear to be us.

Johnny Cash


Strategic Divergence: The War Against the Taliban and the War Against Al Qaeda

January 26, 2009
By George Friedman

Washington’s attention is now zeroing in on Afghanistan. There is talk of doubling U.S. forces there, and preparations are being made for another supply line into Afghanistan — this one running through the former Soviet Union — as an alternative or a supplement to the current Pakistani route. To free up more resources for Afghanistan, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq probably will be accelerated. And there is discussion about whether the Karzai government serves the purposes of the war in Afghanistan. In short, U.S. President Barack Obama’s campaign promise to focus on Afghanistan seems to be taking shape.

We have discussed many aspects of the Afghan war in the past; it is now time to focus on the central issue. What are the strategic goals of the United States in Afghanistan? What resources will be devoted to this mission? What are the intentions and capabilities of the Taliban and others fighting the United States and its NATO allies? Most important, what is the relationship between the war against the Taliban and the war against al Qaeda? If the United States encounters difficulties in the war against the Taliban, will it still be able to contain not only al Qaeda but other terrorist groups? Does the United States need to succeed against the Taliban to be successful against transnational Islamist terrorists? And assuming that U.S. forces are built up in Afghanistan and that the supply problem through Pakistan is solved, are the defeat of Taliban and the disruption of al Qaeda likely?

Al Qaeda and U.S. Goals Post-9/11

The overarching goal of the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, has been to prevent further attacks by al Qaeda in the United States. Washington has used two means toward this end. One was defensive, aimed at increasing the difficulty of al Qaeda operatives to penetrate and operate within the United States. The second was to attack and destroy al Qaeda prime, the group around Osama bin Laden that organized and executed 9/11 and other attacks in Europe. It is this group — not other groups that call themselves al Qaeda but only are able to operate in the countries where they were formed — that was the target of the United States, because this was the group that had demonstrated the ability to launch intercontinental strikes.

Al Qaeda prime had its main headquarters in Afghanistan. It was not an Afghan group, but one drawn from multiple Islamic countries. It was in alliance with an Afghan group, the Taliban. The Taliban had won a civil war in Afghanistan, creating a coalition of support among tribes that had given the group control, direct or indirect, over most of the country. It is important to remember that al Qaeda was separate from the Taliban; the former was a multinational force, while the Taliban were an internal Afghan political power.

The United States has two strategic goals in Afghanistan. The first is to destroy the remnants of al Qaeda prime — the central command of al Qaeda — in Afghanistan. The second is to use Afghanistan as a base for destroying al Qaeda in Pakistan and to prevent the return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan.

To achieve these goals, Washington has sought to make Afghanistan inhospitable to al Qaeda. The United States forced the Taliban from Afghanistan’s main cities and into the countryside, and established a new, anti-Taliban government in Kabul under President Hamid Karzai. Washington intended to deny al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan by unseating the Taliban government, creating a new pro-American government and then using Afghanistan as a base against al Qaeda in Pakistan.

The United States succeeded in forcing the Taliban from power in the sense that in giving up the cities, the Taliban lost formal control of the country. To be more precise, early in the U.S. attack in 2001, the Taliban realized that the massed defense of Afghan cities was impossible in the face of American air power. The ability of U.S. B-52s to devastate any concentration of forces meant that the Taliban could not defend the cities, but had to withdraw, disperse and reform its units for combat on more favorable terms.

At this point, we must separate the fates of al Qaeda and the Taliban. During the Taliban retreat, al Qaeda had to retreat as well. Since the United States lacked sufficient force to destroy al Qaeda at Tora Bora, al Qaeda was able to retreat into northwestern Pakistan. There, it enjoys the advantages of terrain, superior tactical intelligence and support networks.

Even so, in nearly eight years of war, U.S. intelligence and special operations forces have maintained pressure on al Qaeda in Pakistan. The United States has imposed attrition on al Qaeda, disrupting its command, control and communications and isolating it. In the process, the United States used one of al Qaeda’s operational principles against it. To avoid penetration by hostile intelligence services, al Qaeda has not recruited new cadres for its primary unit. This makes it very difficult to develop intelligence on al Qaeda, but it also makes it impossible for al Qaeda to replace its losses. Thus, in a long war of attrition, every loss imposed on al Qaeda has been irreplaceable, and over time, al Qaeda prime declined dramatically in effectiveness — meaning it has been years since it has carried out an effective operation.

The situation was very different with the Taliban. The Taliban, it is essential to recall, won the Afghan civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal despite Russian and Iranian support for its opponents. That means the Taliban have a great deal of support and a strong infrastructure, and, above all, they are resilient. After the group withdrew from Afghanistan’s cities and lost formal power post-9/11, it still retained a great deal of informal influence — if not control — over large regions of Afghanistan and in areas across the border in Pakistan. Over the years since the U.S. invasion, the Taliban have regrouped, rearmed and increased their operations in Afghanistan. And the conflict with the Taliban has now become a conventional guerrilla war.

The Taliban and the Guerrilla Warfare Challenge

The Taliban have forged relationships among many Afghan (and Pakistani) tribes. These tribes have been alienated by Karzai and the Americans, and far more important, they do not perceive the Americans and Karzai as potential winners in the Afghan conflict. They recall the Russian and British defeats. The tribes have long memories, and they know that foreigners don’t stay very long. Betting on the United States and Karzai — when the United States has sent only 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and is struggling with the idea of sending another 30,000 troops — does not strike them as prudent. The United States is behaving like a power not planning to win; and, in any event, they would not be much impressed if the Americans were planning to win.

The tribes therefore do not want to get on the wrong side of the Taliban. That means they aid and shelter Taliban forces, and provide them intelligence on enemy movement and intentions. With its base camps and supply lines running from Pakistan, the Taliban are thus in a position to recruit, train and arm an increasingly large force.

The Taliban have the classic advantage of guerrillas operating in known terrain with a network of supporters: superior intelligence. They know where the Americans are, what the Americans are doing and when the Americans are going to strike. The Taliban declines combat on unfavorable terms and strikes when the Americans are weakest. The Americans, on the other hand, have the classic problem of counterinsurgency: They enjoy superior force and firepower, and can defeat anyone they can locate and pin down, but they lack intelligence. As much as technical intelligence from unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites is useful, human intelligence is the only effective long-term solution to defeating an insurgency. In this, the Taliban have the advantage: They have been there longer, they are in more places and they are not going anywhere.

There is no conceivable force the United States can deploy to pacify Afghanistan. A possible alternative is moving into Pakistan to cut the supply lines and destroy the Taliban’s base camps. The problem is that if the Americans lack the troops to successfully operate in Afghanistan, it is even less likely they have the troops to operate in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States could use the Korean War example, taking responsibility for cutting the Taliban off from supplies and reinforcements from Pakistan, but that assumes that the Afghan government has an effective force motivated to engage and defeat the Taliban. The Afghan government doesn’t.

The obvious American solution — or at least the best available solution — is to retreat to strategic Afghan points and cities and protect the Karzai regime. The problem here is that in Afghanistan, holding the cities doesn’t give the key to the country; rather, holding the countryside gives the key to the cities. Moreover, a purely defensive posture opens the United States up to the Dien Bien Phu/Khe Sanh counterstrategy, in which guerrillas shift to positional warfare, isolate a base and try to overrun in it.

A purely defensive posture could create a stalemate, but nothing more. That stalemate could create the foundations for political negotiations, but if there is no threat to the enemy, the enemy has little reason to negotiate. Therefore, there must be strikes against Taliban concentrations. The problem is that the Taliban know that concentration is suicide, and so they work to deny the Americans valuable targets. The United States can exhaust itself attacking minor targets based on poor intelligence. It won’t get anywhere.

U.S. Strategy in Light of al Qaeda’s Diminution

From the beginning, the Karzai government has failed to take control of the countryside. Therefore, al Qaeda has had the option to redeploy into Afghanistan if it chose. It didn’t because it is risk-averse. That may seem like a strange thing to say about a group that flies planes into buildings, but what it means is that the group’s members are relatively few, so al Qaeda cannot risk operational failures. It thus keeps its powder dry and stays in hiding.

This then frames the U.S. strategic question. The United States has no intrinsic interest in the nature of the Afghan government. The United States is interested in making certain the Taliban do not provide sanctuary to al Qaeda prime. But it is not clear that al Qaeda prime is operational anymore. Some members remain, putting out videos now and then and trying to appear fearsome, but it would seem that U.S. operations have crippled al Qaeda.

So if the primary reason for fighting the Taliban is to keep al Qaeda prime from having a base of operations in Afghanistan, that reason might be moot now as al Qaeda appears to be wrecked. This is not to say that another Islamist terrorist group could not arise and develop the sophisticated methods and training of al Qaeda prime. But such a group could deploy many places, and in any case, obtaining the needed skills in moving money, holding covert meetings and the like is much harder than it looks — and with many intelligence services, including those in the Islamic world, on the lookout for this, recruitment would be hard.

It is therefore no longer clear that resisting the Taliban is essential for blocking al Qaeda: al Qaeda may simply no longer be there. (At this point, the burden of proof is on those who think al Qaeda remains operational.)

Two things emerge from this. First, the search for al Qaeda and other Islamist groups is an intelligence matter best left to the covert capabilities of U.S. intelligence and Special Operations Command. Defeating al Qaeda does not require tens of thousands of troops — it requires excellent intelligence and a special operations capability. That is true whether al Qaeda is in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Intelligence, covert forces and airstrikes are what is needed in this fight, and of the three, intelligence is the key.

Second, the current strategy in Afghanistan cannot secure Afghanistan, nor does it materially contribute to shutting down al Qaeda. Trying to hold some cities and strategic points with the number of troops currently under consideration is not an effective strategy to this end; the United States is already ceding large areas of Afghanistan to the Taliban that could serve as sanctuary for al Qaeda. Protecting the Karzai government and key cities is therefore not significantly contributing to the al Qaeda-suppression strategy.

In sum, the United States does not control enough of Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda sanctuary, can’t control the border with Pakistan and lacks effective intelligence and troops for defeating the Taliban.

Logic argues, therefore, for the creation of a political process for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan coupled with a recommitment to intelligence operations against al Qaeda. Ultimately, the United States must protect itself from radical Islamists, but cannot create a united, pro-American Afghanistan. That would not happen even if the United States sent 500,000 troops there, which it doesn’t have anyway.

A Tale of Two Surges

The U.S. strategy now appears to involve trying a surge, or sending in more troops and negotiating with the Taliban, mirroring the strategy used in Iraq. But the problem with that strategy is that the Taliban don’t seem inclined to make concessions to the United States. The Taliban don’t think the United States can win, and they know the United States won’t stay. The Petraeus strategy is to inflict enough pain on the Taliban to cause them to rethink their position, which worked in Iraq. But it did not work in Vietnam. So long as the Taliban have resources flowing and can survive American attacks, they will calculate that they can outlast the Americans. This has been Afghan strategy for centuries, and it worked against the British and Russians.

If it works against the Americans, too, splitting the al Qaeda strategy from the Taliban strategy will be the inevitable outcome for the United States. In that case, the CIA will become the critical war fighter in the theater, while conventional forces will be withdrawn. It follows that Obama will need to think carefully about his approach to intelligence.

This is not an argument that al Qaeda is no longer a threat, although the threat appears diminished. Nor is it an argument that dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not a priority. Instead, it is an argument that the defeat of the Taliban under rationally anticipated circumstances is unlikely and that a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan will be much more difficult and unlikely than the settlement was in Iraq — but that even so, a robust effort against Islamist terror groups must continue regardless of the outcome of the war with the Taliban.

Therefore, we expect that the United States will separate the two conflicts in response to these realities. This will mean that containing terrorists will not be dependent on defeating or holding out against the Taliban, holding Afghanistan’s cities, or preserving the Karzai regime. We expect the United States to surge troops into Afghanistan, but in due course, the counterterrorist portion will diverge from the counter-Taliban portion. The counterterrorist portion will be maintained as an intense covert operation, while the overt operation will wind down over time. The Taliban ruling Afghanistan is not a threat to the United States, so long as intense counterterrorist operations continue there.

The cost of failure in Afghanistan is simply too high and the connection to counterterrorist activities too tenuous for the two strategies to be linked. And since the counterterror war is already distinct from conventional operations in much of Afghanistan and Pakistan, our forecast is not really that radical.

In Defense of Geert Wilders - Jan 26

The Englishman Pat Condell is at it again, offering his insight as to what's happening in the Netherlands - and by natural extension, the West. He's right of course, which is why we should all be listening. The PC scaredy-cats are rolling over on their backs in a disgusting display of dhimmitude. Please pray for Mr. Wilders and the Netherlands. Looks like they're going to need it!

Johnny Cash

Israel - Gaza War Maps - Jan 6

Here are four maps from stratfor on Operation Cast Lead. The maps are in chronological order from the earliest at the top to the most recent at the bottom. Click on each individual map for a full view. Cheers, JC

Remembering Our Fallen - Dec 6

A tragic milestone has been reached in Afghanistan. A hundred of our finest men and women have fallen. Here's my tribute.

A Primer on Military Rank Structure

Pte./Tpr./Gnr./Spr.: Private, Trooper, Gunner and Sapper. Privates are infantry, Troopers are armor, Gunners are artillery and a Sapper is an Electrical Mechanical Engineer (EME). The foundation of any army in the field.

Cpl and MCpl.: Corporal and a Master Corporal. Both are junior non-commisioned ranks. Bombadiers (Bdr.) are the corporal equivalent in the artillery.

Sgt. and WO: Sargeant and Warrant Officer. These are senior non-commisioned ranks. A MWO is a Master Warrant Officer and a CWO is a Chief Warrant Officer.

Lt. and Capt.: Lieutenant and Captain. Junior officer ranks. Major and above are senior officer ranks.

A Guide to the Fallen

A typical entry will look like this:

Cpl. Joe Bloggins - 21 - 1/1

Corporal Joe Bloggins died at the age of 21 on January the 1st (MM/DD). Entries are listed in chronological order from earliest to latest. Multiple deaths on the same day are separated by commas. Thanks to the Toronto Star for their touching tributes to each one.

Our Glorious Dead

2002 to 2005

Sgt. Marc Leger - 29, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer - 24, Pte. Richard Green - 21, Pte. Nathan Smith - 26 - 4/18/02
Sgt. Robert Short - 42, Cpl. Robert Beerenfenger - 29 - 10/2/03
Cpl. Jamie Murphy - 26 - 1/27/04
Pte. Braun Woodfield - 24 - 11/24/05

2006

Cpl. Paul Davis - 28, MCpl. Timothy Wilson - 30 - 3/4
Pte. Robert Costall - 22 - 3/29
Cpl. Matthew Dinning - 23, Bdr. Myles Mansell - 25, Cpl. Randy Payne - 32, Lt. William Turner - 45 - 4/22
Capt. Nicola Goddard - 26 - 5/17
Cpl. Anthony Boneca - 21 - 7/9
Cpl. Francisco Gomez - 44, Cpl. Jason Warren - 29 - 7/22
Cpl. Christopher Wren - 34, Pte. Kevin Dallaire - 22, Sgt. Vaughan Ingram - 35, Cpl. Bryce Keller - 27 - 8/3
MCpl. Raymond Arndt - 31 - 8/5
MCpl. Jeffrey Walsh - 33 - 8/9
Cpl. Andrew Eykelenboom - 23 - 8/11
Cpl. David Braun - 27 - 8/22
Sgt. Shane Stachnik - 30, WO Frank Mellish - 38, WO Richard Nolan - 39, Pte. William Cushley - 21 - 9/3
Pte. Mark Graham - 33 - 9/4
Pte. David Byers - 22, Cpl. Shane Keating - 30, Cpl. Keith Morley - 30, Cpl. Glen Arnold -32 - 9/18
Pte. Josh Klukie - 23 - 9/29
Cpl. Robert Mitchell - 32, Sgt. Craig Gilliam - 40 - 10/3
Tpr. Mark Wilson - 39 - 10/7
Sgt. Darcy Tedford - 32, Pte. Blake Williamson - 23 - 10/14
CWO Robert Girouard - 46, Cpl. Albert Storm - 36 - 11/27

2007

Cpl. Kevin Megeney - 25 - 3/6
Pte. Kevin Kennedy - 20, Pte. David Greenslade - 20, Cpl. Aaron Williams - 23, Cpl. Christopher Stannix - 24, Cpl. Brent Poland - 37, Sgt. Donald Lucas - 31 - 4/8
Tpr. Patrick Pentland - 23, MCpl Allan Stewart - 31 - 4/11
MCpl Anthony Klumpenhouwer - 25 - 4/18
Cpl. Matthew McCully - 25 - 5/25
MCpl. Darrell Priede - 30 - 5/30
Tpr. Darryl Caswell - 25 - 6/12
Sgt. Christos Karigiannis - 31, Cpl. Stephen Bouzane - 26, Pte. Joel Wiebe - 22 - 6/20/07
Capt. Matthew Dawe - 27, MCpl Colin Bason - 28, Cpl. Cole Bartsch - 23, Pte. Lane Watkins - 20, Cpl. Jordan Anderson - 25, Capt. Jefferson Francis - 37 - 7/4
Pte. Simon Longtin - 23 - 8/19
MWO Mario Mercier - 43, MCpl Christian Duchesne - 34 - 8/22
Maj. Raymond Ruckpaul - 42 - 8/29
Cpl. Nathan Hornburg - 24 - 9/24
Pte. Michel Leveaque - 25, Cpl. Nicolas Beauchamp - 28 - 11/17
Gnr. Jonathan Dion - 27 - 12/30

2008

Cpl. Eric Labbe - 31, WO Hani Massouh - 41 - 1/6
Tpr. Richard Renaud - 26 - 1/15
Cpl. Etienne Gonthier - 21 - 1/23
Tpr. Michael Hayakaze - 25 - 3/2
Bdr. Jeremie Ouellet - 22 - 3/11
Sgt. Jason Boyes - 32 - 3/16
Pte. Terry Street - 24 - 4/4
Cpl. Michael Starker - 36 - 5/6
Capt. Richard Leary - 32 - 6/3
Capt. Jonathan Snyder - 26 - 6/7
Cpl. Brendan Downey - 37 - 7/4
Pte. Colin Wilmot - 24 - 7/5
Cpl. James Arnal - 25 - 7/18
MCpl Joshua Roberts - 29 - 8/9
Spr. Stephan Stock - 25, Cpl. Dustin Wasden - 25, Sgt. Shawn Eades - 33 - 8/21
Cpl. Andrew Grenon - 23, Cpl. Michael Seggie - 21, Pte. Chad Horn - 21, Sgt. Scott Shipway - 36 - 9/3
Cpl. Mark McLaren - 23, Pte. Demetrios Diplaros - 24, WO Robert John Wilson - 27 - 12/5

May we never forget those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Johnny Cash

Dangerous Tensions - Sep 28

Without doubt the most dangerous place on earth right now is the Afgan-Pakistani border. So long as Canadian troops are there, the security and stability of Pakistan is paramount. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea seem tame by way of comparison. Below is a picture of a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter in the area of operations.

Johnny Cash


Pakistan, U.S.: Dangerous Tensions Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:12PM

Pakistani forces fired at U.S. military helicopters along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the Pentagon said Sept. 25. The border dispute highlights the dangers of the high tensions between Islamabad and Washington — tensions that are likely to get worse before there is any hope that they will get better.

Analysis

Pakistani forces fired upon U.S. military helicopters along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the Pentagon confirmed Sept. 25. However, a Pentagon spokesman denied Pakistani claims that the helicopters had entered Pakistani airspace. Islamabad later claimed that only “warning shots” were fired and later insisted that only signal flares were fired to warn the helicopters off.


This incident — almost a textbook border dispute, complete with each side claiming it was in the right place in an area where the precise border often is not clear, and subsequent revisions of statements — highlights the dangers of tensions as high as they are between Pakistan and the United States. For Washington, Islamabad’s lack of control over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is providing a safe haven for Taliban and foreign jihadist fighters as well as a vector for arms feeding the Afghan insurgency. For Pakistan, the United States’ increasingly overt and unilateral raids and strikes on Pakistani territory are challenging Islamabad’s sovereignty, and with it the support of its people.

Thus, Pakistan has increasingly threatened to forcefully oppose any further U.S. intrusion, though the only casualty so far has been an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that crashed in the region Sept. 23 — possibly for unrelated technical reasons. Indeed, though often flying well above the range of “trash fire” — small arms and anti-aircraft artillery — UAVs make a good intermediate step for Islamabad to demonstrate its resolve on the issue without firing upon U.S. servicemen. Islamabad cannot hope to garner public support for the fight against its own jihadist insurgency while U.S. forces continue to engage in unilateral strikes in the country.

Meanwhile, unless a Pakistani patrol catches helicopters flying low, the danger from small arms fire is not particularly extreme. Nevertheless, should Islamabad begin to employ more capable air defense weapons, the situation could quickly escalate — though Pakistan’s most capable air defense systems will remain committed to the Indian border. Both sides compound the potential for escalation.

On the Pakistani side, the paramilitary Frontier Corps patrols much of the border. The corps harbors more intense local tribal loyalties — likely making any given patrol more inclined to shoot and more likely to be aggressive in trying to bring down whatever U.S. target they might stumble upon, even if it is only approaching the border. The Frontier Corps is also likely to have individuals with conflicting loyalties — a situation that militants can exploit to deliberately trigger a U.S.-Pakistani clash, which would work to their advantage. The Frontier Corps or other forces in the area also have broad direction from Islamabad — compounded by high profile public statements by senior officials that Pakistan will defend its own territory — that they can interpret as they see fit and act on their own at the tactical level. Moreover, an outpost in Mohmand agency was hit June 11 in a U.S. strike that left 11 Frontier Corps soldiers — including a mid-level officer — dead.

On the U.S. side, rules of engagement stipulate very clearly the right to self defense — generally including preemptive self defense when the individual has a subjective sense of imminent hostile intent. Though more professional and restrained in a tactical sense, U.S. forces are likely to act aggressively to defend themselves once fired upon. In fact, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sept 23 told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that the United Nations Charter allowed the United States to act in self-defense against international terrorists in Pakistan if the government was unable, or unwilling to deal with them. Perceptions and misconceptions in such situations — on both sides — often make the situation all too quick to escalate.

Even though this particular incident may boil down to the innocent firing of signal flares, the situation has all the ingredients for significant escalation while politically and militarily — in a strategic sense — both sides remain in limbo. Pakistan does not have the military capability to establish its writ in FATA on its own without reducing its forces opposite India to what it considers unacceptable levels. The United States is not only in mid-stride during the final weeks of election season, but is facing domestic economic troubles and is still formulating its new strategy for Afghanistan.

In short, should things continue on this path, the situation may well get worse before there is any hope of it getting better.

Mr. President, What Now Sir? - Sep 3

I can think of no more frightening phrase uttered in a time of crisis. With thanks to Bush's adventurism we now have a situation where the American military is spread a mile wide and an inch thick. The worst part is everybody - that being the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Saudis, and al-Qaida - know it. Whoever wins the White House is sure to have their resolve tested in 2009 at a time and place of our enemies choosing.

Johnny Cash


The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy
September 2, 2008

By George Friedman

The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:

The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.

The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.

The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn’t abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.

In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan (and above all to Iran) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.

The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow’s influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn’t block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.

On Sunday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.

Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.

Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.

Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.

Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.

Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.

The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”

Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy. These are ambitious goals, to say the least. But the Russians believe that the United States is off balance in the Islamic world and that there is an opportunity here, if they move quickly, to create a new reality before the United States is ready to respond. Europe has neither the military weight nor the will to actively resist Russia. Moreover, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.

This leaves the United States in an extremely difficult strategic position. The United States opposed the Soviet Union after 1945 not only for ideological reasons but also for geopolitical ones. If the Soviet Union had broken out of its encirclement and dominated all of Europe, the total economic power at its disposal, coupled with its population, would have allowed the Soviets to construct a navy that could challenge U.S. maritime hegemony and put the continental United States in jeopardy. It was U.S. policy during World Wars I and II and the Cold War to act militarily to prevent any power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. For the United States, this was the most important task throughout the 20th century.

The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed. Germany’s defeat in World War II and the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War meant that there was no claimant to Eurasia, and the United States was free to focus on what appeared to be the current priority — the defeat of radical Islamism. It appeared that the main threat to this strategy was the patience of the American public, not an attempt to resurrect a major Eurasian power.

The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians. It could choose a naval option, in which it would block the four Russian maritime outlets, the Sea of Japan and the Black, Baltic and Barents seas. The United States has ample military force with which to do this and could potentially do so without allied cooperation, which it would lack. It is extremely unlikely that the NATO council would unanimously support a blockade of Russia, which would be an act of war.

But while a blockade like this would certainly hurt the Russians, Russia is ultimately a land power. It is also capable of shipping and importing through third parties, meaning it could potentially acquire and ship key goods through European or Turkish ports (or Iranian ports, for that matter). The blockade option is thus more attractive on first glance than on deeper analysis.

More important, any overt U.S. action against Russia would result in counteractions. During the Cold War, the Soviets attacked American global interest not by sending Soviet troops, but by supporting regimes and factions with weapons and economic aid. Vietnam was the classic example: The Russians tied down 500,000 U.S. troops without placing major Russian forces at risk. Throughout the world, the Soviets implemented programs of subversion and aid to friendly regimes, forcing the United States either to accept pro-Soviet regimes, as with Cuba, or fight them at disproportionate cost.

In the present situation, the Russian response would strike at the heart of American strategy in the Islamic world. In the long run, the Russians have little interest in strengthening the Islamic world — but for the moment, they have substantial interest in maintaining American imbalance and sapping U.S. forces. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it is no accident that the first world leader they met with after invading Georgia was Syrian President Bashar al Assad. This was a clear signal that if the U.S. responded aggressively to Russia’s actions in Georgia, Moscow would ship a range of weapons to Syria — and far worse, to Iran. Indeed, Russia could conceivably send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as to groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and plunge Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan.

At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not. Not only does the U.S. commitment of ground forces in the Islamic world leave the United States without strategic reserve, but the political arrangements under which these troops operate make them highly vulnerable to Russian manipulation — with few satisfactory U.S. counters.

The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union. If the United States could very rapidly win its wars in the region, this would be possible. But the Russians are in a position to prolong these wars, and even without such agitation, the American ability to close off the conflicts is severely limited. The United States could massively increase the size of its army and make deployments into the Baltics, Ukraine and Central Asia to thwart Russian plans, but it would take years to build up these forces and the active cooperation of Europe to deploy them. Logistically, European support would be essential — but the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have no appetite for this war. Expanding the U.S. Army is necessary, but it does not affect the current strategic reality.

This logistical issue might be manageable, but the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians’ ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically. With active Russian hostility added to the current reality, the strategic situation in the Islamic world could rapidly spin out of control.

The United States is therefore trapped by its commitment to the Islamic world. It does not have sufficient forces to block Russian hegemony in the former Soviet Union, and if it tries to block the Russians with naval or air forces, it faces a dangerous riposte from the Russians in the Islamic world. If it does nothing, it creates a strategic threat that potentially towers over the threat in the Islamic world.

The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense.

Four Broad U.S. Options

Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States — particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want —or honor — such a deal.

Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO. On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union.

Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans. On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia’s re-emergence.

Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world.

We are pointing to very stark strategic choices. Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. What might have been a rational policy in 2001 or 2003 has now turned into a very dangerous enterprise, because a hostile major power now has the option of making the U.S. position in the Middle East enormously more difficult.

If a U.S. settlement with Iran is impossible, and a diplomatic solution with the Russians that would keep them from taking a hegemonic position in the former Soviet Union cannot be reached, then the United States must consider rapidly abandoning its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeploying its forces to block Russian expansion. The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far graver than the threat posed now by the fragmented Islamic world. In the end, the nations there will cancel each other out, and militant organizations will be something the United States simply has to deal with. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but the clock appears to have run out on the American war in the Islamic world.

We do not expect the United States to take this option. It is difficult to abandon a conflict that has gone on this long when it is not yet crystal clear that the Russians will actually be a threat later. (It is far easier for an analyst to make such suggestions than it is for a president to act on them.) Instead, the United States will attempt to bridge the Russian situation with gestures and half measures.

Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.

We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn’t going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to Stratfor.com

Two Hostile Camps, One Victory - Jul 5

After Jesus told Nicodemus 'For God so loved the world .....', He gave us this warning about those who choose darkness over the light:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
(John 3:19-21)

Saving the World Can Be Hazardous to Your Health

Have you heard of this 'one world' movement? You know what I'm talking about: That annoying touchy-feely Hollywood PC that has all the charm and romance of a malignant brain tumor. Were it not for such conservative thinkers such as Pat Buchanan, this type of doe-eyed pacifism would destroy us.

All Is One, Dammit!

All is indeed one - except for those who see this sham for what it truly is. Do you want to know the greatest lie out there today? It goes something like this:

Truth divides and causes problems (true). Therefore, eliminate truth (and all those who speak it) and all our divisions and problems will cease (false).

To the short-sighted and foolish this logic makes sense. But like all good lies, it must have an element of truth in order for it to be believed. 'Let us rid ourselves of these truthmongers', the elites tell us, 'and then shall we have our godless utopia!'. Know what I call that? A death wish. Here in point form is my refutation of that silly lie:

There is no unity apart from truth.

Truth is not some inanimate object that we play with for a while and afterwards throw it away when we get bored.

Truth is a person whom we know as Jesus Christ. Jesus is the visible, undeniable and physical manifestation of truth. Therefore whoever rejects Christ rejects truth also. Hence, there will never be unity in a Christ-rejecting world.

Truth is both timeless and universal. All the time, everywhere! What a concept! Like it or not religion matters, be it in church, business or in nation-wide elections. Despite all the secularists' best efforts, people are still defending the cause of Christ.

There is no 'Whatever, whatever, whatever' when it comes to truth. Either something is or it is not. If it be true then we must seize it. If it is false it must be vigorously opposed. So yes, truth does divide. Who says that's necessarily a bad thing? What's wrong with making the right kind of enemies? What's wrong with striking fear into the hearts of those who wish to eliminate our God-given freedoms? There's nothing wrong with it!

Calling out our Enemies: Islam, the Loony Left and the Law

As I see it, we have a choice. We can fight in the darkness and lose. Or we can fight in the light and achieve victory. There cannot, nor will there ever be, peace, justice and unity apart from victory. For it is only in the crucible of victory that freedom is upheld.

Recently in Canada and in Europe, it is obvious where the real allegiances of our courts lie. The term 'legal jihad' has greater swath than ever before. Our dhimmi courts have abandoned our Judeo-Christian traditions and have sided with the enemy.

Does the term 'amoral sociopath' mean anything to these MoveOn.org types? Bill O'Reilly exposes an outlandish ad launched recently smearing Republican candidate John McCain. The concept of 'shame' and 'accuracy in journalism' is forever lost to them.

Were they just plain annoying (not to mention rude and abrasive), we could ignore the Left completely. But as observers of both Islam and the Left, it is clear that an 'Unholy Alliance' of sorts has arisen. In this Daniel Pipes article, a particular paragraph for me stood out:

Throughout his life, Michel Foucault's concept of authenticity meant looking at situations where people lived dangerously and flirted with death, the site where creativity originated. In the tradition of Friedrich Nietzsche and Georges Bataille, Foucault had embraced the artist who pushed the limits of rationality and he wrote with great passion in defense of irrationalities that broke new boundaries. In 1978, Foucault found such transgressive powers in the revolutionary figure of Ayatollah Khomeini and the millions who risked death as they followed him in the course of the Revolution. He knew that such "limit" experiences could lead to new forms of creativity and he passionately threw in his support.

Great passion in the defence of irrationalities? No wonder these socialists scare us!

The Forces of Light: The (Hidden) Army of Jesus Christ

Gospel for Asia missionary Layak Kamol risks his life every time he walks to church and back. Anti-Christian fanatics have threatened him numerous times that they will kill him because he continues to share Christ in Chhattisgarh, India. On June 29, they did more than threaten.

You can read the rest here.

Jesus said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26)

Do you believe?

Johnny Cash

Soylent Green is People! - Apr 7

Sorry, couldn't resist. In the wake of Charlton Heston's passing I'm going to dedicate this post to Chuck and to all those who love to eat their young. The soylent green line and the 'Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!' has to be two of the most memorable movie lines ever delivered.


The Destruction of Western Civilization From Within

We must remember Jesus' admonition that we must first remove the plank from our own eye before we attempt to remove the splinter in someone else's eye. Self-criticism must therefore precede the sins of others.

Politics: The GOP, Democrats and the Hollywood Left

Nobody escapes unscathed here. George W. Bush is perhaps one of the greatest lame duck presidents that America has had to endure. Bush has achieved the impossible: He has made Bill Clinton (D) look positively benign by comparison. In his article, Pat Buchanan notes:

Since 2001, he (meaning Bush - JC) has presided over the seven largest trade deficits in history, the loss of 3.5 million manufacturing jobs and the collapse of the dollar, and added but one-fifth of the private sector jobs Bill Clinton created. Gold has gone from $260 an ounce to $1,000, oil from $28 a barrel to $100.

With this in mind, shouldn't the Democrats be laughing all the way to the White House? Not so fast! With Barack Obama (the used car salesman of the year for 2008) getting hammered over his dubious association with 'Black Liberation Theology' and Hillary's obsession with power (All hail Queen Julia!) looking eerily similar to Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction' it's a wonder that the bitterly divided Democrats will capture any votes at all.

Our Hollywood liberal 'friends'

Does anyone in the entertainment industry know how to be a loyal dissident anymore? And why are Congressmen Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) shilling for Saddam Hussein as late as 2002? Useful idiots the lot of them. Uncle Joe would be proud of such simpletons. Such an unholy alliance the Left has with all those America haters.

Israel and the 'Peace Process': No Shortage of Stupid People in the ME

There is nothing more frustrating than watching this debacle unfold before our very eyes. All evidence shows a gathering storm in the ME and that Israel's relations with Syria and Iran are growing increasingly hostile. Abbas is no moderate and Palestinian children are still being indoctrinated with hate (who unsurprisingly grow up to become hateful adults).

Our response? We defer constantly in the vain hope that through appeasement this will all go away. The jihad that America and Israel face is not based on some cultural or religious misunderstanding. It is a fundamental difference in worldview that Islam preaches to its young that creates conflict. War, death and martyrdom become unassailable virtues. There is no 'gap' between the West and the Muslim world. It's more like a bottomless abyss. The sooner our leaders take this to heart the better (and safer) we'll all be.

Abortion: The War Against Women and Children

No other industry exemplifies human sacrifice and the eating of our young better than the abortion racket. In China and India, many fetuses are being aborted simply because they're female. Not due to some physical deformity. Not because of Down's syndrome. Just for being female. Men in China and India have no hope of getting married and starting a family of their own. Now this godless secular-progressive 'ideal' has come to the Western world. As someone who admires feminine beauty I find this repulsive. So too do many other Americans. Where are all the feminists to be found to denunciate this blatant gender discrimination? Nowhere to be found. As usual it is left up to us Judeo-Christian conservative voters to give a voice to the unborn.

Doing It Right

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)

These Nepalese missionaries know what true wealth is. Praise God!

Johnny Cash

Contenders, Pretenders and Defenders - Mar 25

Time to change things up. My last post was a little on the heavy side so I'm going easy this time. The title of my post says it all.

Barack Hussein Obama: 2008 Used Car Salesperson of the Year

The man is thoroughly deserving of the title. As I see it, there are two, not three, legitimate contenders for the Oval Office. One is John McCain who is looking more presidential with each passing day and the other is good ol' what's-er-face. Uh, that's Hillary I'm referring to. Obama, despite leading the Dem delegate count, looks more and more like a local used car salesman. And not in a good way either. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing more manlier than two (or more) guys talking about cars. So I actually like kibbutzing with car salesmen for some strange unfathomable reason. But Obama? No way. I imagine the sales pitch would sound something like this:

BHO: This car can be yours for $12,000!
Me: But the sticker price says $8,995!
BHO: Ah, but you forgot to add the racial aggravation surcharge!
Me: What the (bleep) is a racial aggravation surcharge?
BHO: Well you see my pastor told me that the gov't hands out guns to black people to kill each other. Not to mention HIV which is injected into blacks by the feds. Plus 9/11 was inside job designed to erect a police state against (you guessed it) blacks! Hence the surcharge.
Me: ???? ????
BHO: But of course I was never there when he actually said all that (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). I mean I've only been going to the same church for twenty years so how could I have known my pastor's true feelings?
Me: ???? ????
BHO: So do you want to buy the car?
Me: Screw you. I'm outta here.

So the blacks got screwed by 'The Man'. Well Boo Hoo. They can join the long line of the oppressed right behind the NA Indians, the Jews, Hispanics, the Roman Catholics, Asians and every other racial/ethnic/religious group that faced stiff opposition from the 'powers that be'. Playing the victim card with the American public will get you nowhere. Nor am I apologizing to blacks (or anybody else for that matter) for being white. Not just any white guy, but a pasty white Anglo-Canadian with English roots who votes Conservative. So there.

Who's the Real Defenders of Civil Liberties?

I'll give you a hint: It isn't smarmy and smug liberals. No friends, it has always been God-fearing middle class working Americans (and Canadians too) who are the true defenders of human freedom. Liberal sociopaths who care nothing except for their own political rights and sexual freedoms have never lifted a finger for the defence of liberty. Who's defending Iranian gays from the jihad being waged against them? None other that Robert Spencer. Yes, THAT Robert Spencer, Catholic conservative and director of Jihad Watch. Not one Hollywood liberal with an axe to grind against America and the church will take up the cause. Who's defending Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American being sued by a Saudi billionaire by way of a British court? Not the liberal media save three (NY Post, NY Jewish Week and the SF Chronicle). Can't have successful and empowered women put on a display lest they offend delicate (male) Muslim sensibilities. A direct assault upon our cherished freedoms and the MSM doesn't even blink. It's worse than indifference. It's dereliction of duty. Heck, it's outright cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Craven Dhimmitude: Laura Bush in Saudi Arabia


So please don't talk to me about how good it is that we have all these secular-progressives to (mis)lead us. We do all the heavy lifting while you hog the spotlight? I don't think so. It has always been those individuals raised with strong Judeo-Christian values and ethics that have been the vanguard of freedom. The same cannot be said of our lib-left friends.

Johnny Cash

Living in Accelerated Times - Feb 18

A word from the prophet Daniel, a servant of God:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Daniel 12:4)

What astounds me about Bible prophecy is not just the intricate detail, but the pace at which things are happening. We are not inching forward, we are hurtling by leaps and bounds.

Fun and Games in Toronto

Yesterday, my Dad and I went to the Toronto International Auto Show. There were three things that struck me. First, the move towards 'hybrids', that is the combination of electric power and gas. The idea of using only 4L/100 km without sacrificing power is a trend that will only increase. Second, there is a greater standardization between domestics and imports in terms of ergonomics and driver comfort. Third, options such as navigation systems, tailgating alarms and satellite radio (XM and Sirius) are no longer a clever fad. No other generation can boast of such a technological explosion.

The Time of the End

Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:10,12)

Many Biblical scholars will easily recognize the 22nd chapter of the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ as the final chapter of the Bible. So what does this little nugget of scripture tell us? Simply put, when you see things come quickly the time is at hand. I used the car industry as an example. Such advances in car technology were not even on the horizon a decade ago. I can personally attest to this because I've been going to the car show every year! But not just cars. No sir! Here are some other examples that prove my point about things moving quickly.

Mass Media and Roman Roads

It is next to impossible for authoritarian gov'ts to be able to filter out what they don't want their own people to see. If you have a satellite dish or an internet connection the world is at your fingertips. As I've stated before, what Roman roads were in preparation for the First Advent, mass media and the world-wide web will be for His return. The Romans were building their roads for the use of trade and military use lest some of the colonials get a bit uppity. Even the harshest of critics saw the obvious commercial value of Roman labor. Nobody in that day was suggesting 'Let's rip up these roads!'. Not one. Is any one of America's enemies saying that we should get rid of mass media? NO! The longer the rope to hang us with the better! See the modern-day parallel?

As a sort of Arab CNN, Qatari-based al-Jazeera is growing in popularity. With the proliferation of Arab satellite channels, the cat's already out of the proverbial bag. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, attempts are being made to muzzle AJ's efforts. One has to take this with a grain of salt. Does 'free speech' actually mean free speech or is it an enabler of jihadist ideology? I think in this instance it's the former and not the latter. Which is good. Gotta be careful about that.

God Will Be Victorious!

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Revelation 22: 13-14)

While our fear of the future grows, we can rejoice in the promise of victory that Jesus Christ gave us. The gospel was not given to us to save the world, but to deliver the individual from the world. Despite all the evil and doom and gloom, here are some GFA missionaries making a difference for the coming Kingdom:

Reaching the islands of West Bengal, India

A missionary faces stiff resistance in Madhya Pradesh.

Six young men of God's faithful army in Andhra Pradesh work from dawn to dusk to glorify Him.

A Quick Word

I'd like to thank CottShop of Sacred Scoop for his comment he left on my previous post. You'll notice that SS is now a forum for his art work. Which is cool by me and I still consider him to be a friend. Should his devotionals increase I will reconsider putting his link back on my sidebar. Also, I've been in touch with Faith Girl and she's promised me a post for tomorrow. Yay! May there be many more FG posts to come in 2008.

Johnny Cash

False Idols, False Beliefs - Jan 28

Why do we continue in our self-destructive ways?

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God. (Exodus 20:3-5a)

Understand what a false god is. It doesn't have to be some crude carving made out of stone, wood, or precious metal. A false god is anything that you love more, serve more and fear more than JHVH God. It is a sin that has been glorified and placed on an altar for all to worship.

My Rant, Part I

I am not going to say to you, 'Don't believe in that' or 'You must believe in this'. Indeed, the more I argue, the more entrenched (and stubborn) you'll likely become. I will challenge you this: Do you know what you believe in is in fact, true? If your belief system is rooted in a lie then what's the point? All your efforts look to be in vain! An untested faith is an unsure one.

My Rant, Part II

The so-called 'wisdom of this world' is based on human pride and arrogance. Here are two main reasons why you and I should oppose false beliefs:

1) The devaluing of human life: The urge to place oneself above others is the heighth of pride. Sexism, racism, anti-Semitism and all other supremacist ideologies devalue the life of those whom we wish to dominate and/or eliminate. If we are made in the image of God, male and female, black and white, Gentile and Jew, there should be no place in our hearts for these hateful things.

2) 'It's Not My Fault!' - Ducking Responsibility: Let's be honest, we've all uttered the phrase. God demands that we take individual responsibility for our actions. It's easy to blame our screw-ups on others. It takes a great deal of maturity to admit you messed up. However, saying 'sorry' isn't enough. Action must follow to rectify the situation. For a Christian, the example that we must follow is Jesus Christ. An impossibly high standard for sure, but those who truly love Him will want to emulate Him all the time. Immature people ALWAYS deny, deny, deny and project their faults onto others.

There are so many false gods out there being worshipped today. Here are a few notables that enslave us:

The god of Sexual Freedom

This month marks the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade in America. Our desire for greater sexual freedoms has come with a great price. Marriage and the very notion of family itself is under attack. Abortion devalues the fetus and the avoidance of marriage vows falls under the 'ducking responsibility' umbrella.

Click here to take a multiple choice quiz on Roe vs. Wade. You'll find the Roe IQ Test in the sidebar as a permanent link as well. I scored a miserable 3 out of 12!

The god of Fortresses

The Russians are at it again. Along with a naval alliance with Libya, they've also created an axis of evil with China and Iran.

The god of fortresses is a god of power. Understand not all power is bad. Jesus Himself had tremendous power and He gave His disciples power to do the Lord's bidding. What I'm talking about here is power purely for power's sake. A man such as George Soros worships this false idol. The insatiable lust for power, the power of 'one more dollar' has lead many to their destruction.

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds.

The opening Sura of the Koran is a chilling one. Allah is also a god of fortresses, one that is specifically tied to Islam. From honor killings (and the subsequent failure of Western feminists to condemn these atrocities) to 'forest fire jihad' to staged blackouts in Gaza, Islam represents the motherlode of delinquent behaviour. Political correctness, both domestic and foreign limits our calls for much-needed reform (if possible) within the Muslim world.

The simple matter is this: More and more people are doing their own independent research and analysis on Islam and they're not liking what they're seeing. The MSM is hopelessly chained to its PC mantle of cultural sensitivity and moral relativism. As a result, fewer and fewer are tuning in. Expect this trend to accelerate and continue. May there be a thousand more like Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who are willing to spread the truth.

Jesus Christ, the One and Only

Make the choice. You can live for yourself or for the one who is truly worthy of worship, Jesus Christ. Religion won't save you. Neither will being 'good' or great deeds. In Haryana, India and in Nepal, people are living for Jesus and the transformation is incredible.

Some X-Def Updates

I've reorganized the sidebar as some headers were getting a wee bit unwieldy. I've deleted Debbie Schlussel and Layla Gonzalez' links along with American-Israeli Patriot. Debbie and Layla's links were off topic and AIP was outdated. I've also added a few link such as the aforementioned Roe IQ Test homepage and Reject the UN, an anti-globalist blog. Terror Finance blog was added a while ago. Please feel free to explore these informative sites.

Johnny Cash

No Panic in Heaven - Part II - Dec 30

This is a continuation of my previous post. As it was getting late and the post was getting a wee bit too long, I cut it short and published. This post will be the last one for 2007 so I'd like to wish you all a Happy New Year in '08. Watch this space in January for more Biblical insight into today's news.

Being a Watchman Ain't Easy, but Somebody's Gotta Do It - Part II

Bloody 'ell, they're at it again. Shoddy, sounds-nice-feels-good theology divorced from Biblical truth is a constant thorn in the side for those who love Him. In Palestine, churches are resuscitating 'liberation theology', thereby reducing Christianity to some cheap political creed. The Biblical command to not forsake Israel should be in the heart of every Christian. By demonizing Israel as some kind of neo-Roman Empire is to stand on shaky ground. You'd also have to ignore half of the OT and much of the NT to come up with this wacky doctrine.

So are the Jews really that powerful? Yes they are. But not through deviousness or malice as the anti-semites love to tell it (or sell it if you prefer). All Jews with very few exceptions are literate and educated. Hard work and faith in a living God completes the three-legged stool of success.

You'd think this would somehow rub off on the Palestinians living beside the most dynamic people in the world. And of course you'd also be wrong in that assessment. The Palestinian economy is in shambles and human rights violations persist with the bloody infighting between Fatah and Hamas. This despite the fact that 'Palestine' is one of the biggest international welfare cases in the world.

Bono Vox, the Irish Idiot

I love Bono's voice and the music of U2. And there's nothing sexier than a woman's voice with an Irish accent. I'd be putty in her hands. So why am I harsh on Mr. Paul Hewens (his real name)? Two words: Foreign Aid. Understand I'm not against foreign aid per se, but it can also be a detriment. Without security, accountability and transparency, foreign aid is wasted and grossly distorts the local economy. Having good people in the right places is crucial as well. The problem is of course, the places where foreign aid goes to has little in the way of security, accountability, transparency and moral leaders in high places. Foreign aid minus the proper oversight entrenches the corrupt and decreases the chance for a lasting peace. The worst thing we can do for Israel is to give the Palestinians hope that victory is imminent. By denying them aid and defeating the intifadah, Palestinians will get down to the mundane business of building a peaceful state for themselves. So Bono, please think about the unintended consequences of your socialist policies. Sometimes the best aid is no aid at all.

The Last Odds and Ends for 2007

Here are two top ten lists, one from K-House and one from Rapture Ready on the prophetic trends that we saw this year. With the Bhutto assassination this week, 2008 looks like a year for accelerated progress for Bible prophecy.

From economics to politics, and from politics to military collaboration, China and India are putting aside past grievances in a dual security exercise. While the number of the troops is small, that's generally where large-scale military co-operation starts. With oil pipelines being laid east-west across Eurasia, the path of the Kings of the East is made clearer every day.

Lastly from the GFA, a photo show on the advances being made for the Kingdom of God and the everyday challenges that a growing church in India faces during the holiday season.

Johnny Cash

Living In Interesting Times - Dec 9

As the political picture here in Canada has cooled significantly we have to look south to get our political fix. Let's keep in mind that in the '08 election that neither a sitting president or vice-president is running. It certainly makes for a very topsy-turvy campaign. Despite the fact that there are only two established parties, there's no lack of characters dotting the political landscape.

The Republicans

I've already said my piece about Giuliani and have endorsed Mike Huckabee. Yet the GOP still intrigues me. In particular, Mormon Mitt Romney. As Jonah Goldberg notes, outside of the evangelicals, few Americans care that Mr. Romney is a Mormon. While his faith is obviously a big part of Mitt's life, what matters most to Americans in considering a president is someone who is good and has faith in something that is bigger than themselves. I am not endorsing Mormonism here. Indeed there are many valid theological questions swirling around Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrines. But as Mr. Goldberg opines, people will judge you by what you do, not by what you say.

The Democrats

Hillary is still 'The Man' (pardon the expression) as far as the Dems are concerned. I believe that the GOP want Mrs. Clinton to get the Democrat nomination. The Republicans are making a huge mistake in overlooking Barack Obama. Personable, handsome, charismatic and above all Obama's got Oprah Winfrey in his corner. All assets that Democrats secretly wish Hillary Clinton had. Which she doesn't.

Afghanistan

I think our boys are doing yeoman's work in Afghanistan. With that being said, things have deteriorated in the south since 2005. Since 2007, many aid workers have left. See the two maps below:

Afghanistan in 2005

Afghanistan in 2007


Obviously these are objective judgements being made but the negative trend is clear. The main culprit is the drug trade and widespread corruption. The Taliban, despite propaganda claims to the contrary, are heavily involved in the opium drug trade. It is truly disheartening that NATO soldiers are dying to defend drug routes for 'untouchable' drug lords. All failed states have one thing in common: corruption. It steals from the poor and gives to the rich. In Afghanistan the only thing they have in abundance is poor people. It's a crying shame and there seems to be little in the way of resolution.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Is Turkey still a reliable Western asset? I don't think so. While Turkey may have been a friend of the U.S. in the past, its current status is more like that of a rival. It isn't exactly friendly but it isn't hostile either. Given what is happening with the Kurds in northern Iraq, you get the impression that the Turks were quite happy with Saddam in power prior to his forceful removal in 2003. In the Daniel Pipes article it states:

Anti-Americanism has prospered exuberantly in the five years of AKP rule, to the point that Turks regularly poll as the population most hostile to America in the world. In 2000, polls show, 52 percent of them looking favorably on the United States; just 9 percent do so in 2007.

Naturally the leftists are rejoicing over this America (and Bush) hatred. I don't think these trends that we're seeing in Afghanistan and Turkey is due to American strength, I believe these are the results of American weakness. So while Mr. Bush does not escape the blame, the left-wing critics have got it bass-ackwards as usual.

Everybody's Favorite Fifth Column

The Council of American- Islamic Relations seems to have a serious problem. Many of the upper echelons of CAIR have a penchant for law-breaking and saying stupid things. To quote U.S. Rep Sue Myrick (D-NC),

"Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States,"

Sue Myrick is also the co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

These malcontents also seem to suffer from foot-in-mouth disease:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,"

"The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

So said Omar Ahmad, the founder of CAIR to interviewer Lisa Gardiner. Naturally this weasel is denying he ever said such a thing. As of yet, no retraction has been offered by the Fremont Argus in California.

I hope you enjoyed this post as much as my last one. I'm actually rather proud of my previous post. I must continually remind myself that there are many out there who are not familiar with these well-worn Biblical passages. Some who visit my blog may be reading these prophetic passages for the first time. Praise God!

Giving Him The Glory Always,
Johnny Cash