The Weight of Glory and the Tabernacle

This may seem like an odd title, but read on and I think it will make sense.

One of the blessings of the internet is the availibility of Christian websites. I have been doing a "Read the Bible in a Year" on Crosswalk.com, since mid-Janary. I started it after I returned from leave. I strongly recommend this site. It has really helped me through some difficult times in Iraq.

Today, actually for the last several days, I have been reading about God's instructions for the building of the Tabernacle in Exodus. And I have to admit, I have been, well...not too happy. I am saying this with all respect and humility. To tell you the truth, I simply have been struggling with the idea that God commanded Moses to cover the Tabernacle in gold, silver, bronze, diamonds, onyx, jade, and every other kind of precious metal and stone in existence. I have been completely befuddled by this.

Nearly every day after reading these instructions to Moses, I have been praying for understanding and wisdom. To tell you the truth, in my conversations with God about this, one thing has become decidedly clear...it is not for me to know all things. With that as a given, something came my way tonight in another book. I was reading The Weight of Glory, by C.S. Lewis. There is a chapter titled Transposition. Though I was able to breeze through his intellectual masterpieces that encompassed The Chronicles of Narnia, this chapter was a pretty tough read. But after reading it, I laid the book on my chest and summed it up in my mind.

Basically (very basically), Transposition is interpreting things of a higher nature through the use of things in a lower nature. For example, the descriptions of Heaven in the New Testament invoke images of streets of gold, mansions, diamonds, rubies, etc. Heaven, the higher nature, is described as a virtual city of gold. The description is the lower nature. The New Testament writers, and Jesus, were forced to use the lower nature to describe the higher nature because that is all human beings could understand. It was impossible for Christ to literally describe what our dwelling in Heaven will look like because there are no words in the human tongue that could adequately describe them.

Lewis brilliantly discussed the feelings one experiences when he is in love. Often, we hear the expression, "I am love-sick." And, if we were truthful, the physical symptoms of love are very similar to the physical symptoms "of a rough passage on ship," as Lewis said. Our stomach gets upset, we lose our appetite, our limbs feel like jello, our heart races. All of these signs mean that you are either in love or about to be in bed for three days with the flu.

If all of these symptoms were, indeed, sickness, than they were symptoms of the lower nature of man. You are physically sick and there is nothing "other worldly" about them. However, if all of these symptoms became noticeable when you are in the presence of the woman of your dreams, than odds are you are experiencing love, something of a higher nature. It is true, it simply could be lust, which would fall back into the category of the lower nature. With lust, once the physical craving is satified, all of these symptoms would disappear. But love is something of God. It is beyond brute nature. It is a glimpse, and merely a glimpse, into the mind of God.
So, like Heaven, love, the higher nature, is described in terms that our lower nature can grasp and understand. This description of Transposition is my own words, for the most part, but I believe they are accurate.

When I finished reading this chapter, I immediately thought of Moses' instructions for the tabernacle. What was the purpose of the Tabernacle? It was the place where God would dwell with the Israelites. I'm sure scholars might disagree with that simplistic answer. But it was, in effect, God's Heaven on earth. It was the higher nature, God, setting up His headquarters in the lower nature, earth. So I drew the rather simplistic conclusion that God commanded all of the gold, silver, and gems to be placed in the Tabernacle so the Israelites, and later, Christians, would have an earthly view of what Heaven is like.

I realize that at the time the Israelites may not have understood or believed in the resurrection. I think that is a view still debated among theologians. I will leave it to them to debate. Even if that is the case, God was preparing future believers for the resurrection.

It is very easy for westerners to be sceptical of images of streets of gold. We are a spoiled people. We have the luxury of time to spend our days in thought, write blogs that no one will read, read "scholarly" works, and vacation in Cancun. But for most of the world, and certainly for the world that Moses and Jesus walked in, images of gold and a place where there will be no war, or tears was very appealing and comforting.

I have no idea if I am even close to being on the right track, but I do keep in mind...it is not for me to know all things.

Shifting Sands, Part II

I mentioned in Part I that it is time to get Machiavellian in Iraq. This is what I mean:
Our primary goal in Iraq is a unified, democratic nation that extends basic human and civil rights to all its citizens. In this vision, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, as well as the other minorities follow the rule of law, respect religious differences, and have faith in their elected leaders to do what is good for all of Iraq, not just one particular ethnic group or political party. The Iraqi Security Forces are honest keepers of the peace and able to defend Iraqi borders from attack.

If Iraq existed in a vacuum, we would have already accomplished these goals in this country. However, all of our efforts and the Iraqi efforts have been hampered by the interference of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Still, when you regard what has been accomplished in Iraq since 2003, the Iraqis have done a tremendous job in striding towards democracy.

Iran is Iraq's primary enemy, and our's too. Iran is bent on upsetting all of the gains the Iraqis have achieved. And they will do this through the spurring of sectarian violence.

I have not blogged about the destruction of the Golden Mosque, because there is a lot to say about it. But one of the things that ties into this discussion is that Iran, through al-Sadr and (I believe) al-Sistani, encouraged the Iraqi Shia to violently demonstrate. With al-Sadr, there is no guessing game. He works for the Iranians, period. Every interest he has in Iraq is diametrically opposed to ours and the independent-minded Iraqis. Sistani, on the other hand, is a much more astute politician...and a potentially more dangerous one. His words regarding the Golden Mosque attacks had the appearance of peace in them, but they were really calls to violence. Sistani asked the Shia not to retaliate against Sunni Mosques, but he called for a seven day period of mourning. If you translate this into realspeak, it reads: "You have seven days to express your rage at the Sunnis in the streets of Iraq." Sistani is no dummy. He knew this would lead to violence. If he truly wanted peace, he would have demanded no retaliaton, asked the Shia to pray for forgiveness for those who destroyed the Golden Mosque, go back to work and go on with their daily lives. But any call to mourning is a call to rioting and revenge. Do not forget that Sistani has been sending millions of dollars to Iranian religious schools and institutions. This is millions of Iraqi dollars going to Iran. Sistani is a savvy political figure. It is foolish to take him at his word and not study and learn his deep intentions and desires.

In light of the existing Shia leadership, the US must foresee the possibility of an Iranian-Iraqi Shia alliance in case of an upcoming conflict with Iran. We must be thinking ahead...our State Department must be thinking ahead...and developing courses of action in Iraq that will bind the Sunni and Kurds to the Coalition Forces in the event of war with Iran. If we are not already planning this out, we are behind. Iran is one-step ahead because it already has al-Sadr in their pocket and possibly al-Sistani.

Our Department of Defense must be wargaming this scenario also. We are fortunate, to some extent, because the heavily Shia populations are in one region of Iraq. But are we looking at the map now and determining where the lines will be? Iran is.

Some might say this is a pessimistic overview of the situation and the future in Iraq. I don't think so. I think it is prudent to be looking ahead and planning. If we are prepared for the, more than likely, sectarian split that will occur because of a conflict with Iran, we will be able to protect what we have accomplished in Iraq better. Will we have to change our timetables, plans, and policies? Absolutely. But that does not mean we have been wrong or that we failed. It means that we had to meet a more pressing problem in the region and make slight, or major, changes to our plans for Iraq. But the drive toward Iraqi democracy will not have to stop. In fact, a closer working relationship with the Sunni against Iran may be an important step in bringing stability to Iraq. But we are going to have to deal with Iran sooner or later. Iraq will not stabilize if a belligerant, ancient enemy next door is allowed to meddle and rattle its saber.

Winter In Retreat

I believe that Winter is finally upon us in Iraq. The huge puddles of water are in retreat if not totally vanquished. Yesterday there was not a cloud in the sky and it actually reached the 80's. There is a feeling in the air that the rains are gone until next November. I won't be here, at least I pray that I won't be here! It is so cool to feel "Spring" in the air...if that is what you call it. I have a feeling it is going to go from cold and rainy to hot and dry, very quickly.

Shifting Sands: The Potential Realignment of Ethnic Alliances in Iraq

Iraq is anything but stable. That is not to say that progress is not being made for it most certainly is. But the rise of Iran's nuclear ambitions is setting the stage for a possible shift in Iraqi ethnic alliances with the Coalition Forces. Up to this point, the Shia have been relatively cooperative with the Coalition Forces and the Sunni have been the source of much of the terrorist activity. But a conflict with Iran could very well reverse the roles of the Sunni and the Shia.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the reigns of power in June 2005. Despite his initial plea to the world to scrap all Weapons of Mass Destruction, he has relentlessly pursued Uranium enrichment at Iran's secret nuclear facilities. Iran has also invested a lot of money and manpower with the terrorist elements in Iraq. Not only does Iraq's neighbor to the east delve into the darkness of the terrorist forces, it also has infiltrated the Iraqi government at the highest levels, as well as the Iraqi Security Forces. The objective of Iran in Iraq is to win the support of the large Shia population. This task is made all the more easier by the presence of Muqtada al-Sadr.

In January of 2006, al-Sadr said that if the US attacked Iran, he and his Mahdi Army would support Iran. This presents the US with a particularly nasty problem in the event of a military strike or a war with Iran. The most influential Shia ally in Iraq has been the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But recent reports indicate that al-Sistani has been sending millions of dollars to Iran in support of various religious institutions. With a conflict between a US-European alliance against Iran on the horizon, the Coalition Forces in Iraq are standing in quicksand. When it comes down to a war with Iran, there is no guarantee that al-Sistani will stand with the US-European alliance. I believe it is likely that he will side with the Iranians.

This brings us to the Kurds and the Sunnis. The Kurds will support the coalition against Iran. Of all the regions in Iraq who have benefitted from the ouster of Saddam, the northwestern provinces, where the Kurds are the majority, have profited the most. "Kurdistan", which officially does not exist, is the wealthiest, most westernized, most secure region in Iraq. The Kurds enjoy civil liberties that are comparable to the West. Since the invasion of 2003, the Kurds have not wavered in their support for the Coalition Forces. In the event of war with Iran, the Kurds will be a much valued ally for the US-European forces.

The Sunnis have a very different history since the 2003 invasion. The Sunni Triangle remains as one of the poorest, most violent regions in Iraq. The bulk of the terrorist activity in Iraq is conducted by Sunni terrorist groups, not all of which are affiliated with al-Qaida. In fact, what is highly under-reported is that much of the terrorist activity that occurs in Iraq is done by groups more akin to the Mafia than al-Qaida.

The Iraqi Sunnis have a deep mistrust, you might even say hatred, for Iran. They do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons and they would be thrilled if the US-European forces did attack their ancient rival. I was speaking with a Sunni reporter yesterday about the situation in Iran. He pointed to my uniform and said, "If America went to war with Iran, I would be proud to put on the uniform and fight with them (America)." The Sunnis would support the US-European coalition against Iran.

Since the invasion, the Sunnis have felt like they have been the specific target of the Coalition Forces. The elected government has been dominated by the Shia since the arrival of the Coalition Forces. Of course, this is democracy in action. The Shia have the numbers and the votes. In a popular election in Iraq, the Shia will always have the majority of seats in the government. But the Sunnis feel persecuted by the Shia-led Iraqi Government. This is not totally a figment of their imagination. The Shia government has persecuted the Sunnis, to some extent. The Ministry of the Interior, which controls the Iraqi Security Forces, has done some pretty despicable things to the Sunnis. But the Sunnis are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot, mostly by inciting and conducting violence.

But the possible, some might say inevitable, confrontation with Iran presents a unique opportunity for the US State Department. For the first time since the invasion, the Coalition Forces have an issue which could bring the Sunni terrorist groups to the table.So how do we bring terrorist groups to the table? The answer is we don’t. The US government follows the correct policy of not negotiating with terrorist groups. However, we do work with the local governments in the Sunni dominated provinces. It is common knowledge that these governments are corrupt. In most cases, the same governments that we work with are also cooperating with the terrorist elements within their respective provinces. The State Department must present a convincing argument to the legal Sunni leadership on why cooperation with the US in its conflict with Iran would be beneficial to the Sunni population of Iraq. This leadership must then, in turn, work with the terrorist groups to bring about an end to the hostilities toward the Coalition Forces. The Sunni leadership must convince the terrorist organizations to channel their energies toward the Iranians. This can only be done if the Sunnis and the terrorists see a big enough carrot at the end of the Iranian conflict.

The consequences of a war with Iran and the possible alliance of the Iraqi Shia with the Iranians are not pretty. It may mean a shattering of the unified Iraq that was once envisioned. For the last two years, the Bush Administration has told the American public that democracy in Iraq will not look like democracy does in America. This has fallen on deaf ears, particularly with the opposition party in America. Any divergence from the American form of democracy has been trumpeted by the opposition party as a failure of the Bush Administration. But President Bush has been honest with the American people and his policies have not been a total failure. In fact, Iraq has been a success story. But because of the differences between American and Iraqi democracies, and because the opposition has a virtual monopoly on the mainstream press in America, the opposition party is able to spin the successes in Iraq into abject failures. They will spin the possible war with Iran as not only a failure of the Bush Administrations policies toward Iran, but also as a failure of the democratization of Iraq.

However, it is time to get Machiavellian in Iraq. The stakes of our success in that country and in our dealings with Iran are much too high. The Bush Administration cannot paralyze itself by worrying about what the opposition will say. The purpose of our involvement in Iraq and Iran is to secure our nation from terrorism. If, due to circumstances beyond our control, we are forced to deal with terrorists through a third party, than that is what we must do. But what can we offer the Sunnis that would ensure their cooperation in a war with Iran?

The first thing we must realize is that the Sunnis are already on our side. They do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Even the terrorist organizations do not want this, despite what Zarqawi or bin Laden say. Al Qaida wants Iran to pursue nuclear weapons for one reason: it will inevitably lead to a US-European attack against Iran. And if that fails, it will almost certainly lead to an Israeli attack against Iran, which would be even better for their purposes. But international terrorist organizations, like al Qaida will never be molified. They will remain our enemies and will be a serious thorn in our side in case of war with Iran. I am specifically targeting Iraqi Sunnis, and Iraqi Sunnis who belong to the secular terrorist organizaitions in Iraq. What will bring these Sunnis to the table is the promise of power in a new government.

What angers the Sunni most about the current state of democracy in Iraq is the perpetual minority status they hold. As it is now, the Shia will almost certainly have the votes to retain the most powerful positions in any democratic election. War with Iran, and the possible defection of millions of Shia to the other side, presents an opportunity for Iraqis to revisit the form of government that now exists under their constitution. Instead of regarding the current constitution as permanent, it may be time to regard it as something akin to the Articles of Confederation. This is the carrot the State Department can offer the Sunnis: in the event of war with Iran, the Coalition will guarantee the Sunnis a new government that will give them equal status. Despite the verbiage in the Iraqi Constitution, the Sunni, and the Kurds for that matter, do not have equal status. The chances of a Sunni or Kurdish Prime Minister are non-existent. Of course, the Kurds must have the same assurances that we give the Sunnis.

I will continue with this, later. But for now, think about this.

Gifts From Home

I received a wonderful care package from the stunning Mrs. The Major. It included a book I have been wanting to read ever since I saw the reviews of the lunatic left on Amazon.com, "Rebel In-Chief", by Fred Barnes. I particularly liked this review:

Barnes is positively pathetic... I don't know what the point of this book was other than to try to restore himself as some sort of a Conservative stalwart... which he fails at with his worm tounge (sp) like drooling over Bush and his presidency.

Very nice. I have a feeling I am really going to like it.

RoP Attacks US Embass...well...Everybody

As if to prove my point in Islam's War Against the West, Part II, Muslims Assault U.S. Embassy in Indonesia. Apologies and genuflections to violent Muslims will only encourage more violence. We must find our spines and resist this wave of evil. We are destroying any hope the moderate Muslims may have of reforming Islam. We are giving power to those who we want least to have it.

Then there's this- Nigeria
Here's a quote from the Nigeria story that I am sure will receive little press in the MSM.

"Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters," Ezeoke said. Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed.

The MSM is too busy still covering the Abu Ghraib photos.

Later, in this same story on the Nigerian bloodlust is this comment:

Tantawi said the Danish prime minister must apologize for the drawings and further demanded that the world's religious leaders meet to write a law that "condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets."

Tantawi is the Grand Imam of al-Azhar University. I'm just curious. Are Europeans (and Americans) really so stupid as to not know that this law will only be enforced to prosecute slanders against Islam and Mohammed? Is Tantawi going to demand that Muslim newspapers cease slandering and offending Christians and Jews? I am afraid the answers are a: yes, we are that stupid b: Of course not! Because all the slanders and insults hurled at Jews and Crusaders are the truth! Oh, Dhimmitude, Dhimmitude...I thought we had freed ourselves from your shackles six hundred years ago...but you have returned.

And this- Pakistan

Why "A Day Just Like Today"?

I thought that I would spend a moment explaining the title of my blog, "A Day Just Like Today". When I was contemplating names, I wanted something that would perhaps bring a tear to the stunning Mrs. The Major's eyes. "A day just like today" is a line from my favorite song of all time, Sunshine, by John Denver. When I was first learning to play the guitar, John Denver was my teacher. Not literally. In fact, I never even got to see him in concert. But I took the records my sisters had bought back in the '70's, sat by the speakers, and taught myself to play the guitar like John Denver. I even tried my best to sing like him. It is twenty some-odd years later and I don't play like John or sing like him. But he remains as my favorite singer/songwriter. Sunshine resonates with me because of its simplicity. It is one of the easiest songs to play on the guitar. The words are simple. Some would call it a collection of cliches. But as I get older, these cliches have become pretty important in my life. The song is a gentle reminder to appreciate the beauty that surrounds all of us. Now that I am thousands of miles away from my family, my cabin in the mountains, and all that I love and hold dear, I frequently think of how richly God has blessed my life. I have tried to communicate these thoughts to my children in the past. If I leave this life tomorrow, I pray that when my wife and kids hear this song and these words:

"If I had a day, that I could give you,
I'd give to you, a day just like today,
If I had a song, that I could sing for you,
I'd sing a song, to make you feel this way."

...I pray they will think of me and know that if I could give them a day or a song, it would be as beautiful as the sunshine on their shoulders. Even more importantly, though, I pray that they will know that their love and presence in my life was my sunshine.

The Lighter Side

Earlier I signed into Yahoo and one of the major headlines was something to the effect, Ginsburg goes it alone. I tried to link to it but it has since been bumped off the sign-in page, most likey by the Slam Dunk competition. I'm sure sexism had something to do with it. So I think I found the story here. I'm not sure what the point of the article is, other than that we should feel sorry for her for being the only woman on the Supreme Court. Somehow, I am having trouble mustering up sympathy. It is an honor for anyone to sit on the Supreme Court, male or female. Ginsburg does not deserve sympathy, special status, or anything like this. She is a Justice of the Supreme Court, period. I thought this paragraph was interesting:

"She's shy and quiet and seems chilly when you don't know her but is intensely attached to friends," said lawyer Kathleen Peratis, whom Ginsburg hired in the 1970s to succeed her at the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I think not having a woman to play with is going to be a big gap."

"...not having a woman to play with..."? What is this? Recess? This woman is responsible for making some of the most important decisions, legally, facing our country. Who cares who she "plays" with?

Islam's War Against the West, Part II

As I mentioned before, I read a posting at The Belmont Club which stated that Donald Rumsfeld announced we are losing the information war in the Global War on Terror. I think there are two reasons for this situation, and I do concur with the SecDef.

The first reason is the preponderance of anti-US, anti-military, and anti-President Bush sentiment among the MSM. In a war, it is imperative that the entire nation mobilizes alongside the military. This does not necessarily mean that our industrial complex must go on a war-footing, as it did during WWII. But it does mean that that the Administration and the Pentagon must have the majority of the MSM on their side. If our own media is actively supporting our enemies, and I believe they do so through ignorance, than the status of the Information War will be tenuous at best. The case in point was the breaking by the New York Times of the NSA wiretapping program. Despite the pleas of the Administration and despite the warnings that exposing this story would weaken our defense against terrorism within our borders, the NYT chose to run the story. This was not an accident. It was a deliberate attempt to sabotage a very important program in order to cast a negative light on President Bush. Since the beginning of our war in Iraq, the MSM has done its best to portray the war as unnecessary, a useless waste of human life, a transgression of Iraqi sovereignty, and as a quest by the Bush Administration to exploit the oil in Iraq. As they are still chanting today, in the context of Vice-President Cheney's delay in notifying the press of his hunting accident, the press and the opposition party continue to accuse the President of lying to the American people and "cooking up the invasion of Iraq on his ranch in Crawford." Since the MSM holds the majority of news outlets in the nation (in terms of numbers of outlets) the public is being exposed to anti-Administration psychological operations on a constant basis. The MSM is actively opposing the goals and objectives of this war because they despise the Bush Administration. It is important to point out that though the MSM does indeed aid and abet our enemies, they are not doing so maliciously. The same is true for the opposition party. They also aid and abet our enemies, but not deliberately. They are truly so blinded by their hatred for President Bush and, in the case of the opposition party their lust for power, that the ends justify the means.

The second reason why I believe we are losing the information war is because the majority of Americans refuse to see Islam as it is. President Bush has repeatedly said that Islam is a noble, peaceful religion. Many conservatives who support the war effort see Islam in a similar light. And yet a cursory examination of the Koran, and a quick scan of newspaper stories on riots in the Muslim street reveal quite the opposite. America is getting a mixed message on Islam. On the one hand, we are told that Islam is peaceful and noble, and on the other hand Muslims are burning down a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Pakistan because they were insulted by cartoons in a Danish newspaper. And instead of putting the blame for the riots and deaths squarely on the shoulders of the Imams throughout the Middle East, who orchestrated the violence and protests, the State Department and others blame the cartoonists from Denmark. This is assinine. Europe is kowtowing to Islam now, launching a full-court press against freedom of speech. Laws are being considered, and may have passed for all I know, that will ban blasphemous publications. The obvious question that the West must ask itself is, "Who are we really trying to protect?" Certainly it is not the Christians. The NYT, out of respect for Islam would not publish the offensive cartoons of Mohammed. Yet in the midst of this "crisis", they brought out a highly offensive picture of the Virgin Mary that was something like ten years old. They had no qualms about offending Christians.

The Great Cartoon War of 2006 has really made me think about something. At what point, between 1933 and 08 December 1941, did we decide that, though Nazi Party members in Germany were a minority of the total population, the entire German population was responsible for the atrocities of the Nazi regime? So here we are today. I ask, at what point do we decide that, though militant Islamists make up a minority of the total Muslim population, the entire Muslim population is responsible for the atrocities being committed by Muslim "extremists"? This is a horrible question with horrible consequences. But how long are we going to turn our backs on the obvious?

After 9/11, the entire Arab and Muslim world rejoiced at the collapse of the Twin Towers. This was not an anomoly. This was the true heart and soul of Islam. After the riots erupted over the cartoons in February of 2006 (though the cartoons were originally published in September of 2005), a Danish Imam said, "this is war". When do we start taking the Muslims at their word? When do we start taking the Koran as the "gospel" of the Muslim faith. You see, one of the weaknesses of America is that we believe the Muslims view the Koran as we view the Bible. Most Westerners, when they read the violence of the Old Testament, think, "Thank God those days are gone." We struggle with the loving example of Christ juxtaposed with the terrible wrath of God against the Gentile tribes in the Old Testament. Muslims do not have this problem. One thing I have learned from my Muslim friends here in the Middle East is that the Koran is holy. It is holy in a way that Christians cannot comprehend. The Koran is the word of God...or Allah. Not one passage can be changed or ignored. Thus, when Allah commands Muslims to kill Christians and Jews in holy jihad, that is what they are to do.

How this plays out in modern times is pretty simple to see when you live in the Middle East. Most Muslims do not actively take up their sword and behead infidels. But most Muslims do support such behavior. Think about how long it took the Muslim groups in America to make some kind of declaration that they do not support terrorism. They struggled with this and ultimately came out with half-hearted apologies for the 9/11 attacks, but most refused to categorically denounce terrorism. The reason is quite simple. The Koran commands Muslims to kill Christians, Jews, and any infidel. This is not popular to say, but it is the undeniable truth.

As long as we continue to deny the reality of Islam, we will continue to lose the Information War. The West must take a stand against the imposition of Sharia like demands the Muslim world is thrusting upon us. We must not accord Islam a special status simply because we are afraid that to confront it will bring about death threats or riots. As long as we believe the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion, we will lose the Information War, because we are putting out false information.

This is not to say that all Muslims are violent psychopaths. They are not. There are a few truly moderate Muslims, most of whom live in the US. And, as I mentioned earlier, most Muslims in the Middle East are not brandishing swords and Molotov cocktails. But as long as the Koran is viewed as the last will and testament of Allah, and every verse is holy and unchangeable, Islam will remain a violent religion. Muslims must reform Islam. But they will have little inclination to do so if the West kowtows every time an embassy goes down in flames in the Middle East. Appeasement to the extremists destroys the efforts of the moderates to civilize Islam. I truly believe that most Westerners would be absolutely appalled if they knew what the Imams were preaching in their Friday sermons in Baghdad, Tikrit, London, Houston, Denver, Madrid, Bonn, and Mecca. There are Muslim voices for peace, but they are incredibly muted.

Islam's War Against the West

Hello and welcome to the launching of A Day Just Like Today. I was prompted to do this after reading an entry on the Belmont Club regarding Rumsfeld's declaration that we are losing the Information War in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). One of the things you may notice immediately is that, unlike Hugh Hewitt, I believe Islam is at war with Western Civilization. I do not believe that Western Civilization is at war with Islam, hence the problem we are facing in the GWOT. I will write further about this later tonight. Please forgive me for misdirected links to articles or websites. I am new at this and I'm sure I will learn as I go along.