When A Truce Is Not A Truce

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. " - Thomas Paine

It certainly did not take long for the far Left defeatists (at least here in CA) to rise to the bait of OBL's latest message. Since the Hollywood elite is too busy decrying America (and gleefully making money off of the very system they claim to deplore) to have ever bothered to study history, I feel it is necessary to remind them of just what a “truce” means to radical Islam.

The word “truce” derives from Arabic during the time of Mohamed. To Islamofascists, the word has a very specific meaning, more appropriately translated as “regrouping.” Indeed, the Koran only allows a “truce” with infidels for the purpose of reforming the army. When the Caliph's troops were beaten back, he would suspend the battle until such time as he could restore the strength of his army. Truce did not mean an end to hostilities, it meant a temporary delay. This is a very important historical lesson – a truce was only offered from a position of weakness.

Predictably, the leftists who know their history are saying, “that was then, this is now.” Apparently they fail to remember what happened in Spain in March and April of 2005. Here's a quick refresher: following terrorist bombings in Madrid, al Qaida offered a “truce” to any European country that withdrew its troops from Iraq within 3 months. The Spanish people promptly elected an anti-war Socialist government which immediately announced plans to withdraw. Spanish troops then started leaving Iraq en mass, and as we all know, the Spanish people were “rewarded” in April (fully two months before the deadline) with another bombing (as well as an attempted bombing which was thwarted).

Americans as a whole have a difficulty understanding the idea of a “stateless” organization. We are constantly reminded of the presence of government, from the traffic laws we (mostly) obey on our daily commutes, to the annual ritual of paying taxes. Everywhere we turn the long arm of government is present. Whether comforting or not to know that “the man” is always there, one result is that our understanding of world politics necessarily involves official representatives of legitimate governments.

That is the problem with OBL's “truce.” A “truce” in the true sense of the word as we know it is a legal agreement binding on the parties involved to cease hostilities in exchange for certain provisions. As a legal agreement between two legitimate parties, there are means of enforcement. However, al Qaida is not a legitimate government, nor does it have means to enforce legal agreements. Even if OBL's offer were sincere (which, as explained above, it cannot be) there is no way to ensure adherence to the terms. While we would be morally bound to stop fighting, he would be free to recruit, plan, and attack without fear of reprisal.

Incidentally, OBL's remarks about his religion not permitting him to lie is internally consistent with his offer for a "truce." Since any "truce" with infidels is permitted to the followers of Islam provided that it is used to restore strength to the army in order to effect a better attack in the future, he would not be in violation of his religion. Thus, the appeal to religion as to his "sincerity" does not hold any weight.

Beyond the fact that this is yet another attempt to defeat us by exploiting the left and the mainstream media, is that only a weak or tired force has a need for a truce. If the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq were going well for OBL's troops, why would he consider even a temporary end to hostilities with “The Great Satan?” It defies logic to believe that a man who has shown no restraint in the wanton killing of innocent civilians, who professes to be winning the battles, and who insists that he is still relevant, would make such an offer.

So what could possibly be his motivation? The reasonable answer, of course, is publicity. Over the past few months, al Qaida has realized that they cannot win a war against the finest fighting force the world has ever known. They cannot win a battle of attrition. And due to a series of colossal PR blunders, they are losing support among the very people they need to exploit for recruiting purposes – the Muslim poor. Because of all of this, they desperately need some good publicity. And who better to provide it for them than the predictable, left-wing, anti-America Hollywood crowd.

Because America's troops are better equipped and better trained, most of al Qaida in Iraq's recent actions have been against softer Iraqi targets – police and civilian institutions. No one seriously believes them when they claim homicide attacks on Mosques and wedding parties were done by Americas. Despite the mainstream media's continuous portrayal of Iraq as a new Viet Nam, we are actually winning on all fronts. But don't take my word for it, just ask Sen. Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, he failed to toe the liberal party line, so he “no longer counts.” In fact, for having the courage to tell the truth regarding the situation in Iraq, the Democratic Party itself is seeking to unseat him at this year's election. That's right – Lieberman does not have to worry about the Right portraying him as too liberal, he has to worry about the Left portraying him as not liberal enough.

It's not rocket science. OBL cannot win the war without the active participation and defeatist attitude of the Hollywood elite – a group that will campaign loud and long to keep a convicted mass murderer from receiving justice, while simultaneously fighting to oust a President who had the audacity to stop the oppression of women and minorities in a far away land. The world will know no peace until Islamofacism is eliminated. Far better to do it now when the enemy is weak than to accept his “truce” and wait for the next attack. Whether the left will admit it or not, the fact remains that there was Islamofascism long before the US was in Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed long before there even was a US.