Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Who Is Fighting Ineffectively Now?

I've long argued that fighting back against the jihadis is not counter-productive. It is fighting back ineffectively that creates more jihadis. Fighting and winning kills jihadis and discourages recruits.

Stratfor writes that the jihadis--and not Amercia--have fought ineffectively. As much as many Americans might believe we aren't winning the wider war, try looking at it from the enemy's side. The conclusion:

Oddly enough, as much as the United States is uncomfortable in the position it is in, the jihadists are in a much worse position.

Read it all, as they say.

The Moslem "street" did not rise up against us and our allied Arab governments to sweep jihadis into power after we began our counter-attacks into the Moslem world. Instead, friendly Arab governments have worked with us to fight our common jihadi enemies. The enemy made the mistake of believing that if you can't kill the one you hate (America, for the most part), hate the ones you can kill (local Moslems who don't fully share the jihadis' belief system).

Yes, our image has faltered in the Moslem world since 9/11. But given that we will continue to fight jihadis even under President Obama, his short-lived outreach will fail to maintain the spike in our image as long as the source of our poor image is the refusal of many Moslems to consider our fight to protect ourselves from jihadis as legitimate. That's really an issue for Moslems to address, isn't it? We must defend ourselves regardless of their opinion of our defense.

The jihadis are losing. We are winning. This is no time to let up the pressure by declaring victory (or declaring domestic needs are more important) and going home.