[SRT31B]

Sigaba: I am not a scholar or a historian and, though I do enjoy listening to Glenn Beck, was not referencing him in part or whole. At least at the basic level of the definition of the words, totalitarianism and authoritarianism are roughly the same. Perhaps incorrectly I was referencing the fact that, in perspective, Islam strives to govern every facet of a society and subjugate everyone to Islamic law, whether you are a Muslim or not. Essentially, in those areas where Islam is most strictly adhered to, governments are theocratic and the supreme law of the land is Sharia. There is no room for dissent, modernization, or secularism. For non Muslims to even be allowed to exist in this society they must make one of three choices: convert to Islam, be subjugated to dhimmi status, or die. I agree that this system is not "political" in the way we view politics and government, but it does have a politico-religious (if that's a word) element in that the supreme authority is vested in the senior religious leader of the culture. Recently, there was a news story on TV (I think it was 20/20, Dateline or something) covering the outcome of the trial for the Almaleki "honor killings" in Arizona which discussed police contact with the family at the home wherein Mr. Almaleki described to police that his family law (that is, Islamic/religious law) was more important and took precedence over US/Arizona law. Mr. Almaleki displayed a complete disregard for the rule of law in our country and his state in favor of adhering to Islamic teaching, even when such teaching violated our legislation. It is my opinion that this is the prevailing thought process of those who practice a "strict" interpretation of Islam, and the ultimate end state for those under its teaching; that is, Islam/sharia is supreme.

I would like to believe with regard to the issue of political correctness in our society that no, it is not sustainable. Contrary to what the media tells us, I believe the bleeding heart, do nothing, PC whiners are a minority that simply has the loudest voice right now. Eventually, I believe the majority of Americans will feel the pinch of political correctness so much that it will be unsustainable and we will see the pendulum swing in the opposite direction with a return to where we were 20 to 30 years ago (referencing individual treatment/liberty/expression, etc.). My point comparing the "totalitarian" concepts of Islam and political correctness was to identify the similarities in that, though I have First Amendment protections, everything I say is subject to PC police if I offend someone. The opinions I express may hurt someone's feelings and I may take a heat round for it. Johnny doesn't get A's and B's anymore because we don't want to make the other students that get C's and D's to feel bad, so we'll just give everyone "S's" cause we're all "successful" here. My kids don't take "participation" trophies, and 2nd place is the first loser (and no, I don't mean that in a demeaning way but rather that we strive for excellence in all we do). In America, more and more we have become slaves to the PC police which, though we have the freedom to do as we wish, dictate more and more what we can't do. This is by no means the strongest connection between the two concepts, but I think this illuminates the original point better. I attribute the continued avenues of dissent to the American people and our way of life/upbringing. We have been taught from birth that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. This is contrary to teachings of Islam and shows the cultural divide of our two societies.

While military policy is an extension of the political machine, war is not waged by politicians but generals, and to inject or allow political decision making at the tactical level is to act contrary to the very nature of warfare. I like Von Clausewits' example of two wrestlers trying to pin each other on the mat (not a sexual reference!), in that this describes the maximum use of force to compel the opponent to submit to the will of the other. The combatant that goes to extremes the fastest without fear of repercussion in order to exert their will on the other is the one that will win by submission, or, in an extreme case, by destruction of the opposing side. The tactics used in this struggle cannot be constrained by political pressure in the sense that our political aim sets the end state, and our military strategy determines how we arrive there. Politicians don't (or at least shouldn't) run our military conflicts.

As a Bible believing Christian, it is my opinion that at some unknown point in the future we will see an eventual armed conflict that pits Islam against not only the west, but any non Muslim culture. I'm not a biblical scholar or theologian, nor do have an extensive background in world history, but it remains my personal belief that when speaking of the battle of Armageddon, at least today, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see that fight being between Islamists and other religions/theologies. I believe this is true based not on my opinions, but rather on the stated goal of Muslim practitioners around the world, and in particular the middle east. One need only examine the mission statement of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot organizations to see the signs. In short, I think if/when it gets to that point we won't see a strengthening or weakening of the Westphalian system because that will correspond with the biblical end times. I would suppose that someone who does not share or agree with my personal religious beliefs would also disagree on the larger points as well.

The one point I would bring up from Beck, as I believe it holds true: It really doesn't matter what I believe in the scheme of things, it only matters what they believe. I take them at their word.

Thanks for the exchange. It is nice to engage in polite discourse of these points.