- The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 14, 2007

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Our genocidal enemies

The editorial “Stopping the genocide” (yesterday) on genocide in Darfur is timely. However, it failed to highlight the behind-the-scenes roles played by Islamic nations and an ideology.

The murderous janjaweed Arab militia, the primary mover behind this genocide, is backed by the Sudanese regime, which is in turn backed by certain Arab nations in the Middle East. In reality, this is a land grab for Arab Muslims at the expense of non-Arabs through genocide — an all-too-familiar, ongoing Islamic conquest of the past 1,400 years. Because of this backing, one wonders how effective sanctions can be in dealing with this situation.

The very same Middle Eastern nations, along with Pakistan, are involved in genocide in the Indian Kashmir: killing non-Muslims to extend Islam’s frontiers. This is ongoing with the tacit approval of the Musharraf regime and is sponsored by Pakistani intelligence agencies and military. Extensive suicide bombings in Israel, backed by its Arab neighbors, are also a form of genocide, directed at eventual expulsion of Jews from the region.

There are Muslim Milosevics in the Middle East and in South Asia, and they have no difficulty dining with our leaders and even are considered “partners” in the war on terror.

At the root of this is our inability to identify and discredit an enemy ideology masquerading as a religion that actively encourages genocide of non-Arabs or unbelievers for the purpose of conquest.

MOORTHY MUTHUSWAMY

Coram, N.Y.

Durbin’s DREAM

In his Saturday Commentary column, “Immigration counterattack,” William Rusher expresses grave concern that the open-borders crowd, which includes Sen. Richard J. Durbin, will incrementally circumvent the will of the American people on amnesty for illegal aliens. They will introduce small measures, such as the so-called DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, defeated in 1997, for illegal alien in-state tuition to chip away at the will of the people.

Mr. Rusher’s pessimism is expressed in the last sentence of his column: “Give up, Americans. Richard Durbin can outwait you.” No he can’t. Americans love their country more than the Democrats and Mr. Durbin love power. Trying to round up Democratic votes is more important to Mr. Durbin and his ilk than the future well-being of the United States. Damage to the security, culture, social-welfare structure and language of the United States is of no concern when you’re hunting for 2008 votes. The more dependent people are on the government, the higher the Democrats can raise taxes to fund their needs. Can socialism be far behind?

JOSEPH R. FARRELL

Alexandria

More on missile defense

Though I do not wish to prolong unnecessarily the debate with Maj. Gen. Eugene Fox and Stanley Orman, the issue of missile defense is terribly important, as it very well could determine to a large extent the direction a future administration might take with respect to defending the United States from ballistic missile threats (“Strategic defense initiatives,” Letters, Aug. 7). Though they made much of the cuts of some missile-defense programs by the House and Senate, the House appropriators did support additional funding of $145 million for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), for example, and supported near full funding for the Airborne Laser (ABL). Overall, the majority in Congress has funded 95 percent to 98 percent of the Missile Defense Agency budget request.

Even with this support, it remains problematic whether a future administration will “provide for the common defense” when it comes to Iranian or North Korean missile threats. The current administration is pursuing missile defenses in Central Europe with all deliberate speed, but a European site would not be completed until 2013. A delay would be highly dangerous. The current intelligence estimates are that Iran will have an intercontinental ballistic missile threat to the United States by 2015. However, if the intelligence estimates are incorrect as they were previously on North Korea we need to move forward with such a deployment immediately, especially given that Iran has received the shipment of 18 BM-25 missiles and their associated launchers from North Korea the rockets have a range of 3,400 kilometers.

Given these threats, the objection that sufficient testing has not been done and thus no deployment should go forward misses the point. The acquisition strategy known as spiral development, which this administration put into place in 2001, enables a deployment to proceed while testing continues. As new technologies are developed or improved, such technologies can be tested and then inserted into existing missile defenses without waiting for the business-as-usual timeline of bringing a new or improved defense program from research to deployment in 14 years.

Mr. Orman and Maj. Fox ridicule the concept of spiral development, but the head of acquisition and technology in the Clinton administration Dr. Jacques Gansler supported just such an acquisition strategy in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee early in this administration. The point Mr. Orman and Maj. Fox seem to have forgotten is that the Iranian nuclear and missile clocks are on a timeline of their own. The mullahs’ threat clock is not waiting for the critics of missile-defense testing to have an epiphany and support a defense the American people want, to say nothing of our European allies.

PETER HUESSY

President

GeoStrategic Analysis

Potomac

Social Security’s Ponzi scheme

Paul Whiteley (“The common good,” Letters, Friday) is a good candidate to purchase a bridge in Brooklyn; he believes the government has done a good job with Social Security.

I would willingly forego all my future benefits if the government would stop all Social Security deductions from my pay. I know I can get a far better return on investments I handle rather than relying on the government’s Ponzi scheme.

Is there risk? Absolutely. However, equally risky is relying on the government to fund my retirement and then being denied much, if not all, of what I would be entitled to receive at some future date. This might happen should I be considered “rich” from savings and investments I made with what the government didn’t take from me.

Our government exists to protect our lives and our liberty, which allows us to pursue happiness. Mr. Whiteley is free to pursue cradle-to-grave care, but he shouldn’t ask others to pay for it.

COL. DALE HILL

Air Force (retired)

Montgomery, Ala.

Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide