The Coalition to Preserve Civilization

A new post at Gates of Vienna, which outlines everything that we are doing to save the West from the horrors of Shari'a, Muslim Terrorists, and the threat of worldwide Islam.

A snippet:

The Great Islamic Jihad is certain that Western Civilization is about to come to an end.

Islamic Fascism looks forward to the rule of the new Caliphate, in which the whole world will swear submission to Allah and bow five times a day towards Mecca. It aims to kill or enslave every person who will not accept its twisted vision of Islam. With the help of its allies among the world’s dictators and within our own media, it is confident that it will achieve its goal.

But even as this beast tears at our throats, a new defensive force is being born, a determination to preserve all that is good and right and true within the Western world. Even as we are abandoned by our leaders, by the sophists in our academies, and by the propagandists of our major media, ordinary people are connecting with one another, and are ready to stand up and defeat those who would destroy us.

Check it out.

What We Can Do

Check out this site for some tips and links for helping out in the battle against Muslim Terrorists.

For example:

Politics

Help ignite your elected officials

1. Your views as a citizen are important to your elected representatives. Organize letter writing campaigns to your elected officials raising awareness about Islamist incitement, and encouraging them to be pro-active about the issues. You can write a short, personal email with a subject line like: "Thank you for standing up for Western ideals."
2. When you see legislation that benefits radical Islamic groups and terror supporting regimes, but does nothing to help the populations being abused by them, help your friends and colleagues write letters to your elected officials, telling them to oppose such legislation.
3. Volunteer for a campaign, and raise this issue to the candidate you are supporting.
   

The beginning of the end of Western civilization

Posted: November 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Michael Youssef, Ph.D.

Western civilization – life as we know it – is under attack, and
indeed has even reached a very dangerous point. Some may even think it
is a point of no return.
Not just because in recent months Muslim groups around the world
insisted that the pope apologize for merely quoting someone else. No,
not just because the prime minister of Denmark had to grovel to the
Muslim nations for a cartoon that appeared in a Danish newspaper, over
which he had no control whatsoever. No, not even just because
President Bush rushed into a Muslim mosque in Washington, D.C., after
Sept. 11, 2001, declaring that Islam is a religion of peace.

These are merely modern-day indications that Islam's 1,400-year-old
method of attempting to reign and rule by intimidation and fear are
reaching new heights. Throughout their history, the followers of Islam
have attempted to practice the very core of their religious worldview
– namely, to see to it that their religion, which they view as
superior to all other religions, overwhelms the followers of all other
religions.

(Column continues below)


In days gone by when they had no political or military (terrorist)
voice, they were biding their time. But now, as is confirmed daily in
our newscasts, we know that they command numerous foot soldiers and
cells in Europe and North America. Surely, they feel that their day
has come. The day of successfully intimidating and gaining more
concessions, and thus more ground toward realizing their
1,400-year-old dream of world domination, is within their reach.

How can we know this? After extensive time examining self-confessed
radical or revolutionary Islamic groups, I've discovered a root of
resentment deeper than that of mere opposition to colonialism.

To most of these people, the Crusades were not just events in history
that took place nearly eight or nine hundred years ago; instead, the
Crusades signify a perpetual desire on the part of the Christian West
to dominate them and prove their religion inferior. Thus, it is
essential to explore even beyond the Crusades to comprehend fully the
undercurrents of today's Islamic resurgence. Current Islamic thought
as expressed in al-Jihad is a stream flowing out of a peculiar
interpretation of Islam.

Even a casual observer must be asking, "Why do they 'violently and
murderously' object to others pointing out the violent nature of the
founding of their religion?"

Well, this is just the point. When you deem your religion to be
superior, you can torture, maim and kill your enemy, whom you view as
inferior, without a need for explanation. On the other hand, those who
are viewed as inferior by them dare not even be associated with the
slightest bit of criticism of them.

Alas, the beginning of the end of Western civilization as we know it
did not begin with modern-day examples of bullying into submission
those whom I mentioned above. But rather, if you ask any of the
reliable leaders in the Middle East, as I have, they will tell you it
began during the Carter administration.

When Muslims held Americans hostage in Tehran, Iran, for nearly a year
and a half, and the most powerful nation in the world (the "Great
Satan") acted impotently, there were a million hurrahs rising from
Morocco to Indonesia. As they say in the Middle East, "The cow is down
and what is needed are more butchers with sharp knives."

There is no escape from this historical disaster. Reagan and George W.
tried to reset the clock, but sadly it appears too late. I am no
politician and I do have a genuine love for the Muslim people, but the
facts are stubborn and will not go away.

Short of unity among the Western leaders to speak the truth with moral
clarity – a miracle that even those of us who believe in miracles
doubt greatly – there can be no future for Western civilization as we
know it.

There is one dim hope, however. Our only hope it is that the moderate
leaders of Arab nations can lead the charge against religious
imperialism with courage and without fear. Only then will the Western
leaders rise in unity from the graves of apathy and support these
leaders in their endeavor in order to resuscitate Western civilization
as we know it.

Six Steps to Help 'the Troops'

From the Weekly Standard:
It's long, but worth reading.

The bottom-up plan to defeat the insurgency.
by Eric Egland
11/16/2006 12:00:00 AM

IN THIS POLITICAL season, the debate about Iraq has become almost completely backward looking. It has degenerated into finger pointing and partisan sniping--stuck between a false choice of "cut and run" versus "more of the same."

Failure in Iraq is not an option, because it would spell disaster for U.S. national security and foreign policy credibility, not to mention military morale. Our mission in Iraq continues to move forward, and U.S. forces have successfully defeated the insurgents in several areas, yet the enemy has proven resilient and effective. Thus, we must succeed in Iraq by changing the status quo.

The plans for victory so far have fallen short. They have come, top-down, from the Pentagon or the palaces-turned-coalition headquarters in Baghdad. Now, American leaders, especially the nominee for secretary of defense, should consider a bottom-up plan to win that taps the collective grass-roots wisdom of successful battlefield innovators. In particular, there are six course corrections that can be taken almost immediately.

1. Encourage innovation by emphasizing small-scale technological solutions and rejecting peacetime bureaucracy.

The White House, Congress, and the Pentagon earn commendations for their commitment to winning in Iraq. Steadfast leadership, generous supplemental spending, and a streamlined acquisition process have resulted in the rapid fielding, on a massive scale, of critical defensive equipment such as body and vehicle armor, as well as jammers to impede the enemy's use of remote-detonated IEDs.

While these measures have helped us defensively, a more entrepreneurial approach is needed to field capabilities that enable offensive success against an adaptive enemy. Deploying unit commanders, most of whom have already served at least one tour in Iraq, must have direct input into how supplemental funds are invested in new technologies. Technology providers should conduct road shows to earn at least some funding approval and priority from ground commanders.

In Washington, there remains too much focus on massive technological efforts that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to develop, test, and field. Meanwhile, low-cost programs like remote handheld cameras, biometrically-capable, Wi-Fi enabled PDAs, and tethered blimps with mounted cameras are put on the back burner. To inspect suspicious objects that could be roadside bombs, troops have resorted to spending their own money to buy remote-controlled cars with jerry-rigged mounted cameras because the thousands of remotely controlled robots in Iraq are held by specialized bomb disposal units.
Without such an option, they are told to "guard" possible IEDs until the heavily tasked bomb disposal experts can arrive, often hours later. This creates a situation where our troops lack needed gear and are exposed, on the defensive, at a time and place of the enemy's choosing. U.S. troops should no longer be required to stand guard over enemy weapons, and they should be empowered to rapidly acquire the tools they need to do their job without exposing themselves unnecessarily.

We must also eliminate the peacetime bureaucratic hurdles that keep useful innovations from getting fielded to help our troops. In early 2005, the military demonstrated a peacetime bureaucratic mentality by placing a 'safety hold' on an urgent request from Iraq for thousands of powerful handheld lasers. Field commanders wanted to broaden the success achieved by a few units that employed the lasers to alert local drivers of upcoming checkpoints and approaching patrols. In those areas, the measure was dramatically reducing 'escalation of force' incidents, where troops are forced to open fire, assuming non-compliant vehicles to be car bombs. Yet, the lasers never came because bureaucrats declared they were not 'eye safe'--as if the alternative, a .50 caliber slug, were. The deaths of many innocent Iraqis caused by these incidents, while legally justifiable, scar our troops emotionally, weaken support for the new government, and fuel the insurgency.

2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.

When troops were first preparing to deploy to Iraq, they followed the same checklists that had been used in the Cold War and Gulf War that focused on the conventional military's core mission: "high-intensity conflict." Once the invasion was successful, though, the threat facing our troops changed as the insurgency started using ambush tactics, but the training and preparation that our troops receive has not kept pace.

"Train how we fight" is a mantra in the military, and for good reason. Training intensity and realism is the number one predictor for combat success, especially when facing a thinking, adaptive enemy who observes our patterns and exploits perceived vulnerabilities.

There is another training mantra, however, that ends up inviting attacks from such an enemy because it creates predictability: "We don't train to time, we train to standard." Translation: "No matter how long it takes, soldier, you will perform this task exactly how we trained you until it becomes second nature." Ask a soldier returning from combat in Iraq which mantra best describes their pre-deployment training experience and the latter is chosen overwhelmingly.

While repetition is a useful approach for maintaining a vehicle or a rifle, it is the wrong approach for training troops how to maneuver when on the roads of Iraq. Repetition means the more we train, the more predictable we become, and the easier it is for the enemy to exploit. The enemy exploits how we maneuver on the roads and react to roadside bombs, templating our previous reactions to set up follow-on attacks that create significant casualties because responding troops are often out of their vehicles and more vulnerable to a blast or small arms fire.

According to one soldier in Iraq, his unit spent days going over how to clear a foxhole, something many had already trained to do numerous times in their careers. The problem is that the enemy we face in Iraq is not entrenched in foxholes, but moves fluidly and blends into the civilian population. While clearing a foxhole is an important capability, he acknowledged, "We probably would have been better off taking that time to work on IEDs."

Training requirements for deploying units should be stripped and rebuilt with a focus on the current threat in Iraq and with significant input from the deploying units themselves.

3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.

The troops need more support, from both the military and the American people, and the ground commanders must be empowered to lead our national effort to support them. The localized insurgency, coupled with an adaptive, resilient enemy means the troops on the ground best understand how to win. Our support should fulfill their stated needs, not what Congress, the Pentagon--or even the generals in Baghdad--think they ought to need.
We need to expand "commander discretionary funds" to give each battalion commander a large budget, on the order of $3 million, to spend as they see fit both before they deploy and while in country, with appropriate accountability. This would allow commanders to take action that will help the mission, but which bureaucratic practices currently prevent. For example, they could buy video cameras and phones to give to locals so that they can film and report insurgent activity; or hire military-aged males to clean roads and dig trenches that improve security while providing jobs to men who would otherwise be recruited as insurgents. It would also allow ground forces to reward a neighborhood chief with a few electric generators for his support of our mission, or to hand a $20 bill to a local who identifies a bomb that could have killed several soldiers.

Similar general staff policies sound effective, but fail in practice. For example, there is a "small rewards program" (SRP) in Iraq that allows cash incentives for supportive locals. The problem is that the units have not been trusted to handle the cash themselves, so a unit that wants to reward a helpful local has been required to give a coupon redeemable at the front gate of the nearest American base.

This "reward coupon" is of little value to Iraqis, so they lack incentive to cooperate. Locals often lack transportation and justifiably fear that the enemy will observe them outside the base and retaliate against them and their families. Plus, the SRP money requires detailed paperwork from the units, and is reimbursed only after a one-month delay. So, neither the troops nor the locals like or use the SRP. Still, many enlisted soldiers--whose families are strapped for cash back home--use their own money to provide small rewards because the technique, when properly executed, is highly effective.

One innovative battalion commander knew the value of small on-the-spot cash rewards, which provide a powerful, immediate incentive for locals to turn in insurgents and their weapons. So he started using "commander discretionary funds," a more readily accessible but still limited account, to give cash rewards. He then reimbursed the account when the SRP money finally arrived.

In essence, a bureaucratic mindset has undermined mission success. The Pentagon trusts the troops with deadly weapons and million dollar vehicles, but not a few dollars in their pockets. This forced one of the best battalion commanders in Iraq to "cook the books" and lie to his superiors in order to simply achieve what the rewards program claimed to do in the first place.
Still, not everything can be done by the military alone. A major problem with Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as well, is that the American people, while supporting the troops with prayers and bumper stickers, do not feel connected to the effort because they do not know what they can do to help. They must be given more opportunities to directly support the troops on the ground--as the unmatched generosity of the American people remains a highly underutilized resource in this conflict.

We need to establish sister city relationships between battalions that are preparing to deploy or are already in Iraq and American cities--not just the towns around military bases. The Pentagon should expand on the success of existing grass-roots organizations such as AnySoldier.com and SoldiersAngels.org that allow private citizens and organizations to send the troops the items they need, whether for themselves or for the Iraqi people.

Just as an engaged couple sets up a wedding registry for loved ones to buy them what they need, so the relationship should be between deployed units and Americans back home, using places like Wal-Mart, Ebay, Radio Shack and Target. Added elements that could make the program even more effective could be: competition between cities to see who can marshal the most support per capita, broadcasting the results, and awarding tangible recognition for cities that exceed certain thresholds.

A group of spouses of deployed Minnesota National Guard soldiers set up a program to make and ship dolls to Iraq so the unit could give them to the Iraqi girls in the neighborhoods they patrolled. One soldier explained, "We tried candy and toys, but found that dolls are the only thing that the Iraqi boys won't steal from the Iraqi girls." As part of a broader effort to build relationships with locals, this unit was able to tap civilian resources and support and saw a significant decrease in insurgent activity in their area as a result.

Truly supporting the warfighter means more than lip service. It requires listening to the needs of the ground units, then doing everything possible--as a nation--to deliver.

4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.

We must have better intelligence on the enemy, especially human intelligence. Our existing intelligence technologies were designed during the Cold War to spy on conventional armies that use bases, have tanks and aircraft, and communicate on identifiable radio frequencies. In Iraq, however, the enemy lives in civilian neighborhoods, drives civilian cars, uses weapons composed of readily available materials, and communicates via civilian mobile phones and the internet.

In a Cold War scenario, the U.S. intelligence community would collect intelligence about enemy activity that would subsequently filter "down" to the maneuver units. Today, however, the case is often reversed. Ground units get the first information about an enemy, often by going on a raid and learning about the individual's ties to other insurgents. As that intelligence is sent "up," the national organizations focus collection efforts accordingly.

There are success stories in Iraq where units have provided tactical intelligence to a national organization, then national came back with amplified intelligence that led the unit in a successful operation against more insurgents. This model can and should be applied more broadly.

There have also been instances of tremendous successes in cooperation between three critical components of the overall effort: national intelligence organizations; the special operators who are present in small numbers but receive sensitive, actionable intelligence; and the conventional forces who have the manpower to act on the intelligence. This type of cooperation enables units to achieve significant operational success without compromising some of our most sensitive intelligence programs.

Still, American forces lack a national insurgency database to enable the pattern analysis that is a critical element of fighting an insurgency. While there have been numerous efforts to improve data collection, there remains no central database for information about enemy activity and attack patterns. Again, multiple reporting chains, proprietary databases, and top down solutions hinder our ability to understand our enemy.

Compounding the problem of not having a complete picture of enemy activity patterns is that many tactical units simply use their own programs and templates that are often not compatible with neighboring units or the data at the palaces in Baghdad. While those programs and templates often end up being useful for that unit, the data is often lost once they depart Iraq, leaving the replacement unit to come up with its own standard operating procedures for storing intelligence--without the benefit of databased enemy knowledge from their predecessors. Furthermore, many key tactical details of most attacks are not recorded, and a large share of IED attacks that cause no damage or injury are not reported at all because the troops see it as an administrative hassle rather than a pattern analysis opportunity.

Along with hiring the information pros at Oracle, Google and Microsoft, we can model the databases used by some fire departments. One solution is to use a geo-referenced graphical data input interface that is imagery-based with pop-up and drop-down menus to allow the troops to quickly record the critical tactical details that facilitate meaningful pattern analysis. Once data input is made quick and accessible for the troops, commanders must explain the need to record data on enemy attacks, and hold units accountable for doing so
.

5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.

U.S. forces need to reduce the predictability of their movements. To do this, generals in Baghdad should stop requiring units to report the number of patrols conducted, and instead focus on effective offensive operations. The current emphasis on gauging unit effectiveness by the quantity of patrols conducted keeps the troops too busy to conduct quality operations that offensively hunt the enemy.

Accordingly, the generals should forbid a common practice that needlessly endangers our troops. "Presence patrols" are a legacy from Bosnia, where many of today's lieutenant colonel battalion commanders conducted peacekeeping operations as junior officers. Presence patrols involve troops simply driving around to show a military presence that ostensibly deters one side from attacking another.

The problem is that Bosnia is not Iraq, where the enemy just wants to attack U.S. forces, so we end up needlessly giving them opportunities to do so. While some units have stopped using the phrase "presence patrol," the emphasis on quantity of patrols still results in U.S. forces going out on the roads without a meaningful offensive purpose in mind.

Also, our most vulnerable movement patterns are the product of administrative convenience rather than strategic considerations. For example, enemy attacks throughout Iraq remain concentrated along the seams of the operational boundaries shared by different U.S. units.

A watchful enemy quickly determines where units operate and where they turn around on a given stretch of road. They then exploit the seams, knowing that it is easier to conduct attacks in an area where a unit does not regularly operate.

Similarly, they can identify which units shoot back when engaged and which ones try to speed away, focusing efforts on the latter. In any given area, U.S. forces that are transiting are consistently attacked at a much higher rate than the combat units responsible for the area. The enemy learns that transiting units are less familiar with the terrain and thus less likely to shoot back--or hunt the enemy down tomorrow to settle the score.

Often, the enemy enjoys freedom of action on roads representing the boundaries between U.S. units. No one feels responsible for the deadly attacks taking place on the roads because they area busy patrolling nearby areas, and no one is held accountable for allowing the enemy to attack. One combat battalion operations officer was visited by an advisor who noticed that U.S. units transiting the area, such as military police, bomb disposal teams, and logistics movements, were suffering enormously high casualties, while his unit had hardly been touched, even though they were operating in the general area every day.

"Well, the guys getting hit are usually combat support guys who have bad tactics," he explained. When queried as to what specific tactics his own unit uses to achieve such success, he admitted, "Well, we don't go out on that part of the road." Why not? "Because it's dangerous," he replied.

A fundamental tenant of warfare is that someone should be responsible for any key terrain feature, such as a ridgeline, river, or road. Almost all U.S. casualties in Iraq occur on one key terrain feature: the roads. So the generals in Baghdad must put specific units in charge of the roads and then let the units themselves develop appropriate plans for success.

We must also seize the "smart offensive" on the ground. The enemy knows that the U.S. excels at traditional offensive maneuvers initiated by clear commands, such as "take Haditha," so the enemy hides when this happens, waiting instead to attack our patrols and convoys later. Amazingly, the attacks from roadside bombs, which have long accounted for the vast majority of coalition casualties, occur not only in the same areas, but often in the same exact spot, with the hole from one blast being re-used to hold a larger and more deadly bomb the next time.

Instead of being told to offer themselves up as targets on "presence patrols," the troops should be empowered to adopt a "hunting" mindset that seeks to identify enemy patterns and create conditions that draw the enemy into our traps.

U.S. forces that adopt the hunting mindset in Iraq tend to do well against the enemy. One of the first units to successfully engage the roadside bomb threat in their area of operations was a National Guard unit from a state in the Deep South. They were new to Iraq but took it personally that the enemy was conducting so many deadly attacks against passing U.S. forces in the area for which they were now responsible.

They used intelligence showing the enemy attack patterns and figured out when and where the enemy was most like to attack next. One night they set up ambush positions in the area. Many hours later, they patiently watched through gun sights as the enemy prepared the attack site and emplaced several explosive charges. Just as the enemy team had finished its emplacement work, they engaged successfully.

When U.S. explosives experts arrived later and detonated the charge, it took out a twenty-foot section of road--a planned attack that likely would have killed several U.S. soldiers had their comrades not decided to take the fight to an elusive enemy. They subsequently managed to engage another insurgent team, and their success stopped not only those insurgents, but drove down insurgent activity in their entire area of operations. As one of them later said, "It's just like huntin' deer."

This type of offensive success has been achieved by other tactical units as well, and consistently drives down enemy activity in the affected area. But until similar offensive solutions are carried out as part of a broad plan, overall attacks will continue to increase as the enemy simply shifts operations to nearby areas--a phenomenon sarcastically referred to as "whack-a-mole." If neighboring units were led to conduct such operations on a broad scale, however, the result would likely be analogous to playing whack-a-mole as a team, with one mallet per mole.

6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.

The government and military must better communicate its message--to both Iraqis and the American public. The hurdles posed by political correctness and self-imposed bureaucratic constraints must be cleared in order to balance the insurgents' current control of the airwaves. Their "flaming car bomb-a-day" television propaganda campaign has dominated the media debate since late 2004, negating or neutralizing any reports of positive news.

The lack of reporting on the incredible progress being made in Iraq every day is the media equivalent of trees falling in the forest but no one hearing them. In today's media environment, progress only counts when it is filmed and reported.

Also, it is clear that "good news" must come directly from the units on the ground or the Iraqis themselves. Anything coming from higher headquarters or the Pentagon is dismissed, fairly or unfairly, as propaganda. Recent reports that the Pentagon is building its public relations efforts, including "message development" teams and "surrogate" spokesmen, demonstrate an awareness of the problem. More Pentagon talking heads, however, will have less impact on broadcasting a more balanced message than authentic reporting from the troops.

Some units have embraced the internet to communicate their message, even going so far as to promote soldiers blogging on a personal website to the unofficial position of "unit blogger." In one case, this not only helped unit morale by keeping friends and family back home better informed, but it also improved local media coverage around that unit's home base because there was more complete coverage of progress and setbacks, rather than just the "flaming car bomb-a-day."

Thus, the Pentagon should abandon its reflexive instinct toward control of information that has led it to seek to ban personal cameras and blogs. Instead, a "unit blogger" approach should be applied across Iraq, with appropriate guidance and training to preserve operational security. Tactical units should each have two members who are trained in public relations and equipped with high-quality cameras and laptops with video editing software, and offered incentives and rewards for effective reporting. They should record unit activities in writing and video, and share them with the American people via sites modeled on wildly successful pro-military websites, such as Blackfive.net and MoveAmericaForward.org.

Also, the embed process that helps journalists visit ground units must be streamlined. The general staff in Baghdad should measure the success of its public affairs effort by how many journos get out on the ground, in contrast to recent reports of the staff making life difficult for proven combat communicators like Michael Yon to embed with units. Yon, a former special operator, does so much to report an authoritative, balanced perspective from Iraq that the generals should instead assign him his own helicopter, and perhaps a limo.

Along with sharing more information with the American and Iraqi public, U.S. forces should also be empowered to share more information directly with locals in Iraq. The messages U.S. forces often share, however, are those that have been approved for nationwide dissemination by staffers in Baghdad and are therefore vague and generic.
Surprisingly, units are not permitted to create and distribute their own flyers without approval from the generals in Baghdad, which is a non-starter, because they are understandably concerned that troops would distribute inappropriate flyers that would end up on the news and create a public relations nightmare.

But, instead of solving that by banning the flyers, more effective leadership would give guidelines and provide samples of acceptable flyers. In short, empower the units to develop and share a message that works in their neighborhoods. Better communication between tactical units and Iraqi locals will help to build on the existing success that has led to significant growth in the quantity of intelligence tips received per month from Iraqi locals, from about 400 in early 2005 to over 4,000 in 2006, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index.

While the U.S. stutters and stammers with the Iraqi and American people, the enemy waxes eloquent, masterfully sharing its message to the people of Iraq and the rest of the world. Specifically, the enemy maximizes the exploitation of their attacks for purposes of propaganda and recruitment.

We must improve our ability to get our visual message out, while contesting the enemy's current domination of the visual information environment. Recently, the Minnesota National Guard offered a striking example with their powerful visual rebuttal of a US senator's slander of the troops.

THE U.S. MUST win in Iraq. This can be achieved sooner by making these six key course corrections. The top U.S. Army general recently announced plans to have the same number of troops in Iraq until at least 2010, so there is time to change regardless of what happens in the next congress, and change is urgently needed as public figures show October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Even when the U.S. draws down its forces in Iraq, these steps will be crucial to improving U.S. conduct in future counter-insurgency efforts as potential adversaries seek to emulate insurgent successes in Iraq. Examining the many unstable parts of the world today, coupled with the current dominance of the U.S. military in large-scale conventional conflicts, it seems likely that future operations over the next two decades will largely resemble what we face in Iraq today. This makes it all the more important that we consider a grass-roots solution and make key course corrections now, so America can succeed in Iraq and start to bring the troops home.

Eric Egland is a major in the military reserve and has served on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recommendations in this article were distilled from a broad array of combat innovators with whom he worked while patrolling with combat units, field testing new technology, designing new training scenarios, and briefing generals in Baghdad and Washington. He previously served in a counter-terrorism role.

Author's Note: Please forward this to someone who has been on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Encourage them to offer a supporting anecdote, contrary view, or a better idea, so this can become the best plan possible. In the spirit of finding grass roots solutions to major challenges, send comments to SixStepsInIraq@hotmail.com.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

(see Author's note re 'Spreading the word')

More from the Religion of Death

That you will not hear about in the NY Slimes Times or on SeeBS.

Atlas Shrugs has the whole thing. Here is a sample:

Yes, those are severed heads.

These killers hate all Christians and Jews, and this is the fate that they have in store for you, if you do not submit to Allah (who can bite my a**).

Primer on Islamic Imperialism

From the American Thinker:

November 20th, 2006

One of the alleged sins held against the West by Islamic radicalism – which has declared war on us through Osama bin Laden’s fatwa issued in 1998 in London – is imperialism: the imperialism of the Dutch, the British and the French from the 17th to the 20th centuries. (For some reason, Russian imperialism in Central Asia gets a pass – so far.) Israel is allegedly an outpost of European imperialism.

The original western imperial enterprise in the radical Islamic narrative was the Crusades. The First Crusade began in 1095. The Crusades were undertaken to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. Reclaim it from whom? From the Muslims.

But Mohammed died in Medina in 632 as ruler of the Hijaz, the northwest section of Arabia along the Red Sea which includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. But if they only controlled the Hijaz in 632, what were the Muslims doing in Jerusalem in 1100?

Of course, they were there by conquest! They were they by virtue of Islamic imperialism – the extension of the Land of Islam (Dar al-Islam) by holy war: jihad (notwithstanding the other meanings of this term).

Let’s review. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and ruler who conquered Mecca and the Hijaz from his base in Medina. Following The Prophet’s death in 632, Islam was spread by Arab and Muslim conquest. There are Muslims who are not Arabs, but the first phase of expansion was Arab expansion. The ruler of the Muslim world, the successor to Muhammad, was the Caliph – “the shadow of God on earth.”

The Caliph was both the religious and political head of the Muslim world which, unlike the Christian world, draws no distinction between the two. In North Africa and the Middle East, the lands that the Arab Muslim world expanded into were controlled by the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. These were Christian lands. To the East, between the Middle East and India, was the Persian Empire with a different religious tradition.

At the death of Muhammad in 632, the realm of Islam consisted of northwest Arabia. To the north and west is Christian Byzantium, to the east is Persia. Neither of these were Arab; neither of them were Muslim. But within 100 years, the territory from Persia to Spain was controlled by Muslim Arabs. How did this happen? Egypt, for instance, was not in 632 an Arab country. It was of a different ethnic stock and had been in existence for 3600 years.

What happened was conquest, one of the most impressive in history. Here is a very brief timeline:

1. 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca from his base in Medina.

2. 632 – Muhammad dies in Medina. Islam controls the Hijaz.

3. 636 – conquest of Syria. Victory in battle over the Byzantines gives Syria and the surrounding lands, all Christian – including Palestine and Iraq – to the Caliph.

4. 636 – 642 Persia conquered by the Muslims.

5. 642 – conquest of Egypt. The Arab/Muslim conquest moves west along North Africa into hitherto non-Arab/non-Muslim lands.

First Muslim invasion of Europe: from the West

6. 711 – Tariq (after whom Gibraltar is named: the Rock of Tariq – Gib al-Tariq) invades Spain. The Muslim conquest moves into Europe.

7. 718 – conquest of Spain complete.

8. 732 – Muslim invasion of France is stopped at the Battle of Poitiers (also called the Battle of Tours). This is regarded as one of the turning points in world history. The Franks, under their leader Charles Martel (the grandfather of Charlemagne), defeat the Muslims and turn them back out of France.

Thus, in exactly 100 years, from the death of The Prophet in 632, to 732, the Arab/Muslim realm had extended from the Hijaz, a province in Arabia, to encompass Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Persia, Egypt, the North African littoral, Spain and, temporarily, part of France.

The first European interaction with Islam is with Islam in the role of a conquering army, and, in the case of Spain, one that comes to stay. Spain became a Muslim colony. Over several hundred years, Spain was reconquered – the reconquista – for Christendom. The last Moors are expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.

In the 1300’s, the Turks took over leadership of the Muslim world from the Arabs. They established the Ottoman Empire with its capital at Christian Constantinople after conquering it in 1453. The Muslim world under Ottoman leadership began incursions into Europe from the East.

Second Muslim invasion of Europe: from the East

9. 1453 – Muslim Turks conquer Christian Constantinople and make it the seat of the Caliphate

10. 1456 – Muslims conquer Athens

11. 1478 – Serbia, Bosnia, Crimea come under Ottoman control

12. 1480 – Otranto in Italy taken by the Ottomans

13. 1529 – Vienna besieged by the Ottomans

14. 1683 – Battle of Vienna. The Turks are defeated by the Polish king Jan Sobieski leading a combined Polish-Lithuanian army. This is the high-water-mark of Turkish/Muslim conquest of Europe from the East.

1683 is an important year, because after that the Muslim Empire had no further military successes over the West. Thus, while this date seems lost in the mists of time to most Westerners, it remains a vivid memory in Islamic history. It marks the beginning of a downward slide in military fortunes that ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French in World War I, the occupation of Muslim lands by the European states, and finally the abolition of the Caliphate itself by Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) in 1924.

But in the 1980’s, something important happened. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. decided that it would support the native Afghan resistance, the mujahedeen. This resulted in a massive arms support operation by the CIA, funneled through the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI.

Thus, the American hand was concealed from the mujahedeen. When, particularly with the help of the Stinger missile, the Russians were defeated by the mujahedeen, this represented in their own eyes a victory of Islamic forces over those of a modern state – indeed, a superpower – something not seen since the 17th century in the Muslim world. Here was a model to be built on.

15. 1979 – Soviet Union invades Afghanistan

16. 1988 – Soviet Union leaves Afghanistan, defeated by the Muslim mujahedeen. A victory for Islam over the “West.”

17. 1991 – Soviet Union disintegrates. Who can say that its defeat by the Muslims was not its mortal blow?

Third Muslim invasion of Europe: from the South

And now we find ourselves confronted by a third Muslim attack on the West – a third “invasion of Europe” (if “Europe” is expanded to mean culture as well as geography, and includes North America) by an expansionary Muslim philosophy – by Islamic radicalism. The first Muslim attack was from the West in the 700’s; the second was from the East in the 1400’s – 1600’s; the third began with the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1988 in Afghanistan and its subsequent collapse and is in the form of mass immigration.

The philosopher and economist Thomas Sowell instructs us to ask “as compared to what?” when evaluating and criticizing human enterprise. It is pointless to compare human enterprise to some abstract ideal that has never existed. As Sowell points out, if the standard is set high enough, anything will fail.

Was the British Empire – the archetype of Western imperialism – a bad thing?

As compared to what? As compared to the Muslim Empires? As compared to them, the British Empire was a model of enlightenment. The Muslims pride themselves on their tolerance of minorities. But that tolerance came at the cost of dhimmitude – second-class citizenship and payment of tributes. The British Empire was, yes, established by force, but it was not sustained only by force. It was also sustained by consent. And it left behind a number of the freest, richest, most liberal countries on earth. As compared to the Muslims, the British look pretty good.

But it is not the point of this article that Arab/Muslim imperialism was an evil, or at least was not a unique evil. It was a human enterprise with its strengths and weaknesses. Muslim culture at its highest was high indeed. The Muslims preserved and passed on the learning of the Greeks. The Arabs developed Arabic numerals, and invented the number zero (or the next best thing, recognized the significance of the Indians having done so), the basis of modern mathematics. Algebra is an Arabic word: al-gebera. Muslim letters, science, medicine and architecture were at the highest level of achievement.

But so are our own. Today. We can’t have a double standard here – being impressed by the achievements and conquests of Arab/Muslim civilization but at the same time embarrassed by the even more impressive achievements and conquests of the West. If conquest is something to be embarrassed by, if it is a moral disqualification, then the Arab/Muslims are at the head of the line; Europe is well back on the list! And whatever the achievements of medieval Muslim culture, and they were many, they are in the past. There are few achievements today, and none to compare with those of the West.

Yes, one can certainly ask about spiritual achievement. If the Muslims wish to live in the 8th century, nobody is stopping them. Just as nobody stops the Amish from living in the 18th century. But if the standard is living in the 21st century, then it is clear that the West is a superior culture in all respects – in comfort of living, in science, in medicine, in human rights, in the rights of women to name just a few.

We are in a fight for our lives against Islamic radicalism. We cannot unilaterally disarm ourselves morally because of some imagined slights offered to Muslim culture by the West. Yes, we are the stronger, but that was not always so. When Muslims were the stronger, they prided themselves on their conquests and their cultural and political dominance, which still shape the world in which we live.

Greg Richards is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.



Greg Richards

The Truth about Islam, US Education

Two great posts over at What Would Charles Martel Do?

Re-examining Islam as Heresy and Blasphemy:

Islam is, in my opinion and the opinion of many, nothing more than a cult of personality surrounding a man suffering from increasing delusions of grandeur as his career as an erstwhile "prophet" continued, and I see no reason for this view to become the dominant view for both Jews and Christians. The idea of "interfaith" discourse is absurd when one of the faiths involved blasphemes and threatens the other two, not to mention the other religions of the world. Historically, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity has not at all times been a pleasant one, yet the one is an offshoot of the other.

Our Great Mis-education:

I would, however, like to see someone who holds a grudge against this country, as little "dilbertgeg" over at YouTube seems to, realize for once that they are couching their arguments in the very same Western-ccentric terms that they otherwise rail against. And why? They know nothing else.

" WW1, WW2, Tonkin, Gulf War, and Sept 11 all based on LIES. Right now, US supports MEK terror group, just like US supported Al-Qaeda". ALL based on actions of Western countries, specifically the US. Does anyone even think for a second that this moron knows of the internal wars in China that have raged for millenia? Or of war waged by Japan? Of the constant warfare of the Iriquois? He could have used those examples, he could have used any examples from the ancient world, but he could not. He didn't have them in his head, wasn't even acquainted with them. So he, like others, hyperfocus on US history of the last 100 years. Not that it isn't pertinent and to be understood, but why limit one's knowledge there?

No, if we are to be fully armed in the war of ideas, words, and eventually greater fights for our own civilization, we must know it well but also be able to step outside of it and see those other civilizations for what they are/were. We MUST be able to understand the non-Western perspective, to fully arm ourselves in what may end up academic pursuits.

Read all of it.

The Truth About Islam

More truth about the religion of death called Islam, this time from the blog Ironic Surrealism:

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.

The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree—but I didn’t write those parts. They came directly from Islam’s scriptures. If you don’t like what Muhammad and Allah said, don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger. More here and continued here.

Go read it all!

Will All Be Well

Conservative Beach Girl has an excellent post here:

Let me put this as plainly as I can - if Western Civilization folks of European ancestry - Italians, Spaniards, the English, the French, those of Eastern Europe, the Australians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Swiss, the Danes, the New Zealanders, the Swedes, the folks from Finland, and the many others who follow the tenets of Judeo-Christian beliefs who visit this blog - deny their heritage and culture, and submit and subjugate themselves - in small ways or in large - to the expressed superiority of Islam, then, and only then, will all be well?

Read the whole thing.

Hot for Martytrdom

From Michael Coren, National Post - originally published: Friday, November 03, 2006"

Dr. Tawfik Hamid doesn't tell people where he lives. Not the street, not the city, not even the country. It's safer that way. It's only the letters of testimony from some of the highest intelligence officers in the Western world that enable him to move freely. This medical doctor, author and activist once was a member of Egypt's Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Arabic for "the Islamic Group"), a banned terrorist organization. He was trained under Ayman al-Zawahiri, the bearded jihadi who appears in Bin Laden's videos, telling the world that Islamic violence will stop only once we all become Muslims.

. . .

"The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe."

. . .

"North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis. Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.

"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."

Read the whole thing. There is nothing we can do or say to make the Muslim Terrorists stop killing, stop attempting to destroy the West, short of killing them first.

The Muslim Brotherhood & "The Project"

There is a very dangerous plan that has been put in place over the past twenty years by the Muslim Terror oganization called the Muslim Brotherhood. Info from FrontPage :

One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.

...the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

The english translation of this document is here.

You can read more about this from Patrick Poole here.

You can join in the fight against Muslim Terrorists and the Caliphate with the 910 group. And read "The Eurabia Code" here.

Why Do The Muslims Hate Us?

From Jihad Watch, 95 reasons for hate:

“The American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism.”
-- a conclusion concluded from the National Intelligence Estimate by many concluders in solemn conclusory conclave assembled.

Ninety-Five Other Things That Also Fuel Muslim Extremism:

1. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”
2. The British government’s protection of Salman Rushdie.
3. The American coup against Mossadegh in 1953, cited by some Iranians as the direct cause of the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini more than 25 years later.
4. The remarks of Pim Fortuyn about Muslim attitudes toward liberal Dutch mores.
5. The movie by Theo van Gogh about the subjection of women in Islam.
6. The election of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the Dutch Parliament.
7. Hindus passing by mosques as Friday Prayers end.
8. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Sunni insurgents.
9. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Shi’a militias.
10. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Kurdish desire for independence.
11. The failure of Americans in Iraq to give Baghdad an instant makeover so that it resembles the most prosperous and advanced American city.

Read it all.
And check out the 910 Group to get more information.

The Eurabia Code

A page posted at Hidden Dragon contains the entire text of the Eurabia Code by Fjordman. Read the whole thing:

What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.”

The Caliphate

From the website caliphate.eu: Some propaganda:

The Caliphate is a unique political system from the ideology of Islam that bears no resemblance to any of the Muslim Governments today. It is a government built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed and is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur'an:
“O You who believe! Indeed We have created you from a single male and female and We have made you into nations and tribes so that you know each other, Verily the noblest among you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold Allah is all knowing, all aware.”
[TMQ 49:13]

Non-Muslims have an honourable status in the Caliphate. They are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract), which means they are equal citizens with the Muslims and enjoy the full rights of citizenship. Unlike in Britain they are not given derogatory names like “ethnic minorities” or “immigrants”, that implies they are 2nd class citizens and not really welcome. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: “Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me.”

He (saw) also said: “The one who kills a Mu'ahid (people with whom the State has treaties) without right he will not smell the fragrance of jannah (heaven) even if its smell was forty years travelling distance.” [Reported in the Hadith book Ahmed]

Of course we also have this:

Islamic State Part 20 - The Disintegration Of The Islamic State

uploaded 07 Nov 2006


Chapter 39

The intellectual weakness of the Islamic State began in the fifth century Hijri when some scholars called for the phasing out of ijtihad. This signalled the downfall of the State. Although there were still some mujtahideen left, intellectual weakness had already taken root and this affected the State enormously. Disintegration began creeping in and the State waned. By the time the crusaders came the State was in no position to repel the danger. The State became engaged in continuous battles with the crusaders which were to last for two centuries. The crusaders emerged victorious at first and managed to occupy parts of the Islamic State, then the State managed to recapture the occupied land and vanquish the crusaders. Rule and authority were taken over by the Mamluks who neglected the Arabic language and the intellectual and legislative side of ruling. The door was slammed in the face of ijtihad and the understanding of Islamic concepts weakened considerably, as a result. Scholars were forced to content themselves with taqleed (imitation) and the ailment worsened. This, however, only affected the State from within, since the State remained strong and its international standing remained intact. The Islamic State remained a superpower feared by all other nations, occupying the largest and strongest part of the inhabited world at the time. The ‘Uthmani State took over control of most of the Islamic world. In the 9th century Hijri (15th century CE) it united the Arab lands under its rule and its dominion stretched over wide areas of land. The ‘Uthmani State concentrated on its military might and the expansion of its authority as well as the glamour of its rule and power. It also concentrated its efforts on the conquests and neglected the Arabic language despite the fact that it is essential in order to understand Islam and one of the conditions necessary in order to effect ijtihad.

From Khilafah.com.

A Philosophy and a Synergy

A while back I read a couple of books that really had a profound influence on my life and the way that I saw the world. I noticed immediately that these two in particular had a synergy that I needed to explore:

This exploration led me to a pretty detailed outline of how to incorporate these ideas and tools into my daily life, my goal setting, and setting my priorities. The complete outline is below, and a download-able Word document is at the end. I welcome comments and discussion.

(I know that this will look like a lot to live up to, and I do not live up to these ideals every day. I am not trying to set myself up as some type of 'holier than thou', I just believe that this is a good framework , or starting point, if you will.)

Philosophy & Strategy for Living

I. Be Proactive - I will prioritize my time and efforts in order to make the most of my work and activity. I will focus on Prevention, Relationships, Planning and Recreation, in order to minimize the effects of Crises, Problems and Deadlines. By spending my time on issues of high importance and lower urgency, I will then have time for responding to issues of high urgency when they do appear.

A. I will seek Wisdom: I will train my eyes and ears to read and listen to materials that will bring positive changes in my personal relationships and a greater understanding of my fellow man. No longer will I bombard my mind with materials that feed my doubts and fears. I will choose my friends with care. I will listen to the counsel of wise men. I will be as a servant to others. He who serves the most, grows the fastest.

But if any of you lacks Wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. James 1:5

B. I am a person of action: My future is immediate. I will grasp it with both hands and carry it with running feet. When faced with a choice of doing nothing, or doing something, I will always choose to act. I seize this moment. I choose now. I will walk with a spring in my step and a smile on my face. My own activity will create a wave of success for the people who follow me. I am a leader. I do not fear opinion, gossip, or the idle chatter of monkeys - all are the same. I do not fear failure, for it exists only in the mind of the person who quits.

Lord, remind me how brief my time on earth will be. Remind me that my days are numbered, and that my life is fleeing away. Psalm 39:4

C. I have a decided heart: Criticism, condemnation, and complaint come and go on the wasted breath of lesser beings. The power to control the direction of my future belongs to me. I am passionate about my vision for the future. My daily thoughts and actions, from morning until night, will work in a forward motion. I have a great dream to fulfill and I will never apologize for it. My prayers, my passions, my visions for the future are my very existence. All of my problems become smaller when I confront them. I have charted my course and I will not wait.

Blessed are those who trust in the Lord…They are like trees planted along a riverbank, with roots that reach deep into the water. Such trees are not bothered by the heat, nor worried by long months of drought. Their leaves stay green, and they go right on producing delicious fruit. Jeremiah 17:7 - 8

D. I will identify patterns from the past: I will look at and learn from things that I have done before. I will be able to anticipate situations, and respond to them with integrity. Learning from mistakes made by me and others will give me the power to direct the outcome of crises and obstacles.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12: 1-2

II. Begin with the end in mind - I will start each day with a vision of what I intend to accomplish. The greater Purpose of my life will be its ruling principle. My life was planned for God's pleasure. I was formed for God's family. I was created to become like Christ. My life is shaped for serving God. I was made for a mission.

A. Learn - I will explore a variety of methods for achieving the end that I seek. Others have faced this situation, and I will discover how they handled it to best achieve my own success.

B. The buck stops here - I accept responsibility for my own past. To create my own future my thoughts will be constructive, never destructive. I will seek to associate with those that are working and striving to create positive changes in the world. I control my own thoughts and emotions. I am responsible for my success. The ability to make and keep promises is central to this success. I will keep my word, despite obstacles, opposition, and pain.

C. I will persist without exception - No longer will I live in a dimension of distraction, a state of chronic partial attention. I know the outcome I desire. I hold fast to my dreams. I stay the course and will not quit. Average people will accept exhaustion and compare themselves to other people. I will compare myself to my potential. I am not average, as I see exhaustion as a precursor to victory. I have faith in the certainty of my future. Faith is a sounder guide than reason, as faith has no limits. To see the future that I believe in come into being is the reward of this faith.

III. Put First Things First

A. Connect to your mission. Take time to organize my thoughts, clear my mind, and prepare to begin my day with mindfulness.

B. Review roles to be filled

C. Identify goals to be completed

D. Organize a schedule on a weekly basis

E. Exercise integrity in making decisions

That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly. It is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price on its goods. Thomas Paine

IV. Think win/win

A. Today I will choose to be happy. Happiness is not an emotional phantom, floating thither and yon, but a choice. It is the end result of specific thoughts and activities which actually bring about a chemical reaction in my body. This reaction is totally under my control. I will greet each day with cheerfulness, and people will be drawn to me because I have laughter in my heart. God has bestowed upon me many gifts, and for these I will be grateful. I will thank God every day for these blessings and ask him in prayer to look upon those less fortunate than myself. I possess a grateful spirit and will smile at everyone that I meet.

B. I will greet this day with a forgiving spirit. I will forgive even those who do not seek it. I know the difference between Right and Wrong. I know what is best for the future of my family, and I will work and sacrifice to attain it. Misguided opinion and unjust criticism will not alter my course, as I am called to a higher purpose. I will forgive myself to erase the doubts, fears and frustrations that have kept my past in the present. My history will no longer control my destiny.

C. I will examine my motives - am I serving others or serving myself? I will review and evaluate the consequences of my choices and actions every day, every moment. Service to others is the greatest gift, the investment of highest return.

V. Seek first to Understand, then to be Understood

A. I will listen more than I speak.

B. My speech will be right, thoughtful and conscientious.

C. I will take adequate time for contemplation and reflection.

D. I will avoid the state of "Continuous Partial Attention".

We are what we think,

All that we are arises with our thoughts

With our thoughts we make the world.

Speak or act with an impure mind

And trouble will follow you as the

Wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.

Dhammapada I

VI. Synergize All of my activities must be entered with a pure heart, and should all be coordinated to move toward accomplishing my ultimate goal.

A. Identify Strengths and Weaknesses.

B. Create an environment of trust and cooperation.

C. Practice mindfulness in all things.

VII. Sharpen the Saw Building time into my schedule for personal growth and improvement, for recreation, for study and fun will make my life fulfilling. The four dimensions of my human nature must be exercised regularly and consistently in wise and balanced ways. The measure of a man is the spiritual and emotional health of his family. I will stay focused, keep my word, and overcome obstacles despite opposition, pain and loss.

A. Physical: begin and maintain an exercise program. Look ahead, watch over my wife and family, provide Order, Mercy, and Justice under orders from God.

B. Spiritual: begin and maintain a schedule of bible study and prayer life. I am a Mentor for my family, a teaching heart models, explains, and trains. One of my most basic duties is to teach Life.

C. Mental: read and write, learn something new every day. Teach someone something new every day.

D. Social/Emotional: make contributions and have meaningful projects that are personally exciting and contribute to and bless the lives of others. The ability to make and keep promises is central to manhood, and provides a stabilizing force for everyone around me.

This is the Word Document:

the-seven-gifts-of-the-highly-efective-traveller.doc

Please Note: A lot of the preceding consists of direct quotes from the books mentioned above, as well as some quotes from other sources. They have been mixed and edited together, and I can't say for sure what comes from where sometimes. None of this is meant as a challenge to the copyright holders.

test post

this is a test