Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - WAR

The Vanishing “Man of War”
By Joel Hilliker
How the mightiest military in history is making itself vulnerable to annihilation

The Prophet Isaiah foretold a massive leadership void that would plague the modern nations of Israel and Judah. Perhaps nowhere is this scenario more dramatically and distressingly fulfilled than in the United States military.

Read Isaiah 3:1-3. Among the male leaders prophesied to be absent in our day are the “mighty man,” the “man of war,” and “the captain of fifty”—strong men, valiant men, champions, warriors and generals. Isaiah’s pronouncement clearly includes a softening among military personnel.

Could this dire prophecy actually describe America’s armed forces? The United States has funneled more cash into its military than any nation in history: close to a billion dollars a day, every day, for over 60 years, outpacing the entire rest of the world combined. As a result, its forces have a certain air of invincibility—at least in the minds of many Americans. No one would question the fact that the military bristles with fearsome firepower and tough soldiers.

Unprecedented spending, however, does not guarantee unprecedented combat readiness. Within America’s modern military, many policies are also unprecedented—largely untested within major warfare—and evidence indicates they significantly impair force effectiveness. Among them: redefining what constitutes “the enemy”; shaping strategy based on squeamishness over civilian casualties; over-relying on technology; obligating soldiers to act as policemen and peacekeepers; increasing soldier specialization; abandoning traditional “warrior culture”; relaxing authority in the chain of command; lowering physical standards and discipline.

The “untested” policy that gives the most poignancy to Isaiah’s prophecy, however, is sexual integration. The U.S. Armed Forces include more women, quantitatively and proportionally, than any country in the world. History has no record of a sexually integrated military force on the scale of what the United States is attempting today.

“In other words,” says observer and analyst Stephanie Gutmann, “we are in the middle of a huge social experiment” (The Kinder, Gentler Military). It is an enormous experiment with life-or-death implications. Gutmann concludes: “The returns are beginning to come in … yet the real test is sometime in the future” (emphasis mine throughout).

Exactly right. Not since World War ii has the U.S. fought a first-rate global power. Though Korea and Vietnam enjoyed the support of “second world,” Communist-bloc nations, both were poor and technologically bankrupt. Cuba, Iran, Grenada, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Afghanistan—all these have posed historically minor challenges to American power.

But there will come a point—most likely sooner than we expect—when the U.S. will be engaged by a truly top-of-the-line foreign military power and taxed to its limits. At that point—and that point only—will the results of this policy experiment come flooding in.

Women Warriors

With all the advancements in tools, weaponry, transportation and technology, war today is quite different from war 100 years ago.

Even so, the single most transformative change in the U.S. military over the past century—particularly the past generation—has been the massive expansion of the woman’s role.

The story of the metamorphosis of America’s all-male warrior military into an almost completely sex-integrated force has been authored by an aggressive minority of lobbyists and politicians pushing for special privileges for a select group of women. It is a story of politically correct idealists demanding the military atone for its gender-related “sins.” It is a story about buried facts, wishful thinking, duplicity, doublespeak and deliberate deceit.

Before World War i, women in the services essentially functioned only as nurses. With a few specific exceptions, their role expanded only slowly for the next half-century. But what threw the door open for women in uniform was the post-Vietnam War change from a conscripted military to an all-volunteer force.

Ending the draft might have seemed necessary in the face of Vietnam-era public protests, but as far as the military was concerned, it couldn’t have come at a worse time: Patriotism and public confidence in the military were at all-time lows. A primary strategy proposed to ensure enough new recruits in this dismal climate was to bump up the number of women soldiers. Thus, the percentage of women comprising the total force rose from 1.5 percent in 1972 to 9 percent in 1975, and continued to grow.

Soon, the all-male environment of military academies came under attack—despite the fact that the likes of West Point and Annapolis existed primarily to train combat leaders, and women were barred from combat by federal law. Ignoring strong objections from military reps, civilian congressmen overwhelmingly voted to force the academies to open their doors to women posthaste. Thus, 1976 saw the first sexually integrated classes in America’s military academies—in time for America’s bicentennial, as a symbol of how far the nation had progressed in 200 years.

It quickly became clear, as military leaders had predicted, that something would have to change. The traditions and standards of the all-male academies collided head-on with the limitations of the female physique.

The Integrated Academy

The average woman is almost 5 inches shorter and over 30 pounds lighter (with closer to 40 fewer pounds of muscle and 6 more pounds of fat) than the average man. She has less than half of his upper-body strength, 20 percent less aerobic capacity, and lighter, brittler bones. She cannot run or jump as far; last as long; grip as well; push, pull, lift or carry as much.

Thus, the first females joining basic training suffered far higher rates of injury—including stress fractures, shin splints and tendonitis—which meant they visited the medical clinic three to four times more than the men. (And with more medical restrictions, they missed considerably more training.)

Officials responded by implementing separate conditioning standards for women: In lieu of having to do a certain number of pull-ups, female cadets were graded according to how long they could hang on the bar; on the obstacle course, they could use a 2-foot step-stool to climb an 8-foot wall. Academies adopted an “equivalent training” doctrine, striving to elicit from each cadet “equal effort rather than equal accomplishment.”

In some cases, rather than create a double standard, officials eliminated the standard altogether. Certain requirements became optional; certain activities became history. Competition among platoons (which many drill sergeants considered key to galvanizing recruits and developing squadron esprit de corps) was stopped, in part because of the unfair advantage held by all-male platoons. Boxing and wrestling were replaced by karate and self-defense or “interpretive dancing.” Once traditional training methods began to be abandoned, virtually everything came under scrutiny.

As the rigor of physical training decreased, classroom instruction increased. Even the academic emphasis shifted away from the hard sciences, engineering, history and military tactics (subjects in which women generally expressed less interest) and more toward social sciences and humanities. (This trend had been under way for decades; introducing women to academies merely accelerated it.)

Double standards extended beyond physical performance. For example, while male cadets who wanted to quit the academies were treated as being unfit to remain, women who wanted out received counseling intended to persuade them to stay.

Male cadets struggled with bad attitudes over seeing women being measured by a less-exacting yardstick. Upperclassmen, however, could see that standards were being lowered even for the men. At the end of basic training, though the women who finished had felt challenged and gained a sense of pride in accomplishment, male initiates said it had been easier than expected. The fact that women had fulfilled the “same program” diminished their pride in being a cadet. It was hard to shake the sense that they had undergone a watered-down, feminized version of the academy education.

Sex and the Soldier

Another major concern that roared into the academies with the women was sex.

With young women walking the grounds, fraternization became rife, as did public displays of affection and promiscuity. Cadets who were lectured on responsibility and high standards watched their instructors flirt with female plebes, sneaking them away on weekends. Pregnancies quickly became widespread. To solve the problem, the services one by one lifted the policy of dismissing pregnant soldiers. Within a few years, they had saturated military life with sex education, introducing mandatory classes on human sexuality and readily dispensing contraceptives. This change took the time-honored sense of military life being hard, regimented, set apart, cloistered in service to country, dedicated to austere principles of discipline and personal sacrifice—and replaced it with the perfumed atmosphere of flirtation, romance, jealousy, flings and trysts.

Adding women into the mix aggravated some problems and created brand new ones. Charges of sexual harassment proliferated as soldiers adapted to the new reality and many traditions proved wholly inappropriate. Privacy—totally nonexistent in the all-male forces—became a sought-after commodity; however, realities of military life could provide only so much of it, and soldiers had to acclimate. Single parenthood became far more problematic, simply because single mothers are many times more likely than single fathers to have custody of their children. With fully 12.5 percent of servicewomen being single moms (not to mention one third of pregnant servicewomen being unmarried), children by the tens of thousands pay the price. But the problem is hardly better for married service mothers: Two thirds of them are married to servicemen; almost none have husbands who are stay-at-home dads. In-service or dual-service marriages create logistical nightmares over housing and deployment—snags that are compounded when children are involved, which is the case more than half the time.

The utopian feminist ideal is one of “androgynous warriors”—men and women working shoulder to shoulder, interchangeably. When those who espouse this philosophy encounter sex-related problems, they routinely blame men for clinging to outmoded thinking or failing to control their hormones.

It apparently doesn’t enter their minds to reconsider the integration policy that introduced all those problems. It is beyond them to question their own unrealistic expectations of how men and women—human beings possessing emotions and weaknesses—will act toward one another in quite intimate quarters, in a stressful and often very physical environment. As Edward Luttwak told the New York Times Magazine in 1997, “The Army can’t do something that eluded the Franciscans. It can’t run a mixed monastery.”

Nevertheless, even the feminists see that a sexualized climate, with all its attendant problems, hurts the effectiveness of a fighting force.

Recruitment Troubles, Selfish Soldiers

Ironically, President Bill Clinton was apparently one who believed that men and women should be able to conduct themselves responsibly in a unisex setting: He strongly favored expanding the female force. Instead of turning the biggest, strongest, toughest young men in the country into soldiers, Clinton sought “a force that looks like America.” To draw more women, recruiting budgets doubled, and the percentage of women recruits promptly mushroomed from 12 percent to 22 percent. (Today, that figure has settled down to 16.5 percent.)

To make these numbers happen, however, requires a regrettable amount of game playing. At times recruiters must actually reject better-qualified males in order to secure the arbitrarily determined “right” number of females. Military officials insist that such quotas (they call them “goals”) do nothing to impair force effectiveness. This defies logic. Any criterion for the job that trumps raw mental and physical qualifications will ensure that less-qualified individuals will win through. It unabashedly sacrifices readiness in favor of politics.

Studies and recruiting efforts repeatedly prove that women are simply less interested in the military than men. Though there exists an exceptional minority, those women who join are generally more likely to think negatively about the harsh demands of military duty. They tend to view it as a short-term choice, a stepping stone to a better life as a civilian with a family. For example, whereas getting married tends to make a man more stable, solidifying his careerist goals in the service, it has the opposite effect on a woman. Attrition rates are consistently many times higher among women than men.

Nevertheless, feminists in the Pentagon are intent on ensuring plenty of career opportunities for female soldiers. Such thinking was typified by this statement from Antonia Handler Chayes, undersecretary of the Air Force, during 1979 Defense Department hearings: “There must be policy changes to assure women that they can satisfy personal career goals and ambitions by moving up the ladder to senior management. What we achieve by barring women from combat roles is an obstacle to career advancement.” Yes, in the new military, satisfying personal career ambitions ranks higher in priority than maximizing combat readiness—as if the military’s primary purpose is not to wage war, but to make people feel self-fulfilled.

This sense that somehow women—or any people, for that matter—are entitled to military careers, even if they lack the skills and qualifications, represents a seismic shift in traditional thinking. As Brian Mitchell said in his testimony before the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, “To obligate the military to employ certain people is to make the military the servant of its members, a complete reversal of the natural relationship between the service and the serviceman” (May 4, 1992).

Contributing to this trend is the fact that, in order to lure volunteers, the military must make duty more attractive using inducements such as higher pay, shorter tours, more comfortable accommodations, bonuses and other benefits (not to mention playing down the untidy fact that you may be shipped off to war, which could involve killing). Appeals to potential enlistees all play to self-interest.

In a way, then, it is hard to fault recruits for coming in feeling a sense of entitlement—but, of course, that doesn’t exactly make for the most committed combatants. Thus, holding on to these individuals has necessitated that the whole culture of the services get a face-lift and a makeover—better suiting it to its new members’ tastes.

Declining Standards

In the past, boot camp was intended, in the words of ex-Marine Lieutenant Adam Mesereau, “to simulate the stresses and strains of war.” First it broke civilian recruits down through intense pressure and punishment, then gradually built them up into something decidedly different: a strong, cohesive fighting force of professional killers.

This “transformative” approach is out. Today’s army is much more about personal empowerment: building self-confidence and self-esteem, and doing everything possible to keep each soldier feeling positive about his or her endeavors. (There are even companies that offer a personalized video of the boot-camp experience to each soldier.)

From the beginning of sexual integration, harsh discipline for women recruits took a back seat to “positive motivation,” a policy later extended to all soldiers. Rather than shouting at recruits, drill sergeants were told to use “eyeball to eyeball instructing in a firm voice.” They have changed from disciplinarians into counselors. One former drill sergeant complains that, in following the new rules, “You’re not being a soldier, you’re being a mama.”

Whereas the old military set a standard and demanded everyone meet it or get out, the new military sounds more like a flight attendant: Join us and stick around. If you don’t like something, let us know and we’ll change it for you. Rather than requiring the same physical exertion from everyone, people are divided into “activity groups,” and only asked to perform to the level of their group. Great care is taken to avoid humiliating anyone; self-esteem is more important than fitness. To avoid direct comparisons of the capabilities of men versus women, the military has fallen in love with a “teamwork” approach: Forget two men hauling a stretcher with a wounded soldier; the new military wants a whole cluster of grunts doing it. Scrupulous attention is devoted to managing the stress levels of recruits. Individual safety has become a big concern: Harnesses and safety lines are now in common use in potentially hazardous exercises—conveniences altogether absent on the battlefield.

This is the new United States military.

The latest bevy of boot-camp lifestyle enhancements intended to reduce attrition and increase graduation levels was implemented last fall. Recruits now sleep more, run less, and eat more desserts than ever before. Unsurprisingly, this confluence of factors—fewer physical demands, more personal freedoms, pressure on officers to keep weak recruits in the program—has introduced a new problem: Weight standards for soldiers have had to creep up, and now many soldiers are overweight.

All these changes have obliterated any notion of boot camp simulating “the stresses and strains of war.” In fact, in some cases it apparently doesn’t even simulate the stresses and strains of routine military responsibilities, particularly among women.

Soft physical training standards, coupled with a refusal to acknowledge female performance problems, create nightmares in the field. “The gao [Government Accountability Office] found that 62 of 97 female aircraft mechanics could not perform required tasks such as changing aircraft tires and brakes, removing batteries and crew seats, closing drag chute doors, breaking torque on bolts, and lifting heavy stands. Female missile mechanics often lacked the strength and physical confidence to harness and move warheads and to maneuver large pieces of machinery. Some had trouble carrying their own tool boxes” (Brian Mitchell, Women in the Military).

Such lack of capability can seriously complicate the job of a military leader and compromise a mission. In other words, it imperils lives.

The old, meet-our-standard-or-quit military training produced a specific type of soldier. “Just like McDonald’s hamburger, anywhere you find it, the package would be expected to contain certain predictable elements …” wrote Gutmann. “The idea was that a general standing over one of those topographical table maps with the little flags and the pushpins could say, ‘We’ll send the 187th Armor over here,’ and be fairly confident that he didn’t have to think too much about human variables—just variables like weather, equipment and terrain” (op. cit.).

By stark contrast, in today’s gender-integrated soldiery, the “personalized” training, activity groups, sliding standards—not to mention factors such as pregnancy or increased injuries—all compromise the predictability and reliability of deployed forces.

To avowed believers in the integration doctrine, however, such dangers are hardly worth worrying about.

Accept It or Else

In the midst of all this compromise and weakness, there is some force to be found: feminists strong-arming their ideology through the Pentagon.

Evidence of the increased costs and reduced combat effectiveness of a mixed-sex military is plenteous—but because it rubs the feminist lobby the wrong way, it is ignored. Policy makers disregard problems for “lack of documented evidence,” when simple observation and common sense would do. At the same time, proposed studies that would document the evidence are avoided. With contrary facts quashed, then, the Department of Defense continues to insist that the influx of women into the military has created zero decline in combat capability.

In addition to routinely ignoring problems associated with women’s physical limitations, the military has repeatedly proven itself too shackled by political correctness to answer this simple question truthfully: Do psychological differences between men and women exist—and if so, how do they influence their effectiveness as soldiers?

Feminists simply can’t decide what to believe. Feminism has traditionally been a pacifist movement. The whole of human history shows that males tend to be more aggressive than females. Many feminists say aggressiveness is a deficiency in men and contend that putting more women in charge would bring more peace to the world. Other feminists reject that idea, insisting that if society didn’t indoctrinate them to be softer, women would be just as warlike as men. Whichever view one takes, in the end, male aggressiveness is denounced while female aggressiveness is celebrated. Case in point: the new American military.

In the past, the strongest, most masculine “warrior” soldiers tended to come from more conservative backgrounds—these were the men recruiters sought most aggressively and who were most interested in enlisting. Trouble is, their traditional thinking is unacceptable in the new military. Ideas contrary to feminist orthodoxy are forcibly rooted out from incoming males via sensitivity training, sexual harassment sensitivity training, values training, and conscientious monitoring. New beliefs are crammed down their throats; resistance can jeopardize a man’s job.

Simple logic tells you that, in general, the more a man is trained to be sensitive to his female unit-mates, the less his mind is being conditioned to effectively fight enemies who seek to kill him. Though many soldiers—of all ranks and both genders—readily acknowledge that sensitivity training stifles fighting spirit, the party line is that the two are absolutely compatible.

Embracing such conflicted, oxymoronic thinking has produced a military culture of doublespeak. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, officials consistently deny that women cannot perform at the same level as men. They have publicly praised women as being their top performers, their most indispensable soldiers. Then the same leaders will say that women discharged from active duty for getting pregnant have no negative effect on combat readiness. Above all—in blatant contradiction to all reality—the official line is that integrating women has not substantially changed the military at all.

It simply cannot all be true.

“It’s becoming like Mao’s Cultural Revolution,” ex-Army officer John Hillen says. “Everybody knows it’s a system built on a thousand little lies, but everybody’s waiting for someone that’s high-ranking who’s not a complete moral coward to come out and say so.”

Over the years, thousands of qualified men—whose training cost untold billions of dollars—have been let go for failing to embrace the new military order wholeheartedly enough. Those who see legitimate problems have learned simply to shut their mouths. Gutmann makes this observation: “The really sad thing, of course, is that it never had to be like this. If we had had sensible, plainspoken, morally courageous leaders, we could have had a force that continued to be appreciative of the women who … qualify to serve, without alienating (and in too many cases actively persecuting) the men who make up—and will always make up—the majority of the armed forces” (op. cit.).

Alas—those sensible, plainspoken, morally courageous leaders have been taken away. In their place are admirals and generals who have either become true believers in the feminist cause, or who cravenly punish the men under them in order to further their own careers.

Placing Women in Danger

One of the biggest lies foisted upon an American public—which, on the whole, opposes putting women into combat—is that the military is loaded with “non-combat” jobs.

The irrefutable fact is, the military is a combat organization. Its mission is war.

The designation of a position as “non-combat” serves essentially one purpose: to open up more jobs to women. The line separating combat from non-combat is arbitrary and in flux: The harder the lobbying to expand opportunities for women, the narrower the definition of “combat” becomes.

Current law, passed by the Bush Pentagon, allows women to serve virtually anywhere—even directly alongside combat units, as long as combat is not occurring at that moment. The bizarre promise is, they will be evacuated if combat starts. Once the enemy telephones and announces that it is ready for hostilities, the battlefield will have a time-out until the necessary cavalcade of combat and transport helicopters, armored personnel carriers and tanks reaches the scene and escorts the battleground’s lady guests away—or so the thinking seems to go. This policy would devote pilots and drivers, combat equipment and vehicles—during combat, when they would be most fiercely needed—to the idiotic chore of moving women who shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

But even the idea of fielding a select group of strong, efficient, disciplined, maximally effective “combat” troops, supported by weak, gender-normed “non-combat” troops, is inherently flawed. A war front can shift in a flash: If a supply line is attacked, or a bomb goes off in the “rear,” suddenly that is a new “front.” The fact that American women in uniform are being killed and captured is all the proof one needs that the military is not honoring—nor can it honorthe law restricting women from serving in combat. “Women in combat is not really an issue,” says Lt. Dawn Halfaker, who lost an arm in Iraq last year. “It is happening.”

Though civilian leaders constantly speak of the “new warfare” being a tidy, push-button, technology-driven business, reality has never matched that fiction. War is brutal, physical, demanding and deadly. Politicians can easily overlook that fact in the midst of relative peace. But their eagerness to plunge women into the nightmare of warfare is, in fact, disregard for women masquerading as support for women.

Some female soldiers recognize this—too late—and are not impressed. As one of them said, “Those feminists back home who say we have a right to fight are not out here sitting in the heat, carrying an m16 and a gas mask, spending 16 hours on the road every day and sleeping in fear you’re gonna get gassed.”

The number of women accepting more-combat-related jobs is just a fraction of the number of such jobs that have been made available to them. They don’t want those jobs. Army surveys show that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women strongly oppose policies aimed at thrusting women into combat. The drive to open those positions to women has come from a small group of hard-core careerist women and feminist civilian leaders.

In essence, the feminist dream is to see women viciously tortured and killed alongside men.

Sally Quinn wrote in the Washington Post, “If we can’t win a war without our mothers, what kind of a sorry fighting force are we? Even the evil Saddam Hussein doesn’t send his mothers to fight his war.” Some see women warriors as a sign of progressiveness. In truth, it is a sign of barbarity.

Women face greater danger than men in most combat situations. Physical limitations make them likelier to be injured, captured or killed. This reality also endangers the men who are forced to fight alongside them. (Elaine Donnelly says bluntly, “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a 5’2”, 110-pound woman.”) And when women are captured, experience has shown that they are treated far worse—unimaginably worse—than male prisoners of war. Though feminists lobby hard against rape generally, they “bravely” insist that, since women are duty-bound to serve as combat soldiers, rape in war cannot be stopped. Jessica Lynch, a poster child for women in combat, was allegedly beaten, raped and sodomized in captivity.

Shame on those decision-makers who would purposefully subject women to such abuse—only to serve their own twisted ideology!

Consider soberly: The military agency that trains pilots in survival, evasion, resistance and escape as prisoners of war actually includes a component to desensitize male soldiers to the screams of their women cohorts.

Of course, these same men are then expected to treat women soldiers with utmost respect and dignity, in keeping with all of the sensitivity training they have had forced upon them!

In the “brutish,” non-politically correct world of yesteryear, the strong were obligated to serve the weak. A traditional-thinking male seeks to protect a woman. An honorable man shields a female from danger and hurt. This attitude, to the feminist, is contemptible. And on a gender-integrated theater of combat, it introduces a host of complications. A leader is expected to view that woman not as a woman, but simply as a soldier—a grunt whom he must be able to send into harm’s way. In the up-is-down moral climate of today’s military, his reluctance to pitch her into the lion’s den is considered backward!

Laughing Stock

It is hard to overstate the costs associated with the transformation of the U.S. Armed Forces to integrated forces. Of course there are the physical costs—plusher accommodations; more child-care facilities; greater hospital capacity; special clothing, equipment, weapons and tools. There are the costs associated with higher medical nonavailability among women, as well as attrition rates that average 36 percent higher than those of men.

But the real costs cannot be measured in dollars. They must be measured in how severely sex-integration has downgraded force preparedness and combat effectiveness. And given the unrealistic, “you’re doing great—it’s all right to cry” environment of today’s military, how can we possibly know just how weak the U.S. has become? Only when the military is forced to defend itself against a truly capable, determined aggressor will we know.

Ponder these words—a plaintive voice from within a nation that already relies on its military for daily survival. Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld says that the woman’s central roles in the U.S. Armed Forces “shows that you really don’t take the military seriously. For you, the military is not a question of life and death”—at least, we could add, not yet. “So you can afford to make all kinds of social experiments, which we [Israel] cannot. … The very fact that you have this debate may itself be construed as proof that it’s not serious. It’s a game. It’s a joke.”

The military is the most respected institution in America. It possesses some of the finest, most dedicated and self-sacrificing individuals the nation has produced. But woe be unto us if we fail to recognize how its effectiveness is being fatally undermined by a failure to beat back and restrain the virulent and invasive forces of feminization that enfeeble our modern society.

The Bible prophesies that this experiment in sexually integrating our military is going to fail cataclysmically. (Read, for example, Leviticus 26:14-21.)

All the money and manpower expended on trying to turn women into warriors hasn’t been merely squandered. It has also made America’s stout warrior heart faint. It has sapped America’s raw will to wage war.

Not only that: It has broadened the grin and tightened the curl of contempt on the lips of America’s enemies. As Phyllis Schlafly said in 1979, “What a way to run the armed forces! We must be the laughing stock of the world.”

Next month, we will examine some of the broader issues currently hampering U.S. military effectiveness.

Germany - New Super Power ??

Germany: Clash of Civilizations Already Underway

Evidence of an approaching clash of cultures turns up in a recent survey in Germany.

Europe and Islam are traveling a path that can only end in an unparalleled clash of civilizations.

As much as idealists may believe a widespread clash of cultures to be impossible in our modern world of sophistication and tolerance, the facts from Germany clearly tell us conflict is brewing.

A recent study commissioned by Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and performed by researchers from the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research disclosed an alarming trend in Europe’s largest and most influential nation. “Experts fear new conflicts after a study published this week showed most Germans doubt the Western and Islamic worlds can peacefully coexist. Mistrust of the 3 million Muslims living in Germany appears to be growing” (Deutsche Welle,
May 20).

The results of the survey are startling. Of the 1,076 Germans interviewed in early May, 83 percent of the respondents associated Islam with “fanaticism”—an increase of 8 percent from a similar poll conducted in 2004. Over 71 percent believed Islam to be “intolerant,” a rise from 66 percent in 2004; 62 percent saw Islam as “backward,” up from 49 percent; while 60 percent saw it as “undemocratic” (Jerusalem Post,
May 24).

Only 8 percent of the respondents characterized Islam as peaceful.

Perhaps most striking was that 61 percent of Germans said they believed a “clash of cultures” already existed, and 65 percent said they counted on such conflicts to worsen in the future. These results are astonishing: According to this survey, most Germans expect a future clash with Islam!

Elisabeth Noelle and Thomas Petersen, who authored the Allensbach study, characterized the results as saying, “Germans are increasingly of the opinion that a lasting, peaceful coexistence with the Islamic world will not be possible” (ibid.). This survey shows that Germans are growing fed up with the intolerant ideologies and actions of Muslims in Germany and throughout Europe.

When asked if there should be a ban on building Islamic mosques in Germany, as long as the building of churches in some Islamic states remains forbidden, 56 percent agreed. Survey results even indicated that there is growing support for ending Germany’s constitutional right of freedom of religion with regard to Islam. Many Germans are growing so disgusted with Muslims, they are prepared to alter their constitution in order to curb Islamic ambition!

When asked if “strict limits should be imposed on the practice of Islam in Germany to protect the country, 40 percent said they would support such moves” (Expatica,
May 18).

Though intolerance of Muslims in Germany has been on the rise since the 9/11 attacks in America, it has grown much stronger recently amid a torrent of high-profile stories in the German press. “Concerns over an ‘honor killing’ in Berlin, demands that schoolgirls be permitted to wear burkas, a surge in schoolyard violence involving Muslim immigrants, and the failure of Germany’s 3 million Muslim immigrants to assimilate have deepened a ‘crisis of cultures’” (Jerusalem Post, op. cit.).

As these events unfold, leading politicians such as Bavaria’s
Edmund Stoiber are suggesting bold new initiatives to solve the problem. In Germany, the dividing line between Germans and Muslims is becoming painfully clear.

That a contingent of Germany’s population is intolerant of Islam is not startling. Many nations have small sectors of their population that espouse such sentiment. What is startling is that the results of the Allensbach survey suggest that anti-Islamic sentiment isn’t simply confined to a narrow segment of Germany society. The majority of the German people believe a clash of civilizations is already underway.

Bible prophecy assures us that this trend will only intensify in the coming months and years.

The soccer World Cup will be held in Germany beginning June 9. We should monitor the political and societal atmosphere in Germany surrounding this event. Even now, the German government is concerned that the growing radical element within the nation will be on the prowl for trouble. Outbursts of racially motivated violence are highly likely.

In a newspaper interview recently, former German government spokesman Uwe-Karsten Heye said that he would tell World Cup visitors that there were “no-go” areas in the eastern German state of Brandenburg and elsewhere where he “would not advise anyone with different skin color to go. They might not possibly leave alive” (Deutsche Welle,
May 22).

Heye’s comments sparked controversy in German political circles, with many politicians expressing concern that the comments would hurt Germany’s public image on the eve of one of sport’s most popular events. Human rights group Amnesty International, on the other hand, backed Mr. Heye, saying that he had put the spotlight on “a serious problem” (ibid.). There is no mistaking that right-wing extremism and a fervent nationalist sentiment is once again rearing its ugly head in Germany.

The Allensbach survey results evidence a highly volatile anti-Islamic undercurrent in Germany. Watch for this trend to increasingly pervade Europe. At the same time, the Muslim voice throughout Germany and Europe shows no signs of quieting down.

The entire Continent is being primed for conflict.

Bolstered by the geopolitical preeminence of Iran and other Muslim nations, Europe’s Muslim population is increasingly bold in its demands on the national governments of Europe. Events such as the headscarf issue in France, the assassination of Theo van Gogh in Holland and the schoolyard violence in Germany show that European Muslims refuse to compromise their ideologies and expectations.

Despite the fact that large numbers of people throughout Europe are growing increasingly hostile to their presence and influence, Muslims in Europe refuse to succumb under the pressure. Clouds of tension have settled on the Continent.

With both sides refusing to compromise, tensions between Europeans and Muslim immigrants will
continue to mount. This is a geopolitical event of extreme importance; European-Islamic hostility is bound to escalate. As the Allensbach survey noted, “in most people’s minds, the Kampf der Kulturer [clash of cultures] has already begun.”

Tuesday, May 30, 2006


US Lawmakers Want Pakistan to Reopen Probe on Illicit Nuclear Network

May 25, 2006

US lawmakers on Thursday called for the reopening of a probe into a nuclear smuggling network led by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan amid concerns he could have supplied Iran with nuclear weapon designs.

Photo: US lawmakers called for the reopening of a probe into a nuclear smuggling network led by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, pictured in 2004, amid concerns he could have supplied Iran with nuclear weapon designs. (AFP / File / Aamir Qureshi)

Pakistan said earlier this month that the probe into the Khan matter was closed and that he would remain off limits to foreign investigations despite requests by the United States and the global nuclear watchdog agency IAEA to interview him.

While President George W. Bush's administration has said that Pakistan had taken all actions necessary to unravel the network and to uncover all of its secrets, lawmakers are unconvinced.

"We have given Pakistan a get-out-of-jail-free card on the single worst case of profileration in the past 50 years," Democratic Representative Gary Ackerman told a House of Representatives hearing Thursday on Khan's smuggling ring.

Ackerman and several other lawmakers pushed Washington to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a key ally in the US "war on terror," to get to the bottom of the issue.

Given the "grave consequences" of Khan's acts and "his relevancy" to the current Iranian and North Korean crises, the US and the international community should expect more from Musharraf, said Republican legislator Ed Royce, who chaired the hearing by a House panel dealing with international terrorism and nonproliferation.

"Some question whether the A Q Khan network is truly out of business, asking if it's not merely hibernating. "We'd be foolish to rule out that chilling possibility," Royce said.

"Vigilance and greater international pressure on Pakistan to air out the Khan network is in order," he said.

David Albright, an American nuclear expert, told the hearing that the Khan case "is far from closed."

"Many questions remain about what Khan and his associates supplied other countries, particularly Iran," he said.

Specific questions involving Iran include the extent of uranium-enriching centrifuge assistance, the logistics of that assistance and the possible supply of nuclear weapon designs, he said.

Photo: An aerial view of a bomb factory in Pakistan

"These areas remain especially troubling as we try to determine exactly how close Iran could be to building nuclear weapons and what sensitive information may remain in circulation around the world that could fall into the hands of other enemies of the United States, including terrorists," he said.

Leonard Weiss, a former staff director of the US Senate governmental affairs committee, told the hearing that Khan began bringing Iranian scientists to Pakistan as early as 1988 for training in technology that could accelerate its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Iran is currently under pressure to halt its nuclear energy drive, seen in the West as a mask for weapons development. The United States is pushing for UN sanctions to force the Iranians to halt their uranium enrichment activities.

Khan, currently under house arrest after being pardoned by Musharraf, has not been questioned by any non-Pakistani investigators and reportedly only answered a limited number of questions from foreign investigators, the hearing was told.

"It is safe to assume that critical questions regarding the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, and possibly other countries, go unanswered," said Democratic Representative Brad Sherman.

"This was by all accounts a massive network, but Pakistan has only focused on Khan and about a dozen associates. The last of these to be held in detention was recently released. None were prosecuted," he noted.

Aside from Iran and North Korea, Khan also reportedly sold nuclear equipment or technology to Libya and Syria.

Some information has been passed from Musharraf to the United States based on Pakistani debriefings of Khan, but neither Islamabad nor the Bush administration have made any public statements about what Khan may have said.

Khan and his associates had reportedly visited Chad, Egypt, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Monday, May 29, 2006


Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations
By Jamie Glazov | May 29, 2006

Preview Image

Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti,

gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation. Today we've invited three experts on this subject to discuss the details of Al-Tikriti's testimony and its larger significance.

Our guests today are:

John Loftus, president of the Intelligence Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan charity to support our intelligence community and a frequent commentator on terrorism for network news. For 25 years, he has been a pro bono lawyer for whistleblowers inside US and NATO intelligence. He held a Q clearance for nuclear weapons, special access to NATO Cosmic, and a codeword clearance for special intelligence. He handled intelligence research for the US Justice Dept. during the Carter and Reagan administrations.

Preview Image

Paul (Dave) Gaubatz, a former U.S. Federal Agent (Arabic linguist/counter-terrorist specialist) who was deployed to Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His mission was to search for WMDs. Four sites he identified were not searched by ISG (Iraq Survey Group) and he has waged a three year battle to get them searched. He is currently the Chief Investigator with the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dallas, TX. He can be contacted at

Preview Image


Ryan Mauro, who spoke at the recent 2006 International Intelligence Summit on Iraq. He is the 19-year old author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq and founder of He was originally hired at age 16 as a geopolitical analyst for Tactical Defense Concepts. He is also a volunteer analyst and researcher for the Northeast Intelligence Network and the Reform Party of Syria and believed to be the youngest hired geopolitical analyst in the country. He can be contacted at

Preview Image

FP: Dave Gaubatz, Ryan Mauro and John Loftus, welcome to Frontpage Sympsoium.

Ryan Mauro, your site just recently ran the first videotaped testimony, never-before-seen, of Gen. Al-Tikriti (covered in silhouette and voice modified) discussing how Iraq had WMDs and Russia's role in removing them prior to the war.

Tell us about it.

Mauro: General Al-Tikriti was known as the "Butcher of Basra" and was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein, a friend of his. He defected shortly before the Gulf War but has maintained contacts inside Iraq ever since, including weapons scientists.

He has confirmed in previous interviews that Iraq sent nuclear scientists and technology to Libya in the mid-1990s to continue his WMD programs, and that Syria is the holding place for Iraqi WMD today. He said that he had first-hand knowledge of discussions between Iraq and Syria to send their weapons programs to the other for safe harbor, should either Baghdad or Damascus be threatened with occupation.

In this videotape, he has his voice modified and face blacked out. However, I have sources who were at the taping, and who confirmed with the Iraqi embassy that he is legit. In this tape, he confirms that Russia had a secret alliance with Iraq, and that plans were developed to remove WMD from Iraq before an invasion. The Russians obviously wanted to cover their tracks.

FP: John Loftus what do you think of this videotape? And what do your sources tell you about Russia’s secret alliance with Iraq and the plans to remove WMDs before the American invasion?

Loftus: At first, there was more than a bit of skepticism. Some of my sources reported that the general had left Iraq three years earlier, and so was not in a position to know anything first hand. However, other sources say that Ryan found a bit of a gem here, and the story is legit.

It all is just a piece in the bigger puzzle, a tile in the mosaic of intelligence analysis. John Shaw, who was a deputy to the undersecretary of defense at the time of the
Iraq invasion, corroborates Ryan's thesis outright. Shaw told a shocked audience at the Intelligence Summit that he had numerous UK and Ukranian sources track Russian Spetznatz units down into Iraq. It was these Russian special forces who moved the WMD to Syria

All the pieces fit, the Russians threw sand in our eyes. They moved the WMD across the border while we went digging holes in the desert. Nice allies.

FP: These revelations destroy the Left’s main arguments and vindicate the Bush administration. Why isn’t the administration talking about this? Are we afraid of a confrontation with the Russians? Are we going to do anything about this?

Mr. Gaubatz? Before you help us with some of these questions, tell us about what your own sources are saying.

Gaubatz: My sources confirm much of the information that is stated by the individual who claims to be "General Al-Tikriti", but they are suspicious of anyone they can't see or can't hear in their natural voice. Arabic is such a distinctive language that native Arabic speakers can tell a lot about the person by the words, tone, and mannerisms displayed during the conversation. There is little doubt Saddam had WMDs and that the Russians were involved in hiding them and possibly also removing them.

I feel Mr. Loftus, Mr. Mauro, myself, and many others realize WMDs were/are in Iraq, but to convince others is difficult. This silhouette will not do it (again I am not a disbeliever). During the last two months I have had conversations with Congressman Curt Weldon, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, their staff, and even arranged to have three of the original Iraqi sources brought to the Congressmen's office for debriefings (ref:) This still hasn't resulted in suspected WMD sites from being searched in Iraq.

Based on my extensive conversations with the Congressmen and their staff, they are afraid that if they searched the suspected sites in Iraq that I identified, and the WMD has been removed by terrorists, it would destroy the upcoming elections for the Republican Party. If it was done three years ago (as I tried to get done), we would all know. Now politics is involved. We have a tough fight ahead.

FP: Thank you.

Ryan Mauro?

Mauro: The reason General Al-Tikriti's testimony needs to be heard is because he was in a position to know what would happen in the event of an invasion of Iraq and plans to hide WMD, and because we have additional information from people like General Georges Sada, the former #2 man in Saddam's air force; Jack Shaw, as Mr. Loftus pointed out; and Ion Pacepa, the former chief of Romanian intelligence, who described plans for Russia to activate a plan to move and hide WMDs out of their rogue state allies should a Western invasion be feared.

While he defected in 1990, it appears that defectors are often better at obtaining information from inside tyrannical regimes than the CIA is. I agree with Mr. Gaubatz that this silhouette won't convince the masses. I've conveyed that concern to Al-Tikriti and discussions are underway to reveal more of what he knows and how best to move forward. I am also working on several other stories that may bring forth additional evidence of a WMD transfer to Syria. A summary of most of the evidence can be seen in my previous FrontPage interview.

The release of documents found in Iraq could be promising as well. In one translated document, we see that the Chinese had information regarding a transfer to Syria, and asked the Germans, specifically Schroeder, about it, who dismissed the idea. Some of the best information and tips I've received have come from readers of my work, and hopefully, if anyone has additional information, they'll email me as well.

FP: John Loftus, a comment on the discussion thus far? And what fight do we have ahead now?

Loftus: What fight? I don’t see anyone with a will to fight. Seems like this administration just surrendered to the Russians and Chinese on the Iran vote. The UN sanctions resolution against Iran will not even mention Chapter 42 military sanctions, only Chapter 41. It seems we need Russian votes so badly against Iran, that we are willing to "forget" Russian involvement in Iraq. Some of us remember.

"Someone" in
Russia illegally moved advanced Kornet anti-tank missiles into Iraq just before the war. The only two Abrams tanks penetrated were due to these Russian-made hand-held Kornet misssiles. In violation of all international prohibitions against Arms trading with Iraq, the Russians sold Saddam the Kornet, the only missile capable of destroying American tanks.

The Americans used to own the night, due to our night vision equipment, but "someone" in
Russia sold the latest version to the insurgents. The list of passive aggressive hostile actions goes on and on. In the first hour of the war, "someone" in Russia
electronically jammed our Patriot anti-missile systems causing our rockets to go way of course.

The Kremlin would have us believe that these incidents were caused by corrupt civilians, not by the Russian military. Of course, the Russians count as civilians anyone who temporarily swaps their uniform for civvies, such as the Spetznatz units in
. Do the Russians think we are stupid?

Every senior member of a Western, European or Asian intelligence service whom I have ever met all agree that the Russians moved the last of the WMDs out of Iraq in the last few months before the war. A Syrian journalist who defected to
Paris brought with him a map of where the Russians buried the WMDs. Our spy satellites confirmed a huge volume of military trucks and chemical trucks moving into Syria
before the war. Do the Russians think we are stupid?

The Russians sold their WMD support to Saddam for oil. That is why
Russia got more illegal oil payments from Saddam than all nations on earth combined. The Russians did for Saddam what they did for every Eastern European country they evacuated: they sent in Spetznatz units to shred all records of Russian involvement and truck the WMDs back to Russia

The problem is only partly with a lazy and indolent media. The problem is that this State Department has decided that all Russian peccadillos must be overlooked for the greater good of preventing
Iran from getting WMDs. I think Rumsfled was right when he said that we need an American desk at the State Department. I like Condi and I even liked Colin, but neither of them have tamed the beast of appeasement that dwells in foggy bottom. That is why nothing is ever done about Russian involvement in hiding Iraqi WMD, or anything else. This administration is begging the Russians for votes on Iran
. No matter how much we offer, we will never get them.

The Pentagon knows the truth about appeasement and is planning for war. The Iranians know we know and they are planning for war too, only a war against
Israel. Kill a few Jews and the Americans will back off is the Iranian game plan. Iran's paid stooges, Hezbollah and Hamas, may have already received some of the Syrian stockpile of Saddams WMDs. I toured the Israeli defenses on the border with Lebanon and the Golan heights, and the IDF officers there are preparing for the day when Saddam's "missing" chemical and biological weapons start showing up in force. I wish the White House was as ready.

FP: This is truly a depressing picture. The Russians, if this is all true, are literally our enemies. The Cold War never ended. We just got the War on Terror on top of it now.

Gaubatz: The interview with General Al-Tikriti needs to be shown, but it would be much better if he would not disguise his voice. I can somewhat understand a silhouette, but see no purpose in disguising his voice. His voice could be analyzed by experts and more people would support our beliefs.

In my intelligence reports during the war I advised all Departments of DOD, DOJ, CIA, etc.... that not only were the Russians involved in many aspects of daily life in Iraq (weapons factories, businesses, supplying non conventional technology/weapons to Iraq) but the Iranians were coming into southern Iraq by the thousands. There was no intelligence failure, only an intelligence dissemination failure.

I have been fighting a 3 year battle to have four suspected WMD sites inspected in southern Iraq. It is unbelievable what I am having to go through. When I speak to Congressmen they want to know what evidence I have to support my claim. I am not a man who normally curses, but "hell" my evidence is ME! The U.S. Government (which most days includes Congressmen) handpicked me to deploy to Iraq specifically to look for WMD. They spent several hundred thousand dollars to send me to 2500 hours of Arabic language instruction, 3 week immersion tours in Jordan, months in Saudi Arabia. I had worked counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence for 15 plus years, and had a Top Secret/SCI clearance. Again, "hell", but all I should have had to do is say I have a "gut feeling" WMD may be at a certain location and the place should have been torn apart. Yet, I provided everything imaginable and can't get them searched.

I can't quit until I pound the media a bit. I read and watch all news everyday, and just shake my head at some of the crap. We have spent weeks on the NSA phone records issue, and all of this was based on an "anonymous source". Yet I contact the media (for the sole purpose of having WMD sites searched so our children will not experience a WMD attack, and everyone of them want me to produce classified documents (which I don't have), they want every Iraqi source identified to talk on TV (they are fearful for their lives), they want pictures of the WMD. If it were that easy I would have carried the barrels on my back to get them out of the terrorists’ hands. Greta Van Susteran can spend 1.5 years of almost daily airtime on one possible homicide in Aruba, and I can't get 5 minutes to prevent America from being hit with chemical and biological weapons which can kill millions.

I am just thankful we have people like Jamie Glazov and FrontPageMag who make every attempt to get the truth out.

FP: Well thank you David Gaubatz, we try our best, but it is warriors and soldiers like you gentlemen that courageously get the truth to put in our hands. Ryan Mauro?

Mauro: My Iraqi sources do believe some WMD remain in Iraq, as Mr. Gaubatz says. However, I personally don't see why the Russians would leave anything behind. Mr. Loftus correctly criticizes the State Department. I hold them responsible for a lot of issues not being solved (that could be solved!) such as the WMD, Syria, Iran, etc. At the same time, I'm truly disappointed that the Administration has dropped the ball on this topic. Either the top officials haven't been presented with all this in one lump sum, and only have received fragments here or there, or they are incompetent. Or there's some other big game being played that I can't grasp.

I know for a fact that a lot of people in government, military and intelligence believe and have supporting information for this issue. I know average citizens of the Middle East have supporting information (I've received some, coordinates included, but the intelligence agencies never called me back).

If any readers of this Symposium have information and can legally do so, step up and help us press this issue. FrontPage has a very educated and influential readership and together, we can get the truth out to mainstream America.

FP: John Loftus?

Loftus: Ryan has covered a lot of territory in his book and in his talks that some government agencies simply do not want to discuss. Dave may have uncovered weapons sites so embarrassing that no bureaucrat wants to find them, A lot of folks inside the beltway have bet their careers that no WMD will be found in Iraq. Their careers are more important to them than the truth or the national interest.

As President of the Intelligence Summit, I was appalled to find that so many agencies tried to suppress what Bill Tierney had to say at our conference in February. Bill's expert translation of the long-forgotten Saddam wiretaps shows that this is a very controversial topic to say the least. As a result of Bill's heroic efforts, the President ordered his intelligence community to reverse course, reopen the wmd issue, and accelerate the translation of the documents and tapes we captured from saddam.

All is not last. We have quiet heroes among us. Gary Metz of is a key link between Iranian dissidents and American readers. Yet, Gary never gets a cent of compensation from the US Government, despite the fact that his website is read by virtually every iranian desk officer in US intell. Gary is going quietly broke, and will go under unless he gets some financial sponsors from private individuals.

Another quiet hero of mine is Eric Shawn. His new book, "The U.N. Exposed" does just that. The problem of indifference is not confined to American bureacrats, it is endemic at the international level. Still, somehow, we will muddle through. Perhaps because we have such people as Dave, Ryan and Eric who fight for the truth. They are the kind of people who still believe in the meaning behind the words inscribed on the wall at the CIA: "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

It has been my honor to be in their company.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, final word goes to you.

Gaubatz: I have respect for Mr. Mauro and Mr. Loftus. Each of us need to continue pressing the issue of WMD in Iraq. There is much more to do before we can say there never was WMD in Iraq. I think all of us agree that the Russians have some involvement and our State Department and other leaders need to press them to come forward. Since I don't see this happening I will continue to get my message out to the American public the best way I possibly can. Right now it is my website,

On 25 May 2006 I received calls from politicans pressuring me to take my website down. I simply advised my website will come down once all suspected WMD sites are inspected in Iraq. I was told to not "upset the wrong people". Only they (who I will not mention at this time) know what this means. I was also told by the politicians that a "retired CIA Agent" is researching the WMD issue and has come to the conclusion there never was or is no WMD in Iraq. I hope this superhero CIA Agent will tell us he used heavy equipment and drained tons of water along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers before he makes himself look foolish like Charles Duelfer (ISG) previously did. No one can say there is/was no WMD until all suspected sites are searched.
My "mysterious politicans" who called to pressure me yesterday further mentioned the media does not need to be involved in the WMD issue. To me this means the American people do not need to know if WMD was or was not in Iraq. I had to disagree with them and said the cameras need to be there when these suspected sites are searched. I am not afraid to be embarrassed if nothing is there; I think most Americans will be very upset though if WMD was there and was removed in the last 3 years since I have tried to get them searched. Mr. Mauro, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Glazov, please keep pushing the WMD issue. Our military personnel and children need all of us to uncover the truth even if some politicians do not want to know the truth because it could hurt their political careers.

FP: And it has been an honor for me to be in your gentlemen's company. Dave Gaubatz, Ryan Mauro and John Loftus, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

Blog Archive