I have had twenty-six years' experience with the Indians, and I have been among tribes where I spoke their language. I have known the Indians intimately - known them in their private relations - I think I understand the Indian character pretty well. They talk about breaking up their tribal relations. The Interior Department have frequently issued letters, etc., looking to that. It might as well try to break up a band of sheep. Give these Indians little farms, survey them, let them put fences around them, let them have their own horses, cows, sheep, things that they can call their own, and it will do away with tribal Indians.

When once an Indian sees that his food is secure, he does not care what the chief or any one else says. 

    ---General George Crook, Testimony to Congress (1879)

The main problem, the "toughest" problem is the easiest to solve, according to Crook.

I think so to.

The jihadis tell the ummah that anyone who defends Islam is automatically a terrorist in the eyes of the West. 

We've pretty much proved that true a few times since 9/11.

Defending Islam also means defending Shari'a Justice.

Would they impose Shari'a on all of us?

Depends upon who you mean when you say "they." The vast majority of Muslims wouldn't harm a fly. You should go to a Ramadan celebration sometime.

"They" certainly believe that the supremacy of Islam is inevitable in the long run. We'll all be under Islam in the future.

Yes, it's a war, but it's not a war like we're used to, nor much like any war in the past.

The inroads and victories won't be found in confronting Islam. It will be by winning over the ummah.

200 words is tough. Even when you violate it all the time like I do.

I think it's an exaggeration to believe the jihadis, in any general sense, are attempting to wipe out the United States.

Of course, they want Andalusia back for starters, along with Quds (Israel). And they'd like to take up their empire building again. They believe it will happen eventually.

Metacomet had many of the same grievances as the jihad, of course. Especially during the course of the Iraq Sanctions.

It's not a moot question in the slightest.

Are they at war with us?

When bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996 and 1998, this had little impact on the vast majority of jihadis. Bin Laden was not well respected by anyone but Time Magazine, ABC News and the FBI back then. Jihad leaders discounted bin Laden as a publicity hound, which generally is looked down upon as unIslamic.

The Sunni Jihad was still concentrating on the apostate regimes and Israel, the Near Enemy. As you say: Islam waring with itself.

The Shi'ites, OTOH, concentrated on both the Near Enemy and the Far Enemy, as theirs has been a global game since the Revolution. They even have that idea enshrined in the Iranian Constitution.

The war condensed to clarification only when America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which, again, I fully supported and still support.

Can you see the dilemma yet?

Many  jihadis were always against fighting the Far Enemy, i.e., America. It was a fight most thought they could never win, and America was better behaved back then. Reagan left Lebanon, after all.

After Gulf War I it was different.

Some jihadis were always in favor of fighting the Far Enemy.

Which are which?

That wasn't an insurrection.

First of all, the Qutbists are reacting. I come under fire for pointing this out, but our current dilemma stems directly from Gulf War I. Please understand up front that I wholeheartedly defend the actions of the United States in that war, but not at all what happened afterwards. What happened afterwards is a permanent stain on our history. I'd like to blame it all on Clinton, but can't.

They were also reacting earlier to the multinational force that was sent to Lebanon during the Civil War--which resulted in Hizbullah (organized by the Iranian Pasdaran or IRGC, among which was a young officer named Ahmadinejad) bombing the French and US Marine barracks.

No mastery, not an expert, it's just a subject that interests me.

If you don't mind starting with the last chapter first, you might like Once They Moved Like the Wind by David Roberts, which deals exclusively with the Apache. It's lyrical and well written; and it's for those who might not know anything about the Apache or the Indian Wars.

The Apache were the last of the Indians to be pacified, but it won't spoil it for you: you already know how the story turns out, anyway.

Geronimo's own account, his famous autobiography, is free and online. It's also a great place to start, and it's easy to read, unless you're susceptible to melancholy.

When Pontios Pilatos (Pilate) came to Jerusalem, he naturally brought the Roman standards and shields with him, and placed them prominently around Fortress Antonius. The problem was, these depicted pagan deities.

The fortress was actually built on Zion and attached to the Temple grounds.

The Jewish extremists (which pretty much included all the population of Jerusalem in the First Century) went ballistic.

You know why: The Hebrewist Terrorists took YHVH's Commandments literally and inviolate. They'd been punished much over the preceding 600 years for violating them, themselves.

There would and could be no real intercourse between Roman and Jewish religions or cultures (though the Romans would mistakenly take in Jews and Jewish religious culture to transport back to Rome). Even Roman denarii were not tolerated in Temple offerings, they had to be converted to shekels first (hence the money changers Yeshua castigated).

The point here being the obvious one. 2000 years later, we clearly see the mistakes the Romans made in Palestine; how they led to failure. Let's hope in 2000 years, historians will be talking about what America did right.

Graduate. Enter into a power career and shoot to the top. In 25 years offer the University the largest alumni grant in its history.

Once you get them on the hook, tell them you have to meet with the president before you'll finalize the grant.

Once in the president's office, and the door is closed, reveal your conditions: eliminate the speech codes.

You might think this should make them Austrians, but they're seeing the data differently than you, and perhaps somewhat clearer, as well.

It means, to them, that Fascism (Economic Corporatism) works.

Hell, a strong majority of Americans think so, too. Certainly all the Democrats and about 1/2 of the Republicans.

And, indeed, Economic Corporatism does work.

For a while...

The Romans were religious liberals. They brought their gods wherever they conquered, and would take the new gods they encountered back to Rome. This tended to fascinate the conquered nations, because of the interesting new cults and cult practices the Romans introduced. It worked well back on the home front because the Roman middle and upper classes were also fascinated by new religious deities and cults. It's thought this practice is how the Greek and Roman pagan panoplies became so large. Many Romans were deeply religious, but far from closed minded or dogmatic. There was always room for something more; something different.

This flexible liberalism in everything from commerce to religion worked well.

So well, in fact, that history only records two major insurrections in the empire. Both were in the same province.

Can you guess which province this was?

We did that during the Indian Wars, as well. Always switched at the wrong times. And sometimes we sought to conquer, and some times we sought to compromise; again always the wrong course at the wrong time.

The Indians' mistakes mirrored the Americans', which complicated everything tragically.

It wasn't until the Sioux Uprisings and the later Apache Uprising that differences between familial, tribal and nation groups were well understood by the Americans. In other words, if you made peace with the White Mountain Apache, we finally understood that had no real bearing on the Chiricahua Apaches' behavior, and vice versa.

Only at the end did the Americans realize some of their mistakes in dealing and treating with the Indians. By then, there was nothing left but to herd the Indians into concentration camps, anyway.

The soldiers, like General Crook, who were called upon to commit genocide, were the first to understand the real errors, and to see through to the real tragedy.

America today has an Apache Problem.

Yes, the US Indian Wars.

The wars where Americans proved time and again they couldn't discern enough about their enemies to fight them effectively. They would ally with enemies and fight friends. Time and time again.

In the end, to our eternal discredit, Americans called for genocide--the last resort of incompetence.

George Crook, in his testimony to Congress, explained why genocide was the wrong course, and how the government could solve the Indian question decisively without wars of annihilation.

We didn't listen to him then, either.

The difference there is: we know who bombed Pearl Harbor.

We know about some individuals who were responsible for blowing up the World Trade Center, but most of those individuals are either in custody or dead. This was as true back in 2003 as it is today.

How do you define "al-Qaeda?"

Don't kid yourself.

Since when does reason have anything to do with their exploitation of crises?

The left watched America unite around the events of 9/11, all to the advantage of the Republicans.

When the Dubya landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, it was just too much for any of them to bear.

They'll give it a good try with Boston.

Islam is not at war with you.

We had much the same problem during our Indian Wars. You can repeat those tragedies if you wish. I'll have none of it.

The Dubya took the correct course, except that he never explained the war well enough to satisfy anyone. Part of that was his fault, part of it was ours.