I was looking for something and found these:
January 15, 2011: Two More Americans Killed by the Great Society Abroad
Just as the Great Society didn't work in our own country on our own people, the Great Society Abroad doesn't work on alien peoples in foreign cultures, either. It didn't work in Vietnam, as discussed here by the late Peter Braestrup, and it doesn't work in Iraq or Afghanistan. This means that it's not a military defeat that faces us on what I wish were imminent withdrawal from the umma (oh, happy day, and good riddance), but rather another costly validation of the fact that social engineering doesn't work, even with guns.
January 21, 2011: "Peter King's Radicalization Hearings: Another Barrel of Monkeys?"
That phrase -- "radical Islam" -- is truly a marvel: a 14-karat, bulletproof, titanium shield for Islam itself, which, sorry guys and gals, is the source of all things we deem "radical" in Islam. "Islam is Islam and that's it," as Turkey's Erdogan so memorably put it. But since we don't want Islam to be "it," we pretend and operate and make policy and even war based on some mythic radicalism of "twisted" or "hijacked" or "perverted" Islam.
January 27, 2011: "Eyeless in A-stan"
If America were at all serious about defeating Islamic terrorism, if America were at all serious about turning back Islamic jihad and the law of Islam (Shariah), it would have long ago realized that it is the USA that needs to be safeguarded against becoming a "haven," not Afghanistan. Fighting them over there, as that idiotic Bush line went, absolutely does not keep them from coming here. Border control does. Immigration law does. Travel restrictions do. Legal prohibitions on Shariah finance and other instruments of encroaching Islamic law do. Policing our own lawless frontier, not Afghanistan's, does.
February 3, 2011: "Freedom" vs. "Freedom"
Universalists believe all peoples prefer freedom to its absence, which is probably true. But they also believe all peoples define "freedom" in the same way. Is that true?
The answer -- and first concept -- is no. The entry on freedom, or hurriyya, in the "Encyclopedia of Islam" describes a state of divine enthrallment that bears no resemblance to any Western understanding of freedom as predicated on the workings of the individual conscience. According to the encyclopedia, Islamic freedom is "the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and His human slaves who are completely dependent on Him." Ibn Arabi, a Sufi scholar of note, is cited for having defined freedom as "being perfect slavery" to Allah. To put it another way, Islamic-style "freedom" is freedom from unbelief.
Suddenly, something seems very lost in Bush-speak translation. It has been from the start, which helps explain what's gone wrong in U.S. wars in the umma. Bringing Western-style "freedom" to the Islamic world may have resembled an idealistic extension of the civil rights crusade in the eyes of President Bush and his followers, but it was actually one giant cultural misunderstanding.
February 25, 2011: The Global Caliphate and Universal Delusion
Here is what is "delusional": the belief that American principles -- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality before the law -- have a natural place as "universal principles" in a culture grounded in Shariah principles. This is the pure fantasy that has driven our foreign policy through a decade of "nation-building" wars.