Egyptians Can Storm a Mosque. Why Can’t We?

Maybe we can learn a little from the Egyptian army, and I’m only being half facetious. Not that I agree with the wholesale slaughter of people, but the Egyptian military appears to have little tolerance for uprisings and Islamists.

Now wholesale slaughter may not be accurate. I’m not currently in Cairo and wasn’t during the last week of violence and hundreds of dead. As far as I can tell there has been no determination of massive loss of “innocent” lives. It may very well be mostly Muslim Brotherhood radicals. If that’s the case, it’s fine by me.

The most recent incident of Egyptian authorities and their intolerance for Islamists was at the Fateh Mosque in Rameses Square, Cairo. One report from a witness inside the mosque claimed that there were 700 people including women and children. One has to wonder if the women and children were to be used as human shields.

NBC news reported that armed men began entering the Fateh mosque last Friday night and on Saturday gunmen in the mosque “unleashed bullets at security officials below.” The gunmen were positioned on a minaret.

The Huffington Post reported that Egyptian security forces stormed the mosque after firing tear gas at hundreds of “Islamists” barricaded inside. Huff Po also reported that gunmen on a minaret fired first.

The New York Times described the scene similarly and also called the mosques occupants “Islamists.”

The Egyptian security forces did storm the mosque and cleared out the “Islamists.” They didn’t give a second thought to returning fire when fired upon from inside a mosque.

Although I feel for the innocent civilians being caught up in the violence, that’s not what this is about.

What surprised me, a little, was the liberal use of the word “Islamist” by the lefty news outlets. Although, not surprisingly, Al Jazeera made no mention of that word. They called them protesters.

In not one of the mainstream media articles I read was there any mention of “freedom fighter” or “insurgent.” I guess those terms are reserved for those who kill Americans.

It also appears that the mainstream media has little problem with the Egyptian security forces “rules of engagement.” Nowhere did I see any condemnation or any editorial comment regarding the firing upon or storming of a mosque. Funny how that is.

So why don’t the Egyptian military or police appear to care? Simple; they want to win and do so quickly and decisively.

This prompted me to look back at America’s politically correct “rules of engagement” for some contrast.

It seems that if we fire upon a mosque even after being first fired upon, it will just lead to further jihadist recruiting and riots in the streets — that a mosque attack would just further the notion that America is at war with all of Islam.

A military spokesman said US soldiers do not enter mosques. They are to respect the sanctity and holiness of all places of worship. I wasn’t aware firing an AK-47 was integral to prayer.

During the Iraq war soldiers were forbidden from entering mosques even during a firefight without permission of senior commanders under consultation with Iraqi authorities.

A military strike that might have caused more than 30 civilian casualties had to be signed off by the Secretary of Defense. You read that right. The Secretary of Defense!

Yet even according to the Geneva Convention — a place of worship, a hospital or any structure that is used for military purposes is considered a “dual structure” and can be targeted.

So the politically correct girlie men that set American military engagement policy evidently believe the Geneva Convention doesn’t go far enough.

Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger and counterinsurgency specialist said: “They (our leaders) are thinking – How’s that gonna play on Al Jazeera?”

In contrast, the Egyptian military evidently couldn’t care less what Al Jazeera thinks. That’s why they will most likely win. And that’s why we haven’t won a war since the Second World War and assuming we don’t change, why we never will again.

It’s a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.