Fitzgerald: The Adventure in Iraq

Morning all!

OT~ Today’s leftist islamic jihadist support news:

Prof compares 911 victims to nazis:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16812

Yesterday’s religious left opposed WWII:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16763

The Swimmer blames US for Terror (political report):
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050127-115824-3565r.htm

Lambasting the Iraq 'misadventure' has become fashionable of late, esp. in self-proclaimed liberal circles. Bush shares a good deal of the blame for his colossal failure to explain the true nature of the war we're fighting. By hoping that the magic mantras of freedom and democracy will bring light unto muslim lands, Bush and co. have actually embarked upon what's probably the most humanistic solution (if solution it is) to the jihad problem.

The domino effect of freedom spreading led to the collapse of the Soviet empire within 2 yrs of the fall of the Berlin wall and Bush's hoping a repeat may happen in the middle east once Iraq (and maybe Iran) goes revolutionary (for freedom is truly a revolutionary concept in the ME excepting Israel). Israel btw, is the perennial exception in the ME in almost all politico-socio-economic matters.

The cribbers and anti-war rabble-rousers fail to come up with any *solution* to jihad i.e. doing something that may have some chance of countering jihadism. As of now Bush's plan is the best bet the world has. Hugh, and many of us here at JW I suspect, *know* such a wilsonian approach will fail in the face of jihad and indeed history seems to bear us out.

But doing something is better than doing nothing. even if the aims of the Bush admion aren't fully realized, the Iraq adventure probably wasn't totally worthless.

The latest hand-wringing in Washington seems to be over the possibility that the Iraqi government elected Sunday will set a time-table for the withdrawal of American troops.
Why is this a bad thing?
A time-table will establish the United States' exit strategy. From an American perspective, the US has achieved what strategic goals it can realisticly expect to accomplish in Iraq. Like it or not, the Bush Administration appears committed to remaining in-country while Iraqi security forces are brought on-line, and to lend special ops forces to handle the finesse work involved with hunting down the likes of Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. Beyond that, the time-table will provide the framework for the long-awaited drawdown of American forces in Iraq. This is something the Bush Administration should welcome, not resist. Even if pulling US forces out of Iraq right now is not in the equation, the process of withdrawing them should be. It's time to start bringing our troops back home.

There's Gary the Canadian, meddling in the affairs of REAL Americans again. You know, Americans that aren't also citizens in another nation?

Didn't Gary recently say that we wouldn't talk politics unless I did? Well, I guess maybe Gary has several definitions of the word "would."

So today's big news for Gary is that A professor, a religious group from 60 years ago, and Ted Kennedy dares to agree with George Bush Sr. and say that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

Gary will of course never mention or comment on any right-wing Islamic apologist, nor any right-wing abettor of Islam in general and jihad in particular. He will never acknowledge the right-wing hate blather perpetuated by such prestigious academies as Pepperdine University, Bob Jones University, Liberty University, etc.

He will go blissfully to his grave denying that Laura Bush murdered her first fiancee in a car "accident" and was never even arrested. He will acknowledge neither the "race problem" nor the "women's rights" problem that his side has, because as far as he is concerned, his side is perfect.

Anyway, Hugh asks:

bringing "democracy" defined merely as a counting of heads, which in turn will inevitably lead to --- what, exactly?

Hugh, I think you know the answer to your question. Generally, "democracy" in a land of religious nuts leads to: SHARIA. "Democracy" in Iraq will lead to Iran II, only THIS Iran is going to have trillions of dollars in oil revenue.

Thank God that Pakistan is being lead by a "dictator" who's western values and military training help keep the ignorant populace from "electing" Bin Laden or one of his thousands of clones.

I am American, kj the lying bastard.

And you have once again proved you cannot learn from history- a major deficit of the left.

I do no deny anything, you hippocrit. You are the one who consistently defends your side of the argument. And you are the one attributing thoughts and words to me that are not me.

Leftist Taqqiya. Lies.

The domino effect of freedom spreading led to the collapse of the Soviet empire within 2 yrs of the fall of the Berlin wall and Bush's hoping a repeat may happen

That must be one of his "faith-based" programs. Because I think that Hugh, Spencer, and anyone else can tell you that it's NOT going to happen. You see, the Soviets wanted to be happy and free. Muslim nuts want to make every one more miserable, because the goal of Islam (and one other popular religion I won't name here) is to make people less happy now, and get them to set their sights on the afterlife.

Please, all sarcasm aside, does ANYONE here think that "a free" Iraq is going to be any better than Iran? I don't mean after the first election. I mean in a couple of years, when the Shia MAJORITY has enacted their terrible agenda?

Someone, anyone, please answer. Seriously. Let's hear why YOU think that this isn't going to happen.

The cribbers and anti-war rabble-rousers fail to come up with any *solution* to jihad i.e. doing something that may have some chance of countering jihadism.

How about killing the jihadis? How about making an example of Bin Laden, the king of Jihadis? How about shutting down the madrassas? Here's an idea: how about TELLING the Suadis to shut down the madrassas? How about electing a president that doesn't love the Saudis?

Did you read on this site recently that the Saudis are preparing to build 4 THOUSAND more madrassas? HELLOOOO? The madrassas MADE the Taliban.

Oh well. Just keep telling yourself everything will be alright. Dub will protect us. You look great in brown lipstick.

If we bugout of Iraq, China and Iran will form an alliance to control Mid East oil flows. Likely slapping a $20 surcharge on each barrel headed to the United States or any one else who defies them. China/Iran have been signing huge trade pacts recently. China wants Iranian oil at good prices and Iran wants ...... what does China have that Iran wants? Think!

ANSWER: Nuclear and military technology and cheap consumer goods

Gary
kj is you tip-cal lib can't make up his mind which side he is on thinks he can save the world all by his-self??

Dose-not need any to help only wants side liners and when he gets his ass whip-ed will cry why didn't you help me??????

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strenght, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Defeat ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who SUPPORT them Amen

PS
Yes he is the one calling the copss piges but when would need help calls them and says you have to help me,But wouldn't it be nice if that cop would just say I' aint picken up the phone to save your sorry ass call some one who cares??

PSS
kj made a point the other day in defence of the Saudis[although did-not know it] when talking about the pick-pocket said his Navy family member did not turn in the theif because they would have cut his hand off??

Well 80 lashes is a bit exsive but the kid is alive and has his hand things must be changing???

Hugh, if all naysayers about American involvement in Iraq used the same argument as you, we'd be better off. I am afraid you are right; I am praying you are wrong.

gary, please ignore kj's rants. he plays you like a piano. kj, i almost spewed my morning Coke when i read Laura Bush was a murderess. I am glad you are on board Jihadwatch, but why don't you go talk to the progressives? You can demonstrate your credibility by bashing our first lady and then launch into the evils of Islam.

kj-
You know and I know America's position vis a vis the Saudis is a delicate one. We can talk all we want about breaking bad on them, but short of invading the oil fields we have no choice but to maintain a "diplomatic" rapport with the Saudis because of our dependence on their oil.
Despite the Michael Moore-esque conspiracies concerning Bush's "love" for the Saudis, to his credit, Bush has done actually done something to combat them. What did Clinton do about the Saudis, or the presidents that preceded him? Effectively nothing - the Wahhabi madrasses in Afghanistan didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere in 2000, did they?
The one thing that has separated Bush from his predecessors is that he has actually DONE something to deal with the Wahhabi menace emanating from the Arabian peninsula. It's safe to say a Shi'a Iraq is going to preoccupy Riyadh's attention, just as Shi'a Iran preoccupied its attention following the 1979 revolution.
As for whether Iraq is going to end up like Iran, that's pure speculation.

Here's an article I think you will all find quite interesting - it's what we really need to be looking at in the Middle East:

"Regional Implications of Shi‘a Revival in Iraq"

www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_nasr.pdf

former liberal writes:

"Gary, please ignore kj's rants. he plays you like a piano."

Must agree. Besides, kj's frustrations spring from the bland realization that a majority of conservatives "get it" when it comes to the dangers posed by jihad and islamofascism whereas *his side* continues to live in denial and sometimes (unwittingly?) ends up giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Conservatives aren't perfect. I'll admit to that. What you, kj, unfortunately are unable to understand is that neither are liberals.

Some of the postings above would place me in the same company with such appeasers as the chocolate soldier Brent Scowcroft, well-known for his pro-Arab sympathies, and the blowhard Edward Kennedy, well known for...

My reason for urging that the American forces leave Iraq is for quite different reasons -- indeed, the opposite reasons from the philo-al-Saud, anti-Israel bent of Scowcroft, or the sentimental bloviations of Kennedy, long past his sell-by date. It is because Islam is a threat, and can through demography and Da'wa accomplish what cannot be accomplished through direct military conflict, that one would like American forces to leave.

This would only be a defeat, a "bugging out," if it were unaccompanied by a series of measures designed to show that the American government is beginning to reflect an understanding of Islam. Stop calling it a "religion." Stop these sentimental and baseless Family-of-Man pieties about how "everyone wants freedom" and "freedom isn't free." [And granted, it "isn't free" but why is it the Americans and not those in Iraq themselves, who have been doing, and are expected to do, practically everything?]

The misallocation of resources is a real problem. There is a finite amount of everything -- of men, money, materiel, reserves of high morale. These can be drawn down, and in the case of the last, they will not be built up again. The soldier who read a poem at Camp Victory (you can get the transcript; it was broadcast by Lourdes Navarro on "All Things Considered" on Jan. 24) expressed what many soldiers feel, and no amount of propaganda and party-line from the top will change what they see, and understand:

"Why you want to kill me?
I just want to help you?
You just try to kill me.
I just try to help you."

It was a kind of hip-hop inflection (and I may have misremembered a word or two), but it was telling.

The invocation of "democracy" ignores the fact that de-islamization must precede democracy; it will not come afterwards. The idea that everyone will be so busy running for alderman or dogcatcher that, like that old (and obnoxious) slogan that they had in Atlanta when a few decades ago it was becoming "the New South": "The City Too Busy to Hate."). Presumably the Iraqis will be so busy being democratic that they will stop hating Infidels. Nonsense. Ataturk constrained Islam, and then, having pushed it out of politics and much else in Turkish life, he proceeded to introduce, with a sufficient secular base, a kind of "democracy." That "democracy" and the Kemalism on which it rests is in permanent danger of being whittled down by Islam; look at Erdogan and his associates today.

Any American withdrawal from Iraq should clearly be accompanied by, or soon followed by, decisive acts that are necessary in any case. The most obvious one is the destruction of Iran's nuclear capability, which will temporarily cause some Iranians to rally-round-the-flag, but within a short time will have exposed the regime to ridicule and further loss of face. In the Sudan, at the next failure of the northern regime to honor its solemn commitments, a very small American force could seize the southern Sudan (and Darfur) and hold them for a "referendum" that will: 1) guarantee their independence 2) exhibit to the world smiling faces of grateful black Africans 3) supply a secure American base which can steady East Africa, and be within range of both the Middle East and North Africa. 4) serve as protection for Ethiopia as it begins to divert, as it has every right to do, headwaters of the Nile, without letting Egypt bully it and 5) hearten black African Christians, who have been under assault since Col. Ojukwu, back in 1969, spoke of the war for Biafra and the "Jihad" against the Nigerian Christians (aided by those Egyptian pilots who mercilessly bombed Christian Ibo villages).

In Europe, with the Iraqi adventure over, Americans should collaborate with those forces within Europe -- not the out-and-out crooks like Chirac of course, who simply have to be abided until they lose office and can be put on trial for corruption -- which are not inconsiderable, and that do not regard with equanimity the loss of their own lands to Muslim invaders -- not miltary invaders, but migrants who far from "integrating" (a hopeless task) show every sign of remaing not merely the carriers of an alien creed, but of a hostile creed, to art, science, individual autonomy, everything that is interesting and worth preserving in Europe and the West.

Out of Iraq not because, as the scowcrofts and kennedys think, Islam is no threat, and the administration is exaggerating -- but precisely because Islam is a great threat.

Hugh, if we are too tired and worn to have our military in the Middle East, other great powers are not. Moscow is geographically close to the Middle East and China is aiming to lock up future oil supplies. Nature abhors a vacuum. The Middle East will not be long without another great power(s) dominating it if we withdraw from Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall to Osama Bin Laden types.

Keep your eye on the China/Iran alliance to control Mid East oil. Iran's first move after our withdrawal is to take control of Iraq's Shi'ite territories and as much Iraqi oil as it can lay hands on. China will provide the nuclear umbrella 20 minutes after we bug out. China's hungry economic machine will get greatly discounted oil for decades in exchange for building up Iraq's military strength. Russia will also rush into this new Middle East power vacuum we create by withdrawal

If we demolished Iran's nuclear program, the Chinese could rebuild it within months. This Iraq war sucks, each American death and maiming is terrible. But withdrawal would only will make our world position worse. Much worse. China/Iran would have the ability to impose $20 surcharge on all US bound oil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145702,00.html
Fashion Writer Tsks Cheney's Wardrobe Malfunction
Friday, January 28, 2005

OSWIECIM, Poland — Vice President Dick Cheney's () utilitarian hooded parka and boots stood out amid the solemn formality of a ceremony commemorating the liberation of Nazi death camps, raising eyebrows among the fashion-conscious.
Cheney replaced the zipped-to-the-neck green parka he sported in Thursday's blowing snow and freezing wind with a more traditional black coat — red tie and gray scarf showing underneath — for his tour of Auschwitz () on Friday.
Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan () described Cheney's look at the sober and dignified 60th anniversary service as "the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower."
"Cheney stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood," Givhan wrote in Friday's Post, also mocking Cheney's knit ski cap embroidered with the words "Staff 2001" and his brown, lace-up hiking boots. "The vice president looked like an awkward child amid the well-dressed adults," she said.
THIS IS WHAT THEY COME UP WITH?? ROTFL??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145333,00.html
Schroeder Pays Tribute to Auschwitz Victims
Tuesday, January 25, 2005

BERLIN — Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder paid tribute Tuesday to the victims of the Auschwitz () death camp, acknowledging the Nazis had wide support and promising that Germany will fulfill its "moral obligation" to keep alive the memory of their crimes.
"I express my shame in the face of those who were murdered — and above all you, who survived the hell of the concentration camps," a somber Schroeder told a commemoration at a theater that included survivors of the camp liberated 60 years ago Thursday.
Some 1.5 million people, most of them Jews from across Europe, died in gas chambers or of disease and exhaustion at Auschwitz and neighboring Birkenau (). The death camps were the most notorious set up by Adolf Hitler () to carry out his "final solution," the murder of Europe's Jewish population.
Six million Jews died in the Nazi camps, along with several million others, including Soviet prisoners of war, Gypsies, homosexuals and political opponents of the Nazis.
Amid concern that the lessons of the Holocaust () still need reinforcing, elderly survivors of Auschwitz and world leaders will gather Thursday at the death camp site in Poland to mark its Jan. 27, 1945, liberation by the Red Army.
"The evil of Nazi ideology did not occur without preconditions," Schroeder said at the event organized by the International Auschwitz Committee (). "The brutalization of thought and the loss of moral inhibitions had a history; above all, Nazi ideology was desired by people and man-made."
"There can be no compensation for the scale of the horror, the torture and the suffering that took place in the concentration camps," Schroeder said.
The memory of the Nazi genocide "is part of our national identity," he said. "Remembering the era of National Socialism and its crimes is a moral obligation — we owe that not only to the victims, the survivors and the relatives, but to ourselves.
"It is true that the temptation to forget and suppress it is great, but we will not succumb to it," Schroeder promised.
He vowed German leaders would protect the country's growing Jewish community "with the power of the state against the anti-Semitism of the incorrigible.
"That there is still anti-Semitism cannot be denied," Schroeder said. "Fighting it is the task of all society."
Auschwitz survivor Kurt Julius Goldstein recalled being forced onto one of the Nazis' "death marches" westward as the Nazi defeat approached.
"I was in a column that was about 3,000 strong when we set off," said Goldstein, 90, his voice breaking with emotion. "When we were registered at Buchenwald () on Jan. 22, there were less than 500 of us — more dead than alive."
Auschwitz "is the biggest cemetery in the whole world," said Goldstein, honorary president of the International Auschwitz Committee. "None of them has a memorial stone — the Nazis wanted them to be forgotten. We have a duty to prevent that."
The Soviet liberators found some 7,000 people behind the barbed wire of the camp, many barely alive.
Reports in western Europe of increasing anti-Jewish incidents such as vandalizing graves, and a walkout last week by members of a small German far-right party from an Auschwitz commemoration in a state legislature, have raised renewed concerns about the threat of anti-Semitism (). JUST SAY IT MULSUMS!!!
Avner Shalev, chairman of Israel's Yad Vashem () Holocaust Memorial, said the recent controversy in Britain over Prince Harry's wearing a swastika armband as part of a party costume showed education may be lacking among some young people. But many people in Britain responded immediately, he said.
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel () said in an interview with Italy's La Repubblica newspaper that anti-Semitism was on the rise in Western Europe. JUST SAY IT BECAUSE OF THE HATE FROM MULSUMS??
"Sometimes I think the world will learn nothing," he was quoted as saying. "If someone had told me that 60 years later I would have to fight to ensure the Holocaust was not repeated, that anti-Semitism will not return, I would not have believed it."
In Paris, a new memorial to the Holocaust was inaugurated Tuesday, with French President Jacques Chirac bowing before the wall inscribed with the names of 76,000 Jews sent to Nazi death camps from France.
Chirac said anti-Semitism is a "perversion" that has no place in France and would not be tolerated. JUST SAY IT BECAUSE OF THE MULSUMS??
France has been troubled by a surge in anti-Semitic attacks in recent years. Chirac, the first president to acknowledge France was responsible for systematically persecuting Jews during World War II, urged the government to do everything in its powers to stop attacks on Jews.

I do not agree that the invasion of Iraq nor sustaining the effort there is a misadventure. Whether intentional or not, the effect of the American presence is quite desirable, as I have pointed out in my article on what I call the Bush honeypot doctrine. Jihad happens. So if it is going to happen anyway, let us make sure it happens in a place where American civilians are not in the line of fire and on terrain that is advantageous to the current configuration of the American military.

A truly long run solution would involve coming to grips with some neo-Malthusian issues. That may require mustering up the courage to assert and enforce the judgement that granting Western style property rights to the Bedouins has not proved to be in the planet's interest. Such a judgement would require a permanent multilateral commitment to managing the mineral resources of the region as a trust for all mankind.

For many decades the Arabs have amply demonstratated that they are utterly incapable of acquiring massive wealth and allocating it to activities which promote the welfare of humankind. In my opinion therefore, they are deserving of forfeiture of their mineral rights. With their wealth they have chosen to promote an ideology that is fundamentally at odds with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Nazis did that and the rest of the world decided that they deserved to forfeit their right to exist.

So until we can spool up the public discourse on these much larger issues, the honeypot looks like a pretty good plan of the day.

"If we demolished Iran's nuclear program, the Chinese could rebuild it within months."

Are you suggesting, then, that nothing be done because, in any case, the "Chinese could rebuild it [Iran's nuclear program] within months"? Surely you don't mean this. In any case, what makes you think the Chinese would do so, especially if they are warned that the American market can be closed with a thud if they were to muck about at all with nuclear weapons and Islam? Do you think there is no leverage over China, when the entire Chinese economy is based, for now, on continued access to the American market? And does the United States have no ability to deny China certain trade ties with, for example, Latin America? Is American policy so helpless it can do nothing about the Iranian nucleare facilities because they will inevitably be replaced?

Actually, China must be delighted with what the current tarbaby in Iraq -- a tarbaby which we can extricate ourselves from not, as we seem to believe, "when the Iraqis tell us when we can go" (oh, this is a new one: American forces will stay, or go, on the basis of what the Iraqis say? What if they want us to stay indefinitely? Are we to dance to their tune, or to decide where, and when, and how, we wish to deploy our anti-Jihad forces, including those men, that materiel, that colossal sum of money?). Important weapons programs are being cancelled; a new airplane that, no doubt, the Chinese are delighted we have chosen to cancel. Everything connects.

But the idea that that Chinia could impose a $20 surcharge on oil is not true. How would this work? If there were to be no diminishment in total energy demand, no shift to other sources of energy, or to other suppliers of oil)(no diminishment in other oil sources, or non-oil sources of energy, then we would not have to wait for "China/Iran" to put on a "$20 surcharge." It would be put on tomorrow morning, by Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis at any moment, like all the oil producers, calculate an OPEC price that will, their calculations tell them, maximize over time the value of their total reserves. That is why, for example, oil is not $200 a barrel. Or $300. And that is the only reason.

Again, the aim of the war -- of which Iraq is only one small theatre, given exaggerated importance (and Bin Laden sees it as akin to Afghanistan, for just as he believes, with reason, that the war in Afghanistan helped to inflict great economic damage on the Soviet Union, he thinks the same thing is happening to the Americans in Iraq -- although the damage is not only in money but, as noted, men, materiel, morale, and the willingness to continue to fight against the forces of Islam, not for 5 or 10 years, but essentially forever, though if things go right, the threat can be greatly reduced) -- should be to deploy resources to maximum effect.

China is no doubt delighted with the present misallocation of American resources. Despite the mantras about "democracy" and "freedom isn't free" and "people scoffed about Occupied Germany and Japan" and all the rest of those slogans that fall apart upon a minute's inspection, many officers and men understand the situation a bit better than that. And so do those who, in this country, having studied the history of Islam, and acquired a familiarity with its teachings and inculcated hatreds, realize that the best way to constrain Islam is by letting Muslim peoples and polities themselves confront the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Islam -- and not to be rescued from those failures by Western aid, access to Western technology, education, and medical care, and Western collaboration in apologetics for Islam.

Quite the reverse. Let them become like Ataturk, who realized that if he did not constrain Islam, there was no hope for Turkey. But this begins with putting paid to all pieties,whether uttered by some Interfaith Racket promoters, or by supposedly hard-headed political figures who, in Washington, once had an idea about Iraq -- and now the idea has them.

I would rather take $200 billion and use it on energy programs -- nuclear, solar, wind, whatever - in order to deprive the Arabs and Muslims of their chief source of funding for the Jihad. Attacks on non-Muslims by Muslims have taken place for 1350 years. At times, because of superior Infidel force, and the weakness of Muslims, the impulse cannot be acted upon. For hundreds of years Muslim raiders went up and down the coasts of Europe, looting, raping, killing, and of course kidnapping (google the name "Thomas Pellow"). More than a million Europeans were seized, brought back to dar al-Islam, and enslaved. In addition, many more millions of black Africans were enslaved, and because so many of them were gelded on the spot, then marched to the slave markets of Islam (Jeddah, Riyadh, Cairo, Damascus, Constantinople, even Smyrna), the mortality rate was exceedingly high (see Jan Hogedorn's article on "The Hideous Trade").

The only thing that changed was OPEC. Beginning in 1973, and coinciding almost exactly with two other events -- the first being the clever disguising of the relentless Jihad against Israel as a struggle for the newly-invented "Palestinian people" (of whom no one had heard before the 1967 war, not least from the Arabs themselves); the second was the heedless admission of Muslims (Turks to Germany, Pakistanis to England, North Africdans to France), without any clear understanding of what that would represent for the indigenous Infidels -- a permanent presence of people who, because of their ideology, cannot ever owe allegiance to the Infidel nation-state or to the Infidels among whom they live, and whom, they believe, they have a god-given right to dominate and rule.

The main thing that was necfessary to achieve in Iraq has been achieved. A monstrous regime has not only been deposed, but its weapon programs destroyed, and its huge store of arms either seized or destroyed. Iraq may or may not hold together; it may or may not succeed. There is every reason to think that these three Ottoman vilayets, yoked together by Sir Percy Cox along ago, were not meant to stay together. But if they attempt it, it should not be Americans who will pay the price, in men and money, to keep this artificial state together. Instead, let it serve as a permanent fault-line between Sunni and Shi'a, a way of keeping the Muslim Middle East permanently unstable. Insabiliy, and internecine warfare -- whether it is Nasser fighting a proxy war in the Yemen with the Saudi royal family, or the Iran-Iraq War, or any of a number of smaller conflicts (and not forgetting that as the big bully of the Arabian Peninsula, Saudi Arabia has in the past seized territory belonging to Abu Dhabi, threatened Yemen, and supported the Dhufar rebellion in Oman -- and all that mischief-making comes naturally).

The "honey pot" idea rests on the belief that there are a certain number of those who will fight the Jihad, and that they can come to Iraq, and be killed, and that's that. But that is not that. They are indefinitely replaceable. Their lives mean nothing to them -- unlike the lives of American soldiers. They should be fought and killed, but by Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a in Iraq. Or not, as the case may be.

But even if ten thousand a month are killed, at great cost to the United States, what does that amount to? And how does that help prevent or reverse the islamization of Europe? Or how does that constitute a prudent deployment of American resources? Just how long should American soldiers, and their generals, be asked to engage in what -- at the point of these elections -- an effort that is, in fact, causing important weapons programs to be delayed or cancelled outright, causing a colossal drop in volunteers for the Reserves and National Guard, causing the Western publics to be stupidly divided when they should be uniting over Islam (which will require going directly against the appeasers who run the E.U. bureaucracy, and no longer tolerating the crooks like Chirac, or even Blair, who has had such a good, and undeserved, run -- he is surely someone who does not fully grasp the problem with Islam).

All one is saying is: give war a chance. But real war, war with a thousand weapons, war with brains, a war a tous azimuths, with a lot more use of low cunning, based on understanding what intra-Islamic resentments can be exploited, what justified fears in Europe can be appealed to in order to restore the Western alliance, but on terms quite different from those Chirac, Schroeder, and Javier Solana have in mind.

There is no need to keep American troops risking their lives in some hellhole in that malevolent Sunni isosceles triangle, or anywhere else. There are too many other big fish to fry, including the Iranian nuclear problem, and the growing islamization of Europe.

As for "terrorists" flocking to Iraq -- "terrorism" is only part of the problem. It is not even the major part. Those who think that "terrorism" is all we need worry about should, logically, have no qualms about the peaceful, non-terroristic spread of Islam.

I beg to differ.

You convinced me. Intelligent, cunning and all-out war against Islam is the road the U.S. needs to take. It's what the Muslim world already accuses us of waging: let's get to it.

Hugh:

Isn't the [quagmire] problem really that the US, UK and a few others went to war against the Islamofascists in Iraq while the French, Germans, Russians and others stayed home (because most of them cut deals with Saddam)and that the countries that did enter the fray have done so with one hand tied behind their respective backs by their own citizenry? (Except for the Islamofascists, war is a pretty tough sell.)

I'm a Canadian. For years, Canadians made condescending remarks about Americans for their relatively late entry into WW II. Now the roles have reversed and Canada is doing the isolationist thing. Most Canadians are OK with that, but I'm not one of them. Saddam may not have been the only problem, or the largest problem, but he was more than just a regional threat, and more vulnerable than most of the others. After all, if you're going to pick a fight, pick the fight you have the best chance of winning.

Hugh, let’s be careful how we express this nuanced dissent. Yes, the President has misplaced generosity. And the American people will be very disappointed down the line. But we need to praise his willingness to fight, but urge him to become informed about how to fight effectively. I think that's what you're aiming for.

Taking out Saddam was fine. However, it’s too early to consider any kind of nations-building while the spirit of Islam persists. I believe Mr. Bush’s idea - inspiring them by our generosity and guidance - is of no use wile Islam continues to dominate their culture. This is going to be a very painful and expensive lesson for the American people. Their heart is in the right place but their eyes are blinded to the frightening reality.

"If we demolished Iran's nuclear program, the Chinese could rebuild it within months."

Are you suggesting, then, that nothing be done because, in any case, the "Chinese could rebuild it [Iran's nuclear program] within months"? Surely you don't mean this.

It is one thing to take out Iran's nukes while we are in Iraq militarily, while we are trying to bend the Middle East our way. I approve of such a move. It's quite another thing to take it out as a parting shot as we withdraw from Iraq.

If we withdraw from Iraq this means we are out of the Middle East. It is no longer ours to influence. In these circumstances any bombing of Iran's nuclear program will be followed by the Chinese rebuilding it. Because they have chosen to be engaged in the Middle East while with your ideas we have chosen disengagement

Actually, China must be delighted with what the current tarbaby in Iraq -- a tarbaby which we can extricate ourselves from not, as we seem to believe, "when the Iraqis tell us when we can go" 

Yes, the Chinese are laughing at us being stuck in Iraq. But it's the best course of action for now.

But the idea that that Chinia could impose a $20 surcharge on oil is not true. How would this work? If there were to be no diminishment in total energy demand, no shift to other sources of energy, or to other suppliers of oil....

This would be a surcharge of $5-$20. China provides the nuclear umbrella. An axis of Iran and China will military dominate the Middle East and force Arab Muslim oil producers to go along with them. Or they will be hit. World oil shipping can be easily tracked by computers these days. Any tankers that  try to bootleg Mid East oil to the USA will be denied further oil shipments from any Arab producer. Oil sellers and transporters will be forced to collect this surcharge for the Chinese and Iranian treasuries.

(no diminishment in other oil sources, or non-oil sources of energy, then we would not have to wait for "China/Iran" to put on a "$20 surcharge." It would be put on tomorrow morning, by Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis at any moment, like all the oil producers, calculate an OPEC price that will, their calculations tell them, maximize over time the value of their total reserves. That is why, for example, oil is not $200 a barrel. Or $300. And that is the only reason.

All the above takes five years to kick in. Meanwhile the surcharge sticks

I would never use the word "quagmire" about the American effort in Iraq. Iraq is not Vietnam; there is no quagmire, and many important things have been achieved. To wit: the disruption of major weapons programs, the destruction of major weaponry, the uncovering of networks of people who received money and oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein (the whole oil-for-food business). The Americans have, heroically done fantastic things. Thousands of schools repaired (but what will be taught in those schools once the Americans leave?), a hundred hospitals refurbished, oil pipelines and oil fields constantly being repaired, power grids, etc.
That this has received almost no attention, in the world press, when it ought to be the constant subject on the nightly news everywhere, says a lot about the distortions in the press. That the Civil Affairs soldiers have to work as hard as they can, merely to convince some American journalist to please, please just tell a little about what we are doing, is a scandal. The American press has not distinguished itself, and the soldiers have a right to be resentful (if they are).

A misallocation of resources is quite different from a "quagmire." We can stay, and do all sorts of things. But then we will not be able to do all sorts of other things. And those other things need to be done. The other day a major weapons project -- a plane -- was cancelled for lack of money. If tomorrow the Chinese began to do something with Taiwan, could American forces handle it? Not everything can be done. How does improving lives in Iraq make it more likely that Iraq will be less Muslim in the future, when everything we know about Islam suggests that it is a resilient and permanent and powerful force, and can only be constrained when its own adherents come to see that has, in some ways, failed (the Ataturk example).

No, it is not a quagmire. I never said, and never would say that. The invasion, the disruption, the deposing of Saddam, were completely justified. The nonsensical business of spending time arguing about or wondering about or second-guessing about whether there was, wasn't, was, wasn't, an "Al Qaeda" connection shows just how silly people can be. What connection, other than that of Islam, need there be? If Egypt were to be acquiring major weaponry (you know, that "WMD"), could that be permitted, knowing the likelihood that Muslims in the government, or Muslims outside the government, might pass that weaponry on to others? Do we need to know anything more, such as whether or not some Iraqi met with Mohammed Atta in Prague? No, we don't.

"Freedom-isn't-free" and "everyone wants democracy" and "let's democratize the whole Middle East as our afterschool and summer project for the next five or ten years" -- all nonsense. A sentimental substitute for coming to grips with the ideology of Islam. This is something no one in power in the Western world wants to do, not least because there are plenty of people around in think-tanks who, often Muslims themselves, or those who think that they because they were so tough-minded with the Soviets they have, in some sense, "given at the office" and are exempted from any need to show the same hardheadedness about another ideology, or those who get all respectful when they hear the word "religion" -- well, you can see the size of the problem.

Less sentimentalism, more stratagems, less Family-of-Man, more Halford Mackinder.

Morally, we are invincible. Mentally? I am not so sure.

Hugh:

I'm in complete agreement with your analysis. I have maintained what you wrote in this thread, for over two years, mainly on LGF.

The Iraq invasion has the potential for seriously lowering the morale of American soldiers, just as happened in Vietnam. I see no profit in the vast amount of treasure and the thousand lives that have been lost in Iraq. If we had to go to Iraq, we should have gone in, destroyed whatever WMD's that we could find, and then left, with "mission accomplished".

Now the only hope I have that we hurt the jihad, is that constituent factions in Iraq will resort to violence, and eventually for civil war to break out within Iraq. I would guess that neighbouring sunni Arab nations will then come to the aid of their brethren, and in so doing, will drag the Iranians in. It will then be a straight fight between the proponents of Khomeini and those of bin Laden. That would be a suitable outcome, and a first installment in response to the 9/11 attack. It will also serve as a clear demonstration of what happens, to those who trifle with the US and the Christian West. I say Christian, as the enemy does not view us as secular post-Christian, but as Christian.

We should get out of Iraq as asap, and then recognise the Christians and Animists in Southern Sudan, guaranteeing them security in the process. Such an option will hurt the jihad as nothing else, as seizing what is percieved as dar ul islam to become infidel land, is the most serious defeat that can be dealt to the jihad. That this is so, is evident from the continued longings from islamic jihadists for Andalusia, Kashmir, Israel, India etc. Islamists regard Andalusia, India and Israel as real defeats for the jihad; an unmitigated al naqba. We have to defeat the jihad in a manner that the jihadists and the silent 'moderate muslims' themselves recognise as a defeat. Then continue to do so, till the belief of allah granting victory to muslims, is totally discredited.

Attacking islam in an overt and obvious manner seems to be exactly what the jihadists and the likes of Zarqawi and OBL dream of. It's best to democratize parts of the ME sowing seeds if you will. The present course is sound. We cannot be defensive against the jihadists because we are vulnerable in too many areas, we must go on offense and track these people down. We can't be passive and react to attacks, we must prevent them in the first place. Also, Bush can't go on TV and tell the world about islam. That would not be very taquiya of us kafirs to show our hand like that. No we must be covert. I understand the sense of urgency to get the word out about the dangers of islam to the world but don't expect the President to tell it. Bush is doing fine, better than any stupid ass fool liberal would, can you imagine Kennedy and Kerry and the democrats handling terrorists? They would tell the world about islam alright, tell everyone how great it is and the reason that jihadists don't like us is because it's all our fault, with the cars, and pollution.

Look, it will take time but the democracized islamics will begin to ignore their crazier cousins and democracy will spread. It's not an experiment or a project. The ways of the West will soon take over and to say it like a schoolkid, it won't be cool to do things the old islamic way anymore. Islam will be outed soon enough.

cross:
I respect your views. I'm not suggesting that Pres Bush call a spade a spade when it comes to islam. OTH, there is no requirement for islam as a RoP either. On balance, the Pres is on the right track. I hope, that his stated aim to bring the light of democracy to the ME, is merely a cover. What I sincerely hope is that southern Sudan is recognised as an independent nation, and is given a security guarantee by the US. That will be a real defeat for the jihad.

I'm struck by the fact that islanists still moan about the loss of Andalusia. bin Laden himself mentioned Andalusia, and Timor particularly, as great defeats for islam, and one of his main justifications for 9/11.

Hugh you should write a book and I definitely buy it.

Hugh says

The adventure in Iraq, which in its First Stage (the war to locate and destroy major weaponry and arms stores, and to overthrow one of the most sinister dictators around) was justified

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,wrong on all countes.

First you have redefined the reason for the invasion of Iraq, Bush anbd the neo cons lied, lied, lied, the rationale for invasion constantly shifted.

He was a threat to his neighbors (meaning Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the Gulf States is the only excuse that was valid, but the final reason to justify the invasion was not to locate and destroy Major weaponry The reason give was weapons of mass destruction, and they knew all along that he had known. As regards a "sinister dictator" shi ite, he was a piker compared to so many sinister dictators like many of our other Muslim allies, from Indonesia to Pakistan, and do you really care that he was "oppressiong" his own people.

No, you don't, and neither do I, his people have proven to be irrational, ungrateful, personal responsibility avoiding enemies of western secular democracy and Christianity.

I do understand your need though, your identity, hopes and loyalties are wrapped up in Team Bush, and of course you will and must rationalize and obfuscate (just like the Mooselimbs do) to defend your man, your team and your choice.

Fact is that Saddam was a paper tiger, a symbolic threat only, and even Shin Beit and the Mossad knew that, but no one asked the experts,nor apparently cared what the experts thought and knew.

Iraq was invaded to benefit Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Gulf States and Jordan (all of whom supported the invasion, all of whom have benefited from the invasion and troubles, there was also big money to be made from OPEC (price increase as a consequence of pipeline sabotage), the Carlyle Group (Saudis and Bush family), Haliburton and Bechtel who received no bid contracts for reconstruction and base building, and of course Unocal, Exxon, Texaco.

The only threat Saddam was, was the symbolic threat, he had created himself in yet another incarnation, the new Saladin/Nebuchanazar, the hero of the Arab on the Street. But not a viable military threat to anyone.

As regards what he did to his people, you honestly don't care, and neither do I. The Iraqi's have only proven to this moment, with our troops dying daily from their attacks, that they deserved Saddam, and they deserve whatever happens to them when we withdraw, and tomorrow will be too late.

The Arabs whine and moan in self pity, blaming the Americans for ALL deaths,including those caused by the so called "insurgents", they whine about loss of services and unfilled promises, while contractors are being kidnapped, behead and construction efforts sabotaged by their own people, people whom they shelter and support.

Iraq is Arab, Arab is tribal, and in a tribal society there are no secrets, thus Mao's dictum that the guerilla swims in the sea of the people is not only true, but more true.

There were, for instance, no "innocents in Fallujah, nor are their any in all of Iraq, because the whereabouts and existence of these "resistance" fighters is common knowledge to all, man, woman and child.

Please stop rationalizing and apologizing for Bush and Co. The man has wasted our money, our blood and our economic health and international reputation.. and if it salves you the Democrats would be and are no better.

Ten Reasons why the military occupation of Iraq should continue:

1) The enemy is there.
2) We have friends there who need our protection.
3) Everyone who hates us wants us out.
4) It displeases the god of Islam.
5) It displeases the French.
6) Our warriers there are learning A TERRIBLE TRUTH.
7) Iraq is to be the base of operations for the counter-jihad.
8) It allows us to be close to our 'good friends' the Saudis.
9) To leave would be easy.
10) To stay would be hard.

1. Not everyone who "hates us" wants "us out." Bin Laden believes he is damaging the American economy the way the Soviet economy was damaged by the war in Afghanistan. $300 billion is a lot of money. What other anti-Jihad measures might that $300 billion pay for?

2. Point #6 -- I completely agree. That is the most important result of the war in Iraq -- let a large number of Americans (and hence their relatives and friends) learn about an Islamic society, and Muslims, up close. They have not been impressed.

3. The enemy is all over the place -- in every Muslim country. More of the enemy is in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria than in Iraq.

3. Much better for American troops not be in Iraq when decisions are being made about how to destroy Iran's nuclear projects.

4. Leaving would not be easy -- it would have to be done very carefully, accompanied by acts that show it is being done not as part of a retreat, but because there is so much else to do.

5. Everything should be done to create the conditions in which Muslims themselves (and non-Muslims) are confronted with the failures of Islam itself, politically, economically, socially, morally -- not rescued by American or other Infidel aid, "reconstruction" (quite unnecessary) or intervention. Nothing should be done to make things better -- that merely prolongs the day of reckoning.

1. Not everyone who "hates us" wants "us out." Bin Laden believes he is damaging the American economy the way the Soviet economy was damaged by the war in Afghanistan. $300 billion is a lot of money. What other anti-Jihad measures might that $300 billion pay for?

2. Point #6 -- I completely agree. That is the most important result of the war in Iraq -- let a large number of Americans (and hence their relatives and friends) learn about an Islamic society, and Muslims, up close. They have not been impressed.

3. The enemy is all over the place -- in every Muslim country. More of the enemy is in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria than in Iraq.

3. Much better for American troops not be in Iraq when decisions are being made about how to destroy Iran's nuclear projects. They are targets for retaliatory strikes. Why take that risk?

4. Leaving would not be easy -- it would have to be done very carefully, accompanied by acts that show it is being done not as part of a retreat, but because there is so much else to do.

5. Everything should be done to create the conditions in which Muslims themselves (and non-Muslims) are confronted with the failures of Islam itself, politically, economically, socially, morally -- not rescued by American or other Infidel aid, "reconstruction" (quite unnecessary) or other intervention. Nothing should be done to delay that necessary reckoning.

hugh,

after lengthy and profound consideration..i agree..let's declare victory and leave..the obverse arguments are leaky pails.;l

iraq is doomed to civil war..the kurds will be protected by 101st airborne..but we should not flush more of our treasury and blood of brave troops down this rathole.

hugh,
in the event of civil war resulting in total shiite dominance..what if they go mullahfied?
..i don't care personally..but this is then layed at the administrations doorstep..a greater iran?
what of that? and turkey will not like any kurd powerification..will they lay off with a stern warning?

While some are so busy chatting, they sell short the American President and try to bring anger by calling out, " murderess." Beware. Do not think Bush is so dumb. The picture is much more than what the common person sees. What if Bush does invade Iran? "It's not over until the fat lady sings." Bush is Iraq's only hope for freedom. There will always be a jihadist group hell bent on destroying all who cross their path, just as there will always be crime in America. Because both are here doesn't mean anyone has to put up with jihad or crime. As long as either are on the face of the earth, there will be those who will not bend down, but fight to protect this world. To not fight, is to give in.

While some are so busy chatting, they sell short the American President and try to bring anger by calling out, " murderess." Beware. Do not think Bush is so dumb. The picture is much more than what the common person sees. What if Bush does invade Iran? "It's not over until the fat lady sings." Bush is Iraq's only hope for freedom. There will always be a jihadist group hell bent on destroying all who cross their path, just as there will always be crime in America. Because both are here doesn't mean anyone has to put up with jihad or crime. As long as either are on the face of the earth, there will be those who will not bend down, but fight to protect this world. To not fight, is to give in.