Fitzgerald: The real questions that now matter

"The soldiers in Iraq who parrot and may believe the party line all talk of how they are there to "make a difference." But there is no real "difference" they can conceivably make..."

Tommy "the Parrot" Atkins, taking it on the chin--though there's trouble in the wind:

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap...

We need to begin preparations for the Reconquista of Europe. Perhaps diddling around in Iraq has gone on long enough. If the majority of Iraqis prefer chaos and violence to spending the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. government earmarked for them on productive endeavors, what can anyone do? If the money weren't eaten up with security costs, Iraq could be a First World nation already. Choices, choices.

For it's Tommy this an' Tommy that an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's a thin red line o' heros
when the troopship's on the tide...

Just saw the CNN coverage on the Islamic thug attack on the Oakland liquor store.

On the plus side I was impressed that they played the tape showing the thugs doing the damage. They also actually quoted the thugs as stating that "muslims should not sell liquor."

Then, things turned very bad. CNN threw up a map showing places in America where RELIGIOUS leaders had attempted to ban or restrict the sale of alcohol. They mentioned the name of Christian pastors who were trying to reduce alcohol consumption in black neighborhoods. Of course, NONE of these Christian pastors even remotely advocated or used physical violence to achieve their goals.

The parallel presentation was truly disgusting. It presented the violence as a product of all religions and didn't even mention that prohibition of all alcohol by Islam, something distinctive to that cult.

Anyway, it really creeps me out that so much jihadi activity is going on here and we only see little suggestions of the true cause from time to time.

The response of Mad_Jack (an echo of one he made previously, at another thread) shows he has misinterpreted me. I am not attacking soldiers (“Johnny Atkins”) and the invocation of Kipling is dead wrong. Who is misusing the soldiers in and out of Iraq? Who is forcing them to risk their lives because of an obstinate inability to admit, even tacitly, that both the nature of Iraq (where the forces whirring it apart inevitably would become much stronger once the Sunni Arab despot who held it together with terror and mass-murder was removed) and of Islam (which explains the lack of any real gratitude – outside of a handful among the elite, mostly those who were exiles from Saddam Hussein – by Muslims, and the otherwise inexplicable hostility to the Americans who are there only to help, and cannot figure out why, not only the Sunnis, but virtually all the Arabs – the Kurds are another matter – are at best indifferent, and at worst hysterically delighted, when American soldiers are killed).

Who is mocking the American soldiers? I’m not. I’m not forcing them to continue to risk their lives on a fools’ errans of greating an “Iraq” that does not exist, and the existence of which does not serve Infidel interests nearly as much as would the dissolution of Iraq into mutually warring groups. I think they are being misused, and their trust and patriotism abused, especially when they become carefully-selected props for someone who has officers carefully select men who will, with the appropriate degree of enthusiasm, presumably unfeigned, “parrot” the Administration line about how those soldiers are “making a difference” and “we are here to help folks” and “we’re here to fight the global war on terror” and “we’re in Iraq to fight terrorists here so we don’t have to fight them at home.” Some soldiers believe all that, and all of them, of course, are taught or encouraged to believe that. But many do not. And the more they learn about the real war – which is not merely a “war on terror” for terror is but one of the instruments of Jihad, and not even the most effective, and the more immediate experience they have of the nature of a Muslim society, with its nonsense and lies, and meretriciousness, and hostility, and with the absence of any sense of individual rights and the omnipresence of the group, and loyalty to the group defined mostly as family or as tribe, and at the same time a deep desire to take the Americans for all they are worth, to get them to spend more money and risk their lives on more and more schoolrooms (but what is being taught in those rooms?), and hospitals (and who is being born in those hospitals?), and power-grids and water-treatment plants and all the rest of it, as Americans are asked to shell out hundreds of billions for Muslims – Muslims who sit on top of the largest or second-largest oil reserves in the world, which will provide them with a gigantic and completely undeserved income for far into the future (but which future income, apparently, they are incapable of borrowing against, just as the rich Arab states are incapable of contributing more than a scarcely-discernible token because it is the Infidels who are somehow responsible for the wellbeing of Iraq, as if removing Saddam Hussein and his regime was not quite enough, more than enough).

Not all soldiers still in Iraq, or returning from Iraq, have had the time, or the inclination, to read Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. But they have gotten a good dose of what a Muslim society, and Muslims, are like. They have witnessed the performance of the ING troops and the police, and seen too how the Americans in charge try to cover up that poor performance, for obvious reasons. By and large, the exposure to a Muslim society, by several hundred thousand Americans, is perhaps the most most useful thing, aside from knocking off the regime that held Iraq together by mass-murder, to come out of all this. To the extent that they are aware of the significance of the Jihad, and are aware of the varied instruments of Jihad that go far beyond “terror” (as in “war on terror”), they will be less impressed with the pseudo-reasoning that keeps them in Iraq, or their fellows in Iraq. And if some of them volunteer to return, it is almost entirley out of loyalty to their fellow soldiers, not out of strong conviction that the enterprise in Iraq, as a way to deal with the world-wide menace of Jihad, makes sense. Many will become aware ofislamization of Europe, about the need to end Muslim migration to the Infidel lands, about the need to diminish the oil revenues that inevitably will be used, as they have in the past, to support the spread of Islam.

And some will also begin to realize that the best thing the Americans can now do is leave, not because the country has been “stabilized” but because it hasn’t. And as long as the Sunnis and the Shi’a go at it, in ways little and big, and there is always the potential for Sunni and Shi’a powers – Iran and Saudi Arabia – to fight a proxy war within Iraq, then the chances of using Iraq to divide and demoralize Islam, or at the very least to create a situation where it is Muslim men, Muslim money, Muslim weaponry, Muslim attention, that is being allocated and used up in Iraq. And that, the most thoughtful soldiers – not merely the strongest or the bravest but the most thoughtful (sometimes these traits go together, and sometimes they don’t. So what? )—will agree is a Good Thing.

At another similar posting, the same poster asked me, in the same tone of pique, as if I – what nonsense! – was attacking “warriors” (by the way, no one seemed to feel the need to use this self-conscious word during World War II –only recently has this off-putting and unnecessary term “warriors” become fashionable) and proceeds to ask the following question, which I do not have before me but I recall it quite vividly:

“What do you call someone who, knowing all about the Jihad, volunteers to return to fight in Iraq with his fellows?”

I call that soldier “brave.” I call that soldier“loyal to his fellows in his unit.” I do not call that soldier “Von Clausewitz.” I do not think that the phrase about “knowing all about the Jihad” without more, tells us enough. Do you mean to describe a soldier who knows not merely about the concept of Jihad, but understands that the Jihad is world-wide, that it is not limited to Sunni Muslims but is as fervently believed in by Shi’a, that the main instruments of Jihad are not military force or “terrorism” but Da’wa, money, and demographic conquest? If that soldier nonetheless volunteers to return to Iraq, I do not fault him, for he no doubt wishes to join his fellows and do as much damage to those actively conducting Jihad through “qital” or combat as he can. Fine. But that is not a substitute for, not a defense of, a policy that, over all, fails to exploit, fails even to recognize what should be exploited in Iraq – those natural ethnic and sectarian fissures that could do far more good than any killing of another few thousand or even ten thousand more “terrorists” (i.e. Sunni insurgents, possibly to be mimicked in the south by the Moqtada al-Sadr insurgents).

Don’t try to paint me as someone who mocks soldiers. I don’t and I won’t. I am on their side. I want their lives not to be squandered, and not put at risk for a stupid and self-defeating policy that continues only because those who came up with it are too willfully ignorant of Islam, too timid, too unimaginative, to figure out what they really should be doing.

I heard a senior military man from Iraq speaking (happened to be Christian) who offered the Americans a way to avoid the power vacuum because he had thousands under his command.

The foolish Americans rejected this because of course they know better and the irony is the American approach looks likely to have even more of fifth column in the governing and military ranks and did make a huge power vacuum.

Whilst all the moslems I know use selective incident anti-american rhetoric; when I query them about the mosque suicide bombings the reply is that it always happens so your point is. Well my point was the Americans, trying to not kill civilians, are evil enemies of islam but it seems moslems killing civilians are not enemies of islam. His point was that moslems killing each other is normal there and elsewhere (they are from Pakistan).

My understanding is that my moslem friends can't see the wood for the trees.

My understanding of the American military and leadership is that is is over confident and arrogant.

The British suffered this attitude in SE Asia in WWII and so, when they could have held back the japs, they instead lost big time.

I think America does not know how to build nations and has not learned the lessons from the failed democratising of the colonies of the British either.

I think they need to take a Quaker management appraisal of the situation by only allowing facts to be presented in order to come up with a solution. I have some observations that may be factual with more evidence:

1) These groups do not want to live together. Individuals may but the leaders:
2) The leaders lead and the followers follow.
3) Shariah and democracy cannot co-exist. If they can, show me where - you may use history.
4) Moslems outside Iraq want to defeat the great satan so send in shell fodder and kill civilians more than America.
5) Every Iraqi I have met wants their freedom
6) Every Arab I have met also wants freedom
7) Serious moslems I know want freedom but feel unable to give up Sharia as an ideal. Some even suggest they can be true to Islam in Britain and hate the idea some Moslems have for sharia here because they will not be able to have the Islamic convictions they have without fear of persecution.
8) Power tends to corrupt and many clerics and sect leaders are greedy for power and influence.
9) Islam is violently split on sectarian lines today like it always has been.
10) Democracy works when literacy rates are high.

With these observations in mind I think the answer to your question is three states.
A Constitution without sharia.
No democratic rule until violence has stopped and literacy is at 90%.
Honesty of the problems of Islam
Islam problems lead to acknowledgement that Saddam's style of rule is all that works with such people so rule with his kind of iron grip until the people grow up and respect each other. I would start right back at food rationing, etc. and move forward slowly.

Primarily, we need to start making Moslems deal with the truth of moslem actions. I remember clerics being brought in to deal with me on a book stall and when asked why I kept bringing up human rights abuses all the time I said, "because that is what is happening now in Islamic nations, when you deal with the issues of reality and the present I will listen to what you have to say about the Koran. There is no point telling me islam is peace when it looks like oppression, war and aparteid."

Oops all this will only work by our leaders accepting Islam for what it is.

I sadly think this means more of everyone will die and the problem spread. After all, when have we made such daring acknowledgements in history before it is too late? Crusades maybe - mind you that was 400 years too late for some?

"This has been quite a feat, for it requires hiding from billions of Infidels what is really in plain sight, and cannot be hid..."

It is impossible for Muslims to hide what is in plain sight and what cannot be hid, unless the fools they are fooling collaborate -- consciously, semi-consciously, and/or unconsciously -- with them.

Why are the majority in the West fools, collaborating in this obfuscation? Let's not insult the great and august West with silly answers to this question. And, unfortunately, the answer is not merely a "click away".

"...a mass campaign of disinformation about what Islam teaches..."

"And it requires inveigling people, journalists and politicians, into never looking into, or never referring, to these passages and these doctrines that are so central to Islam."

One of our president's recent statements comes to mind, here:

“Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity.”

But if I, along with untold numbers (hundreds? thousands? millions?) of other ordinary citizens -- and the few journalists who took him to task for it -- knew, while he was speaking, that he was wrong, why didn't he?

Did his staff fail to advise him, or did he fail to hear them?

And how much of our military strategy in Iraq has been similarly conceived and implemented?

Our military leaders and their civilian counterparts plan military tactics and privates and sergeants and lieutenants and majors carry out.

But what do those senior leaders really know about Islam or Jihad, or the mindset and beliefs of its followers?

What ever the wisdom of America's invasion and aoccupation of Iraq, the entire Muslim world is opposed to America's presence there (save for a couple of brave intellectuals who are advocates of democracy).

Only Hugh Fitzgerald could re-write this as Dhimmitude.

Hugh:

I happen to agree with most of what you have consistently said about the fruitlessness of our continued mission in Iraq, given both the historical divisions in that country and the nature of Islam itself.

In essence (and I'm simplifying what I take as your position, for obvious reasons), you have always articulately maintained that while taking out Saddam and his Baathist regime was a proper decision, after that point we should have simply left the country and watched the mess proceed from a safe distance, with some measure of satisfaction.

However, numerous reasons mostly grounded in realpolitik would have made such a policy unacceptable. We ARE going to leave that country fairly soon--this appears obvious. The thing is, we couldn't simply leave without giving it the "old college try."

It is true that the level of ingratitude in Iraq, and I believe among most Iraqis, is amazing. Nonetheless, when all is said and done, we will be able to say that we tried, after all, and that the people of Mesopotamia simply weren't willing or able to create even a semblance of democracy, notwithstanding the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of precious Infidel lives. This will be a public relations coup of the first order. The world certainly will not be able to blame the West for the dissolution of Iraq.

It is entirely possible (I can hope) that policy makers in this administration understood this from the beginning. In any event, a "failure" in Iraq may in fact be the opposite of a Pyrrhic victory. By "failing," we may convince the otherwise blind dhimmis worldwide that democracy and Islam simply cannot coexist, and look like the good guys at the same time. That may be the realization that ultimately leads to the far more important fight against the Islamization of Europe and, to a lesser extent, the U.S. I agree that terror is simply a tactic, and much less effective than Da'wa and the demographic trends which should be so obvious to even the casual observer.

Finally, I would be seriously interested in discussing, in depth, the concept of "ending Muslim migration to the Infidel lands" and how that could be accomplished in the U.S., both in light of present day Constitutional jurisprudence and our immigration laws. The average Joe is far, far more concerned with the demographics of the mestizo invasion, and the cultural havoc it is wreaking. And Hugh, Jose ain't Muslim.

I truly enjoy your posts. And you have never once denigrated our soldiers.

Excellent point Pepper. The answer is in a culturally-imposed deaf/dumb/blindness imposed from our preponderant Left-wing culture that Hugh insists is irrelevant.

Hugh, What you say makes a lot of sense at an intellectual level, but isn't it just too Machiavellian and un-American to simply leave the Sunnis and Shias at each other's throats? We will be accused of fomenting a civil war (however inevitable from a sober perspective). Many will believe with Colin Powell that 'we broke it so we own it'. Even my liberal friends say it is too callous to just walk away. (At least, they were saying that before the Murtha episode.)

Hugh, what concerns me is that a successor state [or 3 successor states] in Iraq may take up where Saddam left off and continue to work for WMD. I also believe that Saddam likely transferred WMD materials and equipment, and perhaps research work, to Syria, a claim made by Israeli pm Sharon in the fall of 2002, before the Iraq war, and by several Syrian exiles living in France or elsewhere in the West.
Of course, this may be selfish on my part. I heard scud rockets flying overhead and I took my kids into a sealed room in 1991. Moreover, my son-in-law had a rocket or a large piece of one [I forget which] come down in the yard next to his childhood home. I wouldn't say he's traumatized by it but it is certainly on his mind. Saddam himself insisted --when he considered it politic to do so-- that he had WMD. So how do we stop future armament by Iraq [or any successor state] with WMD? Of course, this kind of thing doesn't stop with Israel. The Iranian bomb that the mad or foolish EU leadership allowed to be developed [or are allowing to be developed?] threatens Europe too with their long-range rockets.
Yes, I am aware that GWB and the State Dept, CIA, etc. cannot be trusted when it comes to an Arab state taking on WMD. I see how they have allowed Iran to work for WMD. Nevertheless, I think we have to fear a situation in which the USA will get out of Iraq and then State and CIA will say that for that reason they cannot do anything about WMD in the Iraqi successor state [or in one of 3], and that the world had better get used to it.

Cornelius,

Well, to be fair to Hugh, he did finally acknowledge the L word as one factor among others -- though that begs the question, What caused the overall constellation (with Leftism accorded, finally, a place at the table) that collectively sums up this Problem of the West, a problem leaving it pitifully incapable of dealing rationally with the Problem of Islam?

Hugh in his list of suspects included anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, but left out the larger more looming antipathy among Westerners: anti-Westernism. Think of it: that being anti-West should be so deep, broad and powerful among people of the West that it threatens to cripple their self-defense and survival against an epochal threat -- this should stagger the mind and rally the resources. Instead, we get (concerning this most important issue) from those on our own side in this fight, arrogant dismissals, vague incomprehension, misfired cartridges at peripheral targets, and, at best, once in a starving while, crumbs of the actual loaf.

Pepper my man you are one enlightened SOB!

Yes, we are busy exposing the sins of our own history. But instead of acknowledging the remarkable magnanimity of such an undertaking...and instead of acknowledging the inability of other cultures to engage in such similarly honest introspection (the Armenian genocide being just one of many, many examples)...our multicultural paradigm forces us to whitewash the sins of others while at the same time amplifying our own sins and vilifying our past with little or no hint of redemption.

Racism is taught to be "institutionally ingrained" in America despite all evidence to the contrary. Whatever racism exists today is largely a vestige of personal proclivity (in mu 'umble opinion). Institutions - particularly educational - tend to bend-over backwards to accommodate minorities in hiring and admittence. And yet, no quarter is given in terms of redemption. As long as the problem is percieved as on-going and festering, the grievance constituencies can continue extracting further concessions for themselves.

Hence, the prevelance of the anti-Westernism in our own culture that you're referring to.

The "Right" has given a home and a platform to the likes of Tom Tancredo, Mitch Rommnie, Gert Wilders, Hirshi Ali (who was originally with the socialists, but they couldn't stomach her anti-immigrant message), David Horowitz, Christopher Hitchens, Diana West, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, and many others...even the venerable Taslima Nasrin attacked the liberals for failing to comprehend Islamic intolerance.

Where are the similar voices on the Left? Where???

And we're supposed to believe the political spectrum is irrelevent in our fight to defend Western civilization?

Whoever is selling such an elixar is a snake-oil salesman.

Leaving Iraq does not have to be accompanied by the kind of rhetoric that looks forward to internecine warfare. Stay off the subject altogether. Say, oh hell, why don't we turn it into a State of the Union Address, since that's about a month after the "Iraqi" electioins:

"Today is an important day in the history of America's war to make the world safer for freedom. In Iraq, the American people can be proud of their soldiers. In three weeks they took down a tyrant who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his fellow Iraqis, a man who had been in power for a quarter-century, and whose regime seemed prepared to rule for another quarter-century. And we did far more than remove a regime. Our soldiers built schools and hospitals. They helped build water-treatment plants, and build or rebuild electricity grids. We cleared, with our allies the British, Iraq's port of Umm Qasr. We did this, we did that. Here is the list of just some of the things our soldiers and civilians in Iraq managed to do (fill up a few more sentences ad libitum).

And we did more. We trained, to Western standards, from a standing start, the new "Iraqi" forces, the army and the police. And we realize now that not only are the Iraqis ready to stand on their own, but that -- every opinion poll tells us-- they want to stand on their own. From the support offered by the Iraqi delegation at the Arab League, to every opinion poll among Iraqi Arabs, it is clear that it makes sense for us to leave. No matter how much we have accomplished, we are still seen, in a sense, as outsiders, and we must be sensitive to local opinion. For if we are not, we would risk, the Iraqis would risk, undoing all that has been done.

All of us can agree that it makes far more sense, now that the second set of elections is complete, to allow the "Iraqis" to arrive at the compromises among themselves that only they can make, and of course we wish them well, and of course we hope now that their fellow Arab and Muslim countries will certainly cancel whatever remaining debt is owed to them, and certainly lend them money, given all that those Arab and Muslim states have, against future oil revenues. We have done what we can, we can do no more. Our presence, we conclude, might now lead to the very reverse of what we hope the Iraqis themselves will have the good sense to achieve -- a stable "Iraq," wherre the compromises that make democracies work, will take place.

Oh, there are the nay-sayers. There are those who keep telling us that Islam and democracy, Islam and respect for minorities, Islam and respect for women and non-Muslims, cannot co-exist. Well, we know that isn't true. We know that the "Iraqi people" will prove that to be untrue. We have great faith in the "Iraqi people." We are sure that they are ready to stand on their own, and to defeat the terrorists who would deny them their chance at democracy. From those blue thumbs held proudly in the air last January, to all the careful effort that went into crafting, and then holding a referendum to approve, a Constitution, right to the December elections held just a month ago, Iraq has defied the nay-sayers.

Well, obviously we have been there a long time. For some of us, far too long. No doubt, there are some "Iraqis" who would wish us to stay for much longer. But we cannot. It isn't good for them, and it isn't good for us. That is why, in my State of the Union message today, I am announcing the withdrawal, by August 1, 2004, of all American troops, and in collaboration with our Coalition allies, of all other foreign troops as well from Iraq. Should a need arise, in a particular region, for special assistance, and such assistance is deemed in the national interest of the United States, requests for such aid will be carefully considered. But we removed a tyrant, and the tyrant's regime -- and he sits now in Baghdad, tried by his fellow Iraqis. It is a splendid moment for democracy, for the United States and for Iraq.

Goodnight, and God Bless America."

Something like that. The speech above took about 2 minutes to compose. With a staff of ten presidential speechwriters, it shouldn't take the White House more than a week.

Hugh:

Only two revisions to your proposed State of the Union Address:

(1) It's given in January of 2007, after being specifically asked to leave by the duly elected "Iraqi" government, with a withdrawal date of of the same year (for all the reasons set forth in my earlier post); and

(2) Saddam is not "sitting in Baghdad," but hopefully somewhere in Dante's 9th Circle, the trial having been sucessfully concluded and the sentence promptly implemented.

Can't wait until January 2007. It has to be now. Otherwise the worst kind of Democrats, who want nothing but Peace and Understanding and a Dialogue of Civilizations, may get elected. And the Europeans can't wait -- they need our attention, and they need us out of quer pasticaccio, that awful mess (a mess for us, not for the "Iraqis" -- we need to turn things around so that it turns out to be a mess for the "Iraqis" and not for us) in Iraq, now.

No, January 2006 is the date that makes sense. The Admninistration doesn't have that much time. It doesn't realize it, but as Johnny Comes Marching Home Again, those johnnies are going to say what they think of Iraq and the Iraqis and the overall strategy -- and they won't hold back if they are Reservists and National Guardsmen whose term has come to an end, or regular soldiers and Marines who are not re-enlisting. There are too many of them who are articulate, and who agree with much of what has been posted here at JW(some of them actually manage to communicate their thoughts in various ways), and when they start speaking out about Iraq, political hell will break loose for the Republicans.

The answer is in a culturally-imposed deaf/dumb/blindness imposed from our preponderant Left-wing culture that Hugh insists is irrelevant.

Um, Cornelius, I think that Hugh probably knew more at 22 than you're going to learn your whole life. Hugh has forgotten more than you've learned.

Your problem is that you can't NOT blame liberals for the rise of Islam. You HAVE to do it; and it means nothing to you that any republican does anything to suck up to Islam; when they do that you say its because the Leftists made them do it. So Leftist and or "multicultural" "polically correct" culture DO make Dubya suck up to Saudi, but couldn't make Clinton do it. It doesn't even phase you that the JW STAFF say otherwise; you're completely brainwashed by the party of Strom, and nothing that anyone says is going to sway you.

I can't speak for the rest of the forum, but if it comes down to agreeing with you or Hugh Fitzgerald, I'm going to believe him.

One thing to remember about those eeeevil Liberals is that we are the ones pushing for hydrogen-powered cars, hybrid cars, and fuel-efficient cars. The world-wide jihad starts at it's major source of funding: Saudi Arabia. And I think that you know where their money comes from.

Sorry, Hugh, as you can plainly see, there are those that come here who will not believe any bad thing that anyone says about anything associated with the Vacation King. They'd make good Muslims, that's for sure.

The comments area of this site are rapidly becoming LGF Part Two. I wish they'd let in some more posters, maybe some of the Let's-support-the-troops-by-killing-them crowd would make their way over.

The Iraq War is already over; the Reds on Capitol Hill know it. They just can't decide on how many names on the eventual Iraq War Memorial Wall they can live with: should they try to keep the war alive until the 06 elections? Could they keep using it as a tool against Blue dissent until 08? 2010?

Just see for yourself the praise gushing from the likes of Mann Coulter, frontpagerag, etc. about the greatness of the Iraq invasion as manifested in the "historic elections held in "palestine" and in Iraq."

Um, excuse me? The fanatics are being elected in "palestine"... sorry, Israel, but Bush has to show some progress, ANY progress, even if it means selling you up the river.

And the elections in Iraq? A SHAM. They've already had two elections, and there's more GIs being killed now than right after the invasion.

Hugh, on thing that may shed a little light on the whole Iraq War is this. Cheney still owns 400,000 shares in Halliburton stock (and who knows how much his wife owns.) Before the Iraq War, Halliburton stock was worth $9 a share; now it's worth $60 dollars a share. I know I don't need to do the math for you, but for the benefit of some un-named others, that's a 20 MILLION-dollar profit. Not bad for 30 months, eh?

BUT! LOL... have you seen the hate-liberal screed release for this week: Liberal Hypocrisy? The main stab is at Mike Moore, because he owns 2,000 shares.

Anyway, Dick "Five Vietnam Deferments" Cheney has made a LOT of money on this war, mostly through no-bid contracts.

We most certainly COULD leave Iraq at anytime and the United Nothing would gladly step in and finish the clean-up. Of course THEY wouldn't hand all the work to Halliburton, so we CAN'T let that happen, could we?

So John Murtha says we need a timetable to withdraw the troops within six months. IMMEDIATELY the Reds in the House offer up a resolution to withdraw the troops IMMEDIATELY. Of course, most of us don't want to see another Saigon, and the resolution failed. AND the GOPers will use this to show that liberals/democrats are lying, they don't really want to bring the troops home, this is all about politics, etc. (In fact they already have, see Mann Coulter's latest rant about "The Abortion Party.")

Remember, Col. Murtha said, "Six months" and the GOPers said "Immediately." Can anyone see the difference?

Dick Cheney has killed 2100 United States Marines and Soldiers for war profiteering. Make that 2100 and counting. How far we eventually have to count remains to be seen, but the GOP is setting themselves up to lose and lose BIG.

The only thing that could save them at this point (and it might not, given the dubios timing) would be another terror attack.

Barring that, Gary, Cornelius, and the rest of the liberal-hating JWers had better start hoping that the GOP has pictures of Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton doing "something unbiblical."

The GOPers in charge know that the End is coming, and don't care. They'll sacrifice themselves to get the Big Prizes: Tort "Reform", Tax "Reform", Abortion "Reform", etc. They'll have a majority in the Supreme Court soon; if they can keep the house of cards standing another year or two, they'll have a 6-3 majority; hell, if they can keep blaming the liberals and Cindy Sheehan for the war we oppose, they might actually be able to keep up the charade until next year's elections.

I come here to talk about Dr. Al-Arian, jihad, dhimmitude, Sharia, human rights, etc. Cornelius and his bedfellows come here to whine about liberals and democrats. Even when Hugh says they are wrong, they refuse to "get it."

KJ,

The likes of you comparing the Armenian genocide to seniors traveling to Canada for prescription-drug discounts...for saying that "if it weren't for Islam, there'd be nothing wrong with multiculturalism"...(which is tantamount to saying that were it not for the cancer, asbestos would be great)...and for blaming Kerry's election loss to electronic voting machines (with that kind of paranoid, conspiratorial mindset, you'd make a good Muslim).

I think your endorsement of Hugh's position is just the validation I was looking for.

"but isn't it just too Machiavellian and un-American to simply leave the Sunnis and Shias at each other's throats?....
- from a posting above

Not at all, not "too Machiavellian and un-American." No one in a position of power needs even to raise the issue. Official line is: We Americans at this point "get in the way." We actually prevent "Iraqis" from making the necessary compromises with each other.

Here's how the speech should go, as a comment by a Senator or Congressman, one who until now has supported the general policy in Iraq but has been coming to Jihad Watch and has changed his mind, after the President has delivered that State of the Union Address next January:

"Democracy is many things. It is people walking proudly to vote, defying the terrorists, and walking home proudly with their blue thunmbs in the air, signs that they had defied the terror masters [Nota bene: this last phrase, which I cannot stand to use myself, but am happy to put into the mouth of an imagined utterer, is a favorite phrase of Michael Ledeen, and he manages to use it several dozen times in every one of his articles, along with "Faster, please" at the end]. It is representatives of those same "Iraqi" people, meeting to hammer out a Constitution, of which they can be proud, and then votinig in a solemn nation-wide referendum held to approve or disapprove, that Constitution -- and by the way, the Iraqi people overwhelmingly approved it. And it is another set of elections, held this past December, to set up, at long last, with the Constitution ready and approved, a new national government, a government of unity, a government that will truly represent the long-suffering and brave people of "Iraq."

Yes, democracy is all of these things. But democracy, true democracy, is one last thing. And that last thing is: democracy is the spirit of compromise. Oh, I know it's fashionable to sometimes make fun of Congress, with its supposed log-rolling and horse-trading -- but that log-rolling, and that horse-trading, as the skeptics or nay-sayers like to call it, is really the essence of what makes a democracy work. And the Iraqis, like all free peoples, have to learn the art of compromise without which no true democracy is possible. This is not something we can impose on them. For if it is imposed, then it is no longer an impulse from within, no longer an expression of a democratic way of doing things. The spirit of compromise can only come when the "Iraqis" are left to hammer out their own compromises, without Americans in Humvees rolling down their city streets or their desert highways.

We have done so much, and we -- and the "Iraqi" people, have much to be proud of. But there comes a time when the "Iraqis" have to stand on their own feet. What was it Ben Franklin said, addressing his fellow Framers, his fellow Americans, citizens of a new Republic? He said in Philadelphia, once the work of drafting the Constitution had been done: "Gentleman, a repubic, if you can keep it."

Well, we did, didn't we, keep our republic. It took a lot. It even took a civil war. But in the same hopeful spirit as Ben Franklin, we Americans who are proud of what we have done for "Iraq" must now say to the "Iraqis" themselves: "Gentlemen, a democracy -- if you can keep it."

And now it is up to them -- the people of Iraq."

Any Congressional staff members reading this who are also looking for a pinch-hitting speech-writer? Someone I know needs work as a writer or editor of any kind (even the Washington kind); you may need just the right thing prepared for the Honorable for unspecified future delivery on the subject of Iraq; this could be just the ticket for both of us.

kj: Remember, Col. Murtha said, "Six months" and the GOPers said "Immediately." Can anyone see the difference?"

We have 160,000 troops and support equipment in Iraq. From a pure logistical standpoint, if the order were given today, it would take at least six months to move our military forces out of there, unless you expect them to abandon their heavy equipment in place and "retreat under fire." Therefore, "Immediately" and "six months" mean exactly the same thing.

The Americans should not leave ANY equipment outside of Kurdistan -- and nothing terribly advanced there either. Enough problems with the Stinger missiles handed out in Afghanistan. Enough problems with all the arms sold to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or given to Pakistan and Egypt. No more arming -- beyond jeeps and guns -- of Muslims anywhere.

No, let me change that a bit. Planes can be supplied, and other weaponry, so long as it has been sabotaged in the sense that if used in a manner, in a direction, at an ally (for example, Israel) the weaponry will malfunction and blow up. There are ways to do this kind of thing. And planes, at a certain latitude and longitude, perhaps can be programmed to self-destruct. And the same with missiles. There are all kinds of things you can do, if you set your mind to it. And the beauty of it is is that the Arab and Muslim customers will never know, really, what has been jimmied and fussed with, and what has not -- until it may be too late.

What could be done with a supercomputer sold to the Soviet Union can be done with military hardware sold to Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E.

But as for leaving American military equipment behind -- no, no, no. There has to be a limit to Infidel gullibility.

Whoa, the screed of KJ was truly a wonder to behold.

The only whacked-out liberal conspiracy theory I didnt hear was the secret oil pipeline across Afghanistan. KJ, would you please resubmit your foaming rant and this time include the secret pipeline, I need the continued laughs.

As for the frenzied swamp that was your post, I will only counter-attack on one point (the rest was just too easy to bat down), this concerns Dick "Five Deferments" Cheney.

KJ, who did you vote for in the 1992 and 1996 elections?

1) George Bush Sr., WWII vet, shot down in combat over the island of ChiChi Jima while flying a torpedo plane.

2) Robert Dole, WWII vet, badly wounded in combat while serving as an infantry officer in the Po Valley.

3) Bill Clinton, no military experience whatsoever, sent American military forces to bomb Serbian positions and did so unilaterally and without U.N. 'permission'. American troops are still stationed in the region with no clear plan for withdrawal.

If youre advocating that politicians first serve in the military, I would say be careful what you wish for. With vets and active duty voting overwhelmingly republican, the chances of libs ever being in power again will slim considerably.

Hugh,

"There are ways to do this kind of thing."

Just so you know, yes, there are. But if the equipment is maintained by the receiving country, such tinkering would ultimately be uncovered by that country.

Many countries inspect their newly aquired equipment for such goodies, upon receipt.

Those that don't would likely discover them during repairs or routine inspections.

KJ, Cornelius, Dr. Pepper, Gary, Nariz, et al:

I haven't wanted to do this, but I have been requested now to do so, and I think this ongoing rumble you are having detracts from what we are trying to do here.

You persist in assuming that because Hugh Fitzgerald's positions are not recognizably or currently of the "Right," they must be of the "Left." Or that if someone, anyone, is not part of the One, he must be part of the Other.

Beyond the question of Hugh's sense of direction, you are -- and have been for months -- continuing to make this site a forum for your partisan wrangling, despite bans, threats to ban, mild entreaties, etc.

Please try to read without prejudice. Both Hugh and I -- Hugh much more eloquently and persistently than I -- have argued that the jihad threat demands a breaking and reconstruction of paradigms. The threat does not come from the "Left" or the "Right," and those hoary old methods of distinguishing the Good Guys from the Bad are now causing more confusion than illumination, more harm than good, more heat than light. They are not helpful. They are getting in the way.

Kerry was clueless. He wanted to give nuclear fuel to Iran. In saying that I must be a Republican, right? Bush is clueless. He continues to allow us to be dependent on the Saudis without making any move to free us from them. In saying that I must be a Democrat, right?

In March 2003, just before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, I wrote an article criticizing as unrealistic the President's plan to bring democracy to the Middle East. I have linked to it here many times. Alas, it seems to have been taken down, but here is a cached link:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WXYgFu8DL6kJ:www.insightmag.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm%3Fstoryid%3D393129+%22Does+President+Bush+Have+a+Realistic+Plan+for+Bringing+Democracy+to+the+Middle+East%3F%22&hl=en

I based my argument on the nature of Islam and the Sharia, saying that it was unlikely that Muslims in large numbers were going to forsake what they saw as the law of God for law based on human consensus.

Hugh has expanded on this point in many, many columns. Some have asked if I agree with them. I find the question astounding (which is why I have so far not answered it), since I gave him his position on the Board of this organization of which I am the founder, and I edit and post his columns myself. But from what I have seen, Hugh's position has been persistently misunderstood and misrepresented by those who cannot see out of the old Left/Right box.

Is the idea that the democratization of Iraq is the wrong way to go about defeating the global jihad a "liberal" position, since liberals oppose the ongoing Iraqi adventure for utterly different reasons? Only if your worldview is irremediably bipolar. Why? Speaking for myself, note that my March 2003 article touches on none of the contemporary Leftist concerns: no body counts, no quagmires, none of it. The war, you'll recall, hadn't even started when I wrote it. Yet it is not foursquare with the Republican program. Also, I have criticized Bush and Rice, and allowed them to be criticized in articles here, quite harshly for their persistent misapprehension of the problem we face.

So is all this "Leftist" or "Rightist"? If you answer one or the other, you're not paying attention. Is it possible? Could it be? Might a third alternative be possible -- even desirable? Might our survival as a nation and a civilization demand some new, courageous thinking, and a recognition that all -- all -- our parties and factions are threatened by this thing, threatened mortally, and that none of them -- none -- have yet come to grips with the implications of that? And that since none of them have done so, it is manifestly time for some new formulations?

Other issues? I refuse to discuss them. Are we going to argue about tax rates while the barbarians fly airplanes into our strongholds and use our own tolerance and good will to subvert us from within?

So in conclusion, I ask you all to mute your partisanship and try to think of ways we can beat this thing instead of ways we can beat each other. Neither side of the American political divide has been or is perfect on this issue. So what? It is not time for recriminations. It is time for survival.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Being on the left or right is now irrelevant. When faced with Islam and Sharia, there is no room for partisanship. The only question is: will you stand up against Islam? In this case, the Presiden't statement can be modified - You are either with us in the fight against Islam or you are against us. Period.

Fair enough Robert. But when I look at this question of yours...

"Might our survival as a nation and a civilization demand some new, courageous thinking, and a recognition that all -- all -- our parties and factions are threatened by this thing, threatened mortally, and that none of them -- none -- have yet come to grips with the implications of that?"

...I have to ask (without recrimination), which end of the political spectrum has literally not a single voice that offers such recognition? There is a litany of politicians and commentators on the Right that give voice to warnings over "Islamo-fascism"...Islamic intolerance, etc. I can think of no one on the Left - unless one considers Andrew Sullivan still a man of the Left - with a comparable voice.

I admit to my contribution to the partisan wrangling going on here. Perhaps I should have handled it differently. But the only way to alert the Western public to the dangers of dhimmitude is to publicize the individuals and institutions that contribute to such a state of affairs.

You yourself admit to regularly attacking the Bush Administration for its policies. Are we to refrain from similar attacks on individuals and institutions guilty of similarly misguided policies? Are we to avoid making reference to multiculturalism, even though it is the Trojan Horse of our society that precludes an honest exposition of Islamic intolerance? Or perhaps we should just avoid pointing out that multiculturalism is a construct of the Left?

Where will such self-censorship get us? Part of the problem we face as a civilization is our inability to call a spade a spade. How can we solve the problem without calling attention to those who perpetuate such deaf/dumb/blindness?

This is your web-site. You're calling the shots. I've read two of your books and have the greatest admiration for you and your efforts here. I think this web-site is one of the most important on the entire internet.

But Mr Spencer, you are wrong if you don't see that the Left is an ideological kindred soul of our Islamic enemy.

Oh, for pete's sake, Cornelius.

Why don't you ask Keithjoy or Nariz for a list of the individuals and institutions of the Left that I have attacked here for their dhimmitude and/or complicity with the global jihad. I have never refrained from doing this, and I find your remarks ironic in the extreme given that others have excoriated me repeatedly for supposedly slamming the Left overmuch.

All you have to do is look at my books and articles and see that I also believe that while neither side is perfect, the Right is less sold out to the jihad than the Left. I devoted an entire chapter of "Onward Muslim Soldiers" to this. It was called "Everybody must get stoned: the strange alliance between radical Islam and the post-1960s Left." I confess I am still proud of that title.

But of course that is not good enough for you. And presently I am sure we will hear yet again from Keith, ad nauseum, about the depredations of Bush, which supposedly outweigh 1,000 Leftist appeasers and fifth columnists. The fact that I have noted those depredations on many occasions will never be good enough for him.

And so it goes. Over and out. I'm done with this.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

You persist in assuming that because Hugh Fitzgerald's positions are not recognizably or currently of the "Right", they must be of the "Left".

Amen, Robert! One of the things I love about this site is that people like you and Hugh believe in real thinking rather than simplistic partisan bumper stickers. I still have great respect for FrontPageMag, due to the useful information they provide, but I have soured on the blatant and sometimes clumsy partisanship. Even if Hugh is sometimes wrong, as all humans are, he is at least thinking, and expressing his thoughts quite eloquently. He will go where his thoughts lead him, without worrying what others think.

Now if by any chance I have your attention, I'd like to add a word to my question the other day about your possible religious motivation (if you even remember). Basically, as an enthusiast for Hinduism and Buddhism, I was wondering whether deep down in your heart, you have any feeling that Hindus and Buddhists must be converted to be 'saved'. I know it was silly to expect a response, since you are clearly a sophisticated and professional person, who knows what this site is for and not for. Still, because I am so interested in your efforts, I care what you think and was hoping to start a bit of a discussion. For sure, some Christian bigots appear on this site, but they do not reflect badly on you. Besides, you said you have an "atheist" in your triumvir, and I think I know who it is!

Benjamin,

I am just banning one of those Christian bigots now, for persistent irrelevance and not a little annoyance.

I have spoken repeatedly on the need for an alliance between Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Have you missed that?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I have spoken repeatedly on the need for an alliance between Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Have you missed that?

No Robert, I thoroughly understand that and what a great job your doing. This is one of the most important websites on the web, perhaps the most important. It may help to save Western Civilization.

As I said in the comments to your recent post on "Jihad Watch: Right or Left?', the one thing that bothers me about the American right is the strong undertone of Christian prejudice. It is there at the popular level, even if most leaders manage to mute their expression. You clearly travel in educated and sophisticated circles and may not be fully aware, but I can't help wondering about it. I realize that it is not an appropriate topic for this site, so I'll lay off. But since this site attracts intelligent conservatives, I wanted to inform them that it is an issue to think about. For example, the religious indoctrination at the Air Force Academy. And the stupidity of Intelligent Design, which threatens science, one of America's most precious assets. And so on.

Basically, I was also trying to find out if a basically post-Enlightenment secular spirit, similar to our Founding Fathers, reigns here. I hope so! Jefferson is my hero, and Tom Paine.
(But you've got an atheist on your triumvir!)

Well I appreciate the direct response Robert, pique and all.

'Onward Muslim Soldiers' is the one I haven't read yet. I'll have to get it just for that chapter (I'm a Dylan afficianado myself).

But it is reassuring to read your acknowledgement that there is a qualitative difference between Left and Right when it comes to the inclinations towards dhimmitude. I haven't heard as much from your VP.

The policies of the Bush administration can be reversed after a single election. The culture of political correctness and multiculturalism that corrupts our universities, corporations and media will take years if not decades to undo...(if this is possible at all).

I wish you all the luck in the world in finding your "third way." In my mind, hoping the Left abandons its reflexive anti-Westernism is alot like Bush hoping Muslims will change their spots and embrace democratic pluralism. But I swear I hope you're right and I'm wrong...that the Left can be brought on board.

Anyways, I'll try to be the agreeable guest here and do my best to de-emphasize the partisan bickering in the hopes that more liberals might sign on and see the light...(my God, I had to swallow hard to write that last sentence).

l have a problem when politcians and islamic terrorist both agree that the US should leave Iraq. Am I missing something? When Russia left Afganistan, and the world ignored her, the vacuum was filled up with the Taliban. Iraq cannot become that failed state. patience is so lacking these days. During WW2- what would of happened if there was news coverage over every battle, loss of life reported every day, and countdowns to the 1,000 mark,...l dont think we would of won WW2! the media co-ordinates their speaking points with the other side of aisle, along with Europe's media, BBC,UN, and you have nothing but a barrage of defeatism.

Well Lula, I think the Afghan model is a distinct possibility for what might happen in Iraq should we jump ship before the institutions of gov't are fully stabilized.

The situations are eerily similar:

1) super-power invades Muslim state in order to impose social and political change*

2) violent resistance and mounting casualties and costs erode domestic support for the war effort

3) Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan results in fratricidal warfare between Mujahaddin factions. Will a premature US withdrawal reap a similar harvest? Answer: probable.

4) Unending civil war in Afghanistan results in rise of Taliban - a fanatical regime imposing the law-and-order long sought by a war-weary population. Would a similar outcome await Iraq? Answer: possible to probable.

5) Afghanistan under the Taliban becomes the nexus for international terrorism, with Bin Ladin setting up shop to direct world-wide terror campaign. Again, will Iraq follow a similar pattern? Answer: possible to probable.

* The similarities are situational only. Anyone who attempts to draw a moral equivalence between Russia's invasion of Afghanistan with America's invasion of Iraq is 1) ignoring the distinction between the pre-invasion Afghan gov't of Pres. Daoud, which was on very friendly terms with the Soviets...and Saddam's Iraq, which had menaced the region for two decades and was an implaccable foe of the USA and 2) equating Communism - which was imposed on Afghanistan, with Democracy, which has liberated Iraq.

Spencer wrote: "You persist in assuming that because Hugh Fitzgerald's positions are not recognizably or currently of the "Right," they must be of the "Left." Or that if someone, anyone, is not part of the One, he must be part of the Other."

I've never said that a person who does not have positions recognizably or currently of the Right must be of the Left. All I've said (I can't speak for the others) is that anyone who doesn't recognize the larger & deeper role of the Left (than of the Right) in this Western myopia about the problem of Islam is being irrational and perhaps even counter-productive. Hugh not only doesn't recognize that larger & deeper role of the Left, he (among others here) positively bristles every time it's mentioned.

Hugh must think that David Horowitz is a raving lunatic, given the latter's insistence on the larger & deeper blame of the Left, an insistence that is far more vociferous than is mine or any of the other offenders hereabouts.