House GOP Seeks Quick Veto of Iraq Pullout

If our leaders would tell the truth about who we are fighting and why, maybe they would support the war. It is not against Iraq, it is against the entire world of islamofacism.

Hugh, Let us hear from you on this, please

I agree with the following..

The reluctance of the current administration
to call it as it really IS...

Our survival against the Islamo Faschiscts
needs to be STATED PUBLICLY...

It is amazing to watch as our leader try to both
Define an enemy but not associate this enemy with the Vile religion that supports there cause of mass death and destruction to all who oppose its vile evil...

This religion is

Islam

First, you are right, jingoist and carolyn2. It's about islam, and what it represents. If we were to pull out now, the Iraqis would be overtaken by sunni and wahabi islamists, which, I think, is just what the left wants. The sooner we leave Iraq, the sooner the islamists can take over.

And what does this tell the Moslems in our country? That we can't or won't follow through, so there is nothing to stop them from doing whatever they want here and moving us closer to Sharia law and farther away from constitutional law.

I don't know what the exact answer is. I just know to pull out right now without finishing the job would send a dangerous message to our enemies, especially the ones that live nextdoor to us in our communities.

but saddam was against the sunni and wahabi islamists and ruled his country with an iron fist, but the republican american army removed saddam and created a fertile breeding gound and freedom for these very people that saddam had under his thumb??????? plus, and a really big plus Iran has become a major player in that area, even becoming a greater sphere of influence and menace than saddam ever was.

what was the real point in removing saddam?

at least all those liberals and anti war folk knew that by removing saddam a power vaccum would be filled by iran and the entire middle eastern wahabi movement, creating eventual guerilla war in europe and the eventual use of an islamic nuclear attack on US soil!

the answer, only a right wing revolution in the west will save us from corrupt republican politicians whom love saudi oil money but close their eyes and ears to the saudi wahabism cultural invasion of the west.

I'm concerned that PJ O'Rourke was right about congress. They will do anything to stay in power. It seems almost all politicians are like Clinton these days. They wake up, read a few editorials in the NYTimes, see a few polls and change positions to ride the current wave of public opinion.

France did this for 40 years. As long as the social net was in place and everyone was a sophisticated childless social critic, there were no problems. They ignored the areas chock full of Muslims, just as we are ignoring our southern border.

This might be completely off base, but we need a leader like Augustus Pinochet, who saw the horrors of communism and did whatever it took to end the bloodshed and tyranny.

I think a lot of us here are worried that it will take another huge Islamic terror attack on the USA before our government is really unified in this fight - not just scrounging popularity and worried about the next midterm election.

people who questions President Bush's poll numbers, should also look at poll numbers for those in the Senate, and House, both are lower than the President! the liberal left media has poisoned the morale of the country. anyone trying to tell the truth about islamofacists are called racists, etc. PresidentBush is a strong man, too bad the senate and house are lacking in resolve and strength! a united front, and truth telling would work well with people! Democracy will destroy Islam as it is, once established people will demand reform! President Bush is looking forward and understands that a free people will overthrow dictators and religious fanatics!

Echoing another poster,,Hugh should apply to appear on Jeopardy..he would get paid and probly become a dynasty they would have a hard time toppling..

Bush wants "democracy" in Iraq because he is fighting a "war against terror" (not against any of the other instruments of the Jihad) and having entered Iraq without understanding Islam (do you think Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith e tutti quanti have, between them, read two books on Islam -- aside, say, from "What Went Wrong"? Of course not. Do you think that "Eurabia" and "The Legacy of Jihad" and "Onward Muslim Soldiers" might surprise them cause them to rethink a few things?), and without understanding Iraq. They never quite got, and still don't, the resentment and hatred, not over the last few years of mistreatment, but over 1350 years of mistreatment, of Shi'a by Sunnis. And for the same length of time, Islam has been a vehicle for Arab supremacism, which in turn helps explain the fury of the Kurds, that is not limited to their treatment during the Anfal campaign of Saddam Hussein.

Of course what the Republicans are doing now -- or at least those described above -- is intolerable. The obstinacy presented as resolution, the stupidity disguised as far-seeing statecraft (redoing the Middle East, redoing Iraq), the willingness to squander resources (including lives, as well as money and material and the morale of the soldiers, and civilian soldiers, and civilians) rather than to husband them for the necessarily long campaign to come, the criminal laziness reflected in the refusal to begin to see that the initial hopes were based on that very failure to comprehend thenature of the menace (not "terrorism" alone but the Jihad or, if you wish to be straightfoward, Islam, which inculcates hatred toward Infidels and demands participation, in onoe form of another, in Jihad as a duty demanded by the faith).

Of course Murtha is right. Of course intolerable damage is being done to the army. Of course the Administration can find officers here and there who will parrot the party line -- and for all I know, here and there, some of them will actually believe it. But many more do not now, if they ever did. And as they leave, as they quit the regular army, or as their terms expire in the Reserves and National Guard, they will make their views known -- views based on what they actually came to understand, however imperfectly (for they are told almost nothing about Islam, and are not encouraged to question the official policy that by "helping the Iraqis we help ourselves" which is not self-evident, and not even true, and "we can fight the terrorists over there or we can fight them here" which forces one to overlook not only terrorist acts all over the place, but the mcuh more dangoues problem of Da'wa and demographc conquest of Europe by its fast-breeding and aggressive and threatening Muslim population.

Of course Murtha was right. He may not care, he may not know, that such "victory" as is possible in Iraq will only come about through an American withdrawal, which will permit the ethnic and sectarian fissures to grow, and grow, and grow. And that can only be good for Infidels.

Was the Egyptian-Saudi proxy war in the Yemen a good thing for Infidels? Was the Moroccan-Algerian proxy war in the Sahara a good thing? Was the Iran-Iraq War, that went on for eight years, a good thing?

yes I said yes I said Yes.

The following was sent in response to Chmn H. Dean's request for comments on Murtha's remarks:

Dear Mr. Murtha,
I am appalled at your lack of judgement in handing Al-Zarqawi enough propaganda to buoy his band of thugs. We have made remarkable progress in Iraq, progress that seems to be overlooked by the MSM and your Democratic Party. I prefer the Democratic Party of Scoop Jackson, the one you and John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi et al have turned your backs on.
I, too, am from the Vietnam era. I remember the McGovern politics of defeat. I demand that you remember the betrayal of our POWs and MIAs, the disrespect our men in uniform suffered in silence on their return home from 'Nam and retract your misguided remarks. Do not repeat the mistakes of the 60's.
We are engaged in a war with an evil equal to, or deeper, than that of WWII. Zarqawi and his minions are the Hitler and Nazism of this generation. To "cut and run" in any fashion is an intolerable thought. We are fighting for our survival in a free world. We are fighting to keep ourselves and our heirs from the tyranny of Sharia and Dhimmitude. I suggest you read up on the subject before playing politics with this country's, and my children's, future.
Respectfully,
JH

Three phrases that, whatever one's view, should be avoided:

"Cut and Run"
"Stay the Course"
"Neither Falter nor Fail"

And of course, the next time someone writes, with unanswerable idiocy, after you have marshalled for the nth time logic, evidence, and all those other things, and that complacent metaphorist explains that "you don't run from a schoolyard fight" simply reply -- oh yes you do when the schoolyard fight, if you leave, will be between two awful schoolyard bullies who, if either one of them had the chance, would do you in, but if you aren't around, they will thrash and thrash each other, and call for reinforcements from among their friends. Yes, that's exactly the kind of fight you want to watch and derive profit and pleasure from, and do nothing to stop.

In the event Hugh should ever decide to hop in the coach and do the grand tour of the U.S., he would find
an obscure hideaway in the now rainy northwest
at my home..separate suite of course, but wash yer own clothes..I'm sure there are many other JWers who feel the same..

Peace to those who follow the Straight Path,

All praise is due to Allah, Who started His Book by saying, "All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all that exists. The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful. The Owner of the Day of Recompense." (Qur'an 1:2-4) and Who began His creation with His praise and appreciation, by saying, "All praise and thanks be to Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth,and originated the darkness and the light; yet those who disbelieve hold others equal to their Lord"( Qur'an 6:1) and ended it with His praise and appreciation, by saying, after mentioning the destination of the people of Paradise and the people of the Fire, "And you will see the angels surrounding the Throne (of Allah), glorifying their Lord with praise. And judgement will be made between them (creatures) with the truth. And it will be said, "All the praise and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of all that exists." (Qur'an 39:75) and similarly, "He is Allah, there is no god except for Him, His is the praise in the beginning and in the end, His is the judgement and to Him shall you (all) return." (Qur'an 28:70).
All the thanks are due to Allah Who sent His Messengers, whom He described as, "Bearers of good news, and warners, so that mankind would have no plea against Allah after the (coming of) Messengers."(Qur'an 4:165) and ended them with the unlettered, Arabian, Makkan Prophet who guides to the clear straight path. Allah sent the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to all of His creation- the Jinns and mankind- from the time that his prophethood began until the commencement of the Last Hour. Allah said, "Say(O Muhammad,peace be upon him): 'O mankind! Verily, I am the Messenger sent to you all by Allah, the One to Whom the dominion of the heavens and the earth belongs. There is no god (worthy of worship) but He. It is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His Words, and follow him so that you may be guided." (Qur'an 7:158) and "That by it, I may warn you and whoever it reaches" (Qur'an 6:19). Therefore, whether one is an Arab or non-Arab, black or red, human or Jinn, whoever this Qur'an is conveyed to, it is a warning for them all. This is why Allah said, "But whoever rejects it among the groups (of other peoples), the Fire will be their promised meeting place." (Qur'an 11:17). Therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Qur'an among those whom we mentioned, then according to Allah, the Fire will be their destination. Allah said, "Then leave Me alone with those who deny this narration (the Qur'an). We shall gradually punish them from where they perceive not." (Qur'an 68:44)

lord lucan wrote: the answer, only a right wing revolution in the west will save us from corrupt republican politicians whom love saudi oil money but close their eyes and ears to the saudi wahabism cultural invasion of the west.

Don't think that this will unite the U.S. mainstream society, which prides itself on its being a SECULAR society.

Perhaps, in terms of government and politics, political battles will occur and the lines will be redrawn so that new political parties will come into existence. The hypocrisy of what the "Republicans" and the "Democrats" stand for, is evident to anyone who follows where their money comes from, i.e. multinational corporations who directly benefit from existing policies, and where their members' alliances are to, such as the Council of Foreign Relations.
Besides the Federal Reserve, which is NOT part of the U.S. government (see for reference, The Creature from Jekyll Island), has no need for ideological battles, i.e. war vs. Islam, but instead is all about the money, the resources and the power. Your wish for a "revolution" lies in your own hands, but it's an inner revolution not an outer one that will most likely occur. By that I mean, the more attention that is focused on Islam, God Willing, people will be guided to the truth, after reading the Qur'an and pondering its verses, its lessons, its signs and its revelations.

May Allah Guide you all and set your affairs in order,
Abdullah

"the more attention that is focused on Islam, God Willing, people will be guided to the truth, after reading the Qur'an and pondering its verses, its lessons, its signs and its revelations..."
-- from a poster above

The poster above believes that "the more attention is focused on Islam, after reading the Qur'an and pondering its verses [and of course the Hadith, in a suitable collection, and the Sira], its lessons, its signs, and its revelations," the more "people will be guided to the truth."

Can't quarrel with that. Keep reading. Keep pondering. Guide yourself to the truth.

"know to pull out right now without finishing the job..."
-- from a posting above

What is the "job" in Iraq? Is it to create a happy, healthy nation-state? Why? Why is that our "job" and how would "finishing the job" (whatever that means) make Islam weaker, make the menace of Islam in the United States or especially in Western Europe, less present, less powerful, less aggressive, less dangerous? Why shouldn't we allow the sectarian and ethnic conflicts to cause those in Iraq to behave the way, sooner or later, they will anyway? Why, why, why?

Leave out all slogans. Explain.

Abdullah: "Don't think that this will unite the U.S. mainstream society, which prides itself on its being a SECULAR society. "

Mainstream U.S. society is overwhelmingly Christian, not secular. It is the government that is secular, by design, to protect the freedom of conscience for all citizens. It is Christian concepts of love for humanity and tolerance of other creeds and religions that drives the American urge to share our good fortune with others, and to approach all endeavors in a constructive manner, even against impossible odds (such as bringing freedom and self-determination to Iraq!). Americans generally assume that other religions share this basic outlook. As they learn more about Islam, Americans at large will realize the truth--that Islam, alone among the major religions, tolerates nothing except Islam, shares nothing, and constructs nothing. Eventually, left and right in America will unite against the beastly death cult called Islam.

apply here Hugh..

http://jeopardy.com/contestants_searchinfo.php

Hugh could kick jeopardy ass..do it Hugh

i am an old man ,,and i think Hugh could go on jeopardy and kik some mofo booty..don't be a chikkin Hugh..u must apply to jeopardy..dont be a chikkin..dont be a chikkin..

Abdullah: "He is Allah, there is no god except for Him..."

Thats right Abdullah, a little g, very little...
Allah god...bout right...

I keep saying that Geo works in strange and mysterious ways. Now we find that the whole Congress is acting strangly. Are these guys actually being paid to fool around like this? They spend more time sword fighting with each other than on the peoples work. At least Clinton faked it when he said, 'I got to get back to the work of the people'. Congress cant even fake it and the Senate is even worse. Throw the whole bunch of em out and turn the country over to Barbara Streisand and Rosie O. Founding members of the Thick Ankle Party, which is the political wing of the 'The Cult of She with Thick Ankles',
a religion of peace. They seek to establish thickankleism world wide and institute Hillarian law. Their bible is a book. 'It takes a village' by an unknown author. They dont believe in invasions, they frown on shooting people, all they want is a little respect. You can show them that respect by voting them in after we kick the current raskells out...

I have to agree with Hugh I think it is better that the US pulls out and we let them fight it out themselves. I usually argue that we stay because I dont agree with the reasons liberals give for leaving Iraq. I dont agree with liberals when they say it was an unjust war. But I definately agree it is better to leave these people to fight amongst themselves. Why should the US go bankrupt trying to rebuild a country that at best will always be a medieval society. If we could somehow disney up Iraq and make it a medieval fun park and charge admission sure.

I'm so sick of pro war dumbkopfs spouting how different Vietnam is than Iraq. They're right. Iraq is worse. What noble cause do we fight for? To bring democracy to the middle east? To bring stability? At least in Vietnam we were fighting communism. To stem the tide of communism. It didn't work because we found ourselves in a genuine liberation movement that took on the French before us. But, Iraq? What liberation? Just primative tribal dunces, settling scores. For this we spill blood and treasure. As I've said many times before, when the last American leaves . . . he will be spit on by the Iraqis. There will be joy when we leave--for about an hour, when the Imans turn attention to one another.

We need to regroup. Support the Kurds, the Shias and the Sunnis. Support them from a safe distance, perhaps securing the southern oil fields and let 'em rip. There are scores and scores to be settled with the Arabs supporting their proxy, the Sunnis and Iran supporting the Shias. We can support the Kurds in their relatively safe bastion in the north(which will in turn piss everybody off . . . isn't that the point?)

The way I see it is that with the whole region embroiled in an intra-religious slugfest, the chances of terrorism against the US lessens, not accelerates. Let Al Jazzera bastards cover the civil war. Let them show the babies littered on the streets, the beheadings, the killings that will only begin with a whamo when we leave.

Arguements can are are made for staying. Sensible ones . . . with a ring of truth . . . like withdrawl will be defeatest, emboldening the terrorists that they ejected another superpower, that the 'nation of Iraq' will implode, ect...ect... But, in the end, I cannot fathom how a single US Soldier is worth any of these so-called reasons. Bottom line, one day we will leave. On our terms or somebody elses(ala Lebanon with a massive explosion, killing hundreds of marines), but one day, we will leave. And how will we declare victory? By a puppet government that nobody is truly loyal to.

Let the neocons move there(taking W with 'em) if it's so damm important. The strategy was so dead wrong. 911 should have focused the truth on Islam . . . and all it entails. As Pat Buchanan points out, democracy will bring Bin Laden to power, Zarqawi to power and Hamas. The street wants blood. give it to them. Bring the boys home, defending our borders, attacking at immenent threats with surgical(but deadly precision). Bush is a decent god-fearing man. He has so many good qualities. Sadly, he feels Churchilian in standing firm on Iraq, and it will cost him and our country dearly. Bring the boys home.

Confession. I believed in the neocon vision of transforming the middle east, but even a superficial study of Islam and its problems render the problem vast. True reform must come from within, and as Hugh points out, it is probably way too late for that. So we must foster dissent within Islam, protect our borders, limit immigration, spy on the mosques, penetrate their shadowy netherworld of terror and keep out eyes on the ball. Sadly, I see no alternative with the dems . . . their even more pathetic. But as the worm turns, brave pro-military types like Murtha will stand up or Hagel . . . and I don't give a rats you know what about their motives . . . opportunistic or otherwise. The sinking poll numbers also mean that attention is diverted to the nature of the threat. As we embroil ourselves in this war vs. antiwar, Bush lied or not, Sadam had weapons or not debate . . . out attention wanders. Build a wall. Stop immigration. Protect our western heritage. Stengthen the economy.

Pulling out has so many advatages. First, the Iranians will involve themselves against the Saudis et al in the war over Iraq. Divert their freaken attention for a change. This will only make their retard in chief only more unpopular. Instead of a US quagmire, make it an islamic one with Jihadists blowing up fellow Jihadists, belonging to another clan. Support a free Kurdistan. McCain said it was a nonstarter. What the hell is that? Why not? They like us . . . have a democracy of sorts and hate the Arabs . . . am I missing something. How bout destablizing Turkey? or Saudi intra-religious disuputes by the Islamic post-us-pullout Iraqi situation???

And you know . . . we have the attention spans of a dimple anyway don't we. Bush's popular support here at home will soar once he pulls us out. Wall street IMHO will pick up as will the economy. I wiped tears from my eyes watching our boys stabilize the New Orleans disaster, helping OUR OWN, PROTECTING OUR OWN, FEEDING OUR OWN. Our brave boys over there in that hell hole deserve so much better.

Powell is wrong in his advice to W about Iraq when he said, "if you break it, you own it." NUTZ. It's broke. So what. So is our infrastructure. Fix that. Let the Arabs blow themselves to kingdom come . . . their one true inovative talent in 1600 years.

I'm sorry for the above rants. Just blowing off steam, I guess. Maybe it ain't so simple. George W Bush soared to the clouds in my book in the aftermath of 911. Focused . . . not lashing out . . . but using careful ploting to destroy Bin Laden's sanctuary. He steadied the country. I cannot stand those who attack W(as I did above). I regret those words against the President. He is a man of god. A decent man, from a decent family. In many ways he represents the best of us . . . of our country. We leave in the greatest country in the world. G-d, grant our leaders the wisdom to learn from our mistakes. Had LBJ pulled the plug on Vietnam, saying, "our cause was noble, we made a mistake to get involved in a liberation war, we're bringing the boys home." He would have gone down as a hero. I also believe that Bush will yet see wisdom here and do the right thing. I sat next to a wealthy born-again Christian on a four-hour flight and he told me, " we have a good man in the white-house, a moral man." I agree. But, if only . . . . Bottom line, I will never forget how we suffered on 911, and, yet the same time showed such grace. While I completely dispute our motivations for staying in Iraq, I applaud our motivations. It was never about oil. It was a moral(although completely misguided) attempt to export the unique American democracy to the Arab world. A folly to be sure, but even here we see the greatness of America. The generosity, and, yes, the hand of god. My country, right or wrong forever.

BTY Abdullah, you slave of Allah,
"He is Allah, there is no god except for Him..."
Should read, "...no god 'like' him..." Thats because there is no god like him. Allah has no god like characteristics at all. The only two gods that come close to Allah is Saturn...the old god who ate his children...yum yum. And Mars who cant give up fighting and warfare long enough to have sex. Eating his children, fighting and warfare and lack of sex do fit Allah. He does have those attributes, but thats about all....I know, your going to try and tell me that Allah does have sex, but I wont believe it till I see it...

what you all forget is that "Freedom" is a human condition... even those in arab lands are human.
Pres.Bush cannot go out say what really is in the koran...but with sites like this, books that only a free society can print, such as from Robert Spencer the truth will come out. But by being a tool, helping bring out Democracy will bring about the destruction of Islam! that is why you have so much vile and destruction coming out of jihadders islamofacist. Freedom and liberty with Democracy cannot coincide along with the Koran as it is. With education people will see the truth and toss out the koran. it takes time unfortunately, but slowly people will get disgusted with the likes of bin laden and his lackeys.

The vote was 403-3! I have read for two years every day every hour that Iraq is a quagmire and we must withdraw. The vote of our Congress now leaves no doubt, that what has been pounded into our head by the press over and over and over and over is not exactly correct. The vote was 403-3 against leaving. Remarkably, the associated press has the audacity to report the vote against withdrawal of 403-3 was a “publicity stunt":

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051119/D8DVEAK00.html

I hope no one pays a subscription to any newspaper that uses AP, Agence France Presse, UPI, or Reuters. Boycott CNN. Boycott CBS, ABC and NBC. Refuse to donate to NPR. Complain to conservative congress folk that we do not need nationally subsidized radio stations or programs. We can stop these muckrakers if we stop their revenues. Stop their revenues. Tell them why. Email them your disgust. Actually, many have been losing revenue and their audience and readership is down. They think it is because of cable but it is because they are anti- American. Tell them not watching them because they are Christiana phobic and/or anti- Semitic and/or unpatriotic.

You can help reform the press & media. Attack these spokespersons for the Fifth Column they are. When you see the word, "militant," in a news or media story describing a murderer badger them with flaming emails to change the word to "assassin." Tell them when they have used the wrong word. Explain to them the term "militant" extends only to those who seek to change the political structure and are generally part of a conventional military that studied military ethics. "Militants" are supposed to kill others of a competing "military" who have a legitimate dispute about changing a government. In a civilized society, "militants" follow certain chivalrous, civilized and humane rules. They do not hide among civilians. They do not rape and murder civilians. They do not try to murder others in their houses of worship. They do not fire upon others from their houses of worship. They do not fire upon others from within the other's houses of worship.

It is not militants who kill women and children. The more appropriate word for suicide killer is "assassin." It is an assassin who kills for political purposes often without regard to his own life or with no regard to whom he kills be it women or children. The word assassin is particularly appropriate, as the word is an Arabic borrowing in English of the word HASHSHASHIN.

In 1094, the religious control of Egypt was thrown into civil war as two sons fought over the succession from their dead father. The Hashshashin (assassins) were partisan supporters of the eldest son, Nizar, who seized and fortified a string of mountain strongholds in northern Persia. These included Alamut in the Elburz Mountains, and Syria. From these fortresses, they waged a campaign of terror against both orthodox Muslims and the Christian Crusaders. They often murdered prominent individuals - resulting in the word "assassin" coming to mean a politically motivated murderer in the English language. The appellation "assassin" is actually derived from the word hashshashin, or "hashish user," after a story that Hassan gave hashish to his fanatical disciples before sending them on suicide missions to murder his political enemies and drive unbelievers from the land of Islam.

You wonder who edits our media and the ignorance of their writers and editors who show so little regard to history or human rights or dignity. Let us start a campaign to have the media correct the word "militant" to the Arabic word "assassin."

Perhaps then, we can warn the West that they are being attacked by "assassins." Perhaps we can then warn people that we are being attacked by assassins not because the U.S. is in Iraq but because we are being attacked by fanatical disciples of Islamists in a war against unbelievers. Judging from the vote is Congress our representatives already know this. Apparently our press has just failed to report it.

The vote was on a resolution calling for American withdrawal AT ONCE. That was not what Murtha called for. He voted against that resolution himself, as anyone would.

As for the mention of Hagel above -- he is a much more doubtful figure and one wishes he will not be aided in his own presidential plans. He is much more in the Scowcroft vein of "get out" and go back to the appeasement of the Arabs as before. That has nothing to do with getting out in order to better deal with all the varied instruments of Jihad, while not caring (some will hope) if in Iraq the natural fissues within Islam work their magic.

A poster above insists in support of remaining in Iraq that "what you all forget is that 'Freedom' is a human condition..." This is Prclamation Issued by the Governor on Freedom Day, not an argument. It means nothing. The so-called "human condition" (a phrase that wasn't good in Malraux, and isn't good anywhere else) does not "favor" freedom; freedom is no more natural in human societies than despotisms or, with the new instruments that have made possible even greater control, totalitarianism.

Islam for example. For 1350 years it has stood for mental unfreedom. Fortunately for many people within Islam, the control by the regulators and enforces of Islam was lackadaisical -- Islam seemed unchallenged and unchallengable, and within villages of the illiterate, life went on more or less as before, though the non-Muslims would have to endure, in ways little and big, sometimes very little, and sometimes very big, their essential condition of inferiority.

Phrases like "freedom is a 'human'condition" are as meaningless as that idiotic phrase uttered by Faulkner at his Nobel Prize Speech in -- what was it, 1951 -- when he said, famously, "Man must prevail." Right. A few years after the end of World War II, when at least 60 million men didn't prevail but died, many of them complete innocents, and the Nazis and the Japanese militarists might well have one, he issued that bromide "Man must prevail."

"Freedom is the 'human condiition." Everyone wants the same thing. We all want the same thing. Don't cut and run. Don't falter or fail. Stay the course.

In the 1920s Fred and Adele Astaire had a very good routine when they sang together "A Babbitt Met a Bromide on the Avenue One Day." Very funny. Not funny, however, when that avenue turns out to be Pennsylvania Avenue, and the whole street is swarming with babbitts and bromides.

Spare me.

Good Morning Hugh,

I just read your response to my post and I'm thinking about what you said. I'm trying to make sense of this. We just spent ba-zillions of dollars for nothing? I can't tell you how that just kills me.

But you're right! To finish the job would probably require taking over the whole middle east which we a) don't need, b) can't afford and c) don't have enough guys to do that with. I liked the idea of fighting over on their turf instead of ours and I hate the idea that it looks like we would be leaving in defeat.

The other thing is that President Bush is gung ho to fight terrorists on the other side of the world when he will not admit that the same people live right next door to us and we have to put up with whatever they dish out in the name of toleration. I'm very frustrated and trying to work this out.

Here we go again. Calling for withdrawal. 3,000 American civilians died on 9/11! No matter how eloquently Hugh tries to spin it, no matter how foolishly the spineless members of congress try to spin it, pulling out now would render our country no better then the likes of France. We are the sole superpower. Are we going to lead the world to a brighter future or are we going to give up simply because it is too hard? Islam will not self destruct after a pullout, it will only become stronger. Islam thrives on misery and death. If it is allowed to continue on this path it will become a malignent cancer that nothing can stop.

I have asked this before - what is Robert Spencer's position on withdrawal? Hugh is a highly respected poster, but his comments are reckless and fly in the face of what I think jihadwatch accomplishes. Of all the awareness that jihadwatch provides, its loyal readers should be the last ones who think that good will come from getting out of Iraq. Unless the readers are so jaded about Islam and would rather take enjoyment out of watching the Islamic nutcases kill each other.

Our troops see the evil they are up against and they know the enemy much better than Hugh would like to think and as much as they would like to be back home in civilized society, they are fighting for the future of humanity. This is the last chance to make a difference in the middle east. Like it or not, our children's and our country's economic future rides on the success of this effort.

Words such as "fight" and "war" should be understood to include far more than merely tanks and guns. Yes, planes and missiles are now important to deprive, and to keep depriving, all Muslim states of all major weaponry, whatever it may be (except where, as in the case of Pakistan, they managed through the criminal negligence of the entire Western world to acquire such weapons -- but there are other ways possibly to force Pakistan to give up or "entrust for safekeeping" while officially retaining ownershp such weapons, including the threat of total economic collapse).

But much more important is to diminish the "wealth weapon" (it is referred to as such all over the Muslm world) of unearned, unmerited oil and gas revenues. I won't bother to remind everyone that, for another reason (something called the atmosphere, and the weather, and all that stuff related to global warming) and still another reason (it is important NOW -- actually it was important THEN in 1973 but everyone was so busy counting on that "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia -- who better to have all that oil than that "staunch ally" -- to get the economy, our economy, Europe's economy, all god's chillun's economies, off the damn stuff as much as we can, not precipitously, but steadily). No, I won't bother to remind people of that any more than I would wish to draw attention to my affection for praeteritio as a figure of speech.

And then there is propaganda. Where is the propaganda? Where is the American government doing what it did during World Wars I and World War II and the entire Cold War? Cat got our collective tongue? One tiny example. Yesterday Musharraf called for $5.3 billion in aid. Fine. Let him. And let everyone suggest -- let Bush, let Blair, let the E.U., let The New Duranty Timies and The Bandar Beacon, let Tom Friedman, let NPR, let them all say LOUDLY: Yes, you need it. And this year Saudi Arabia is now taking in close to $1 billion a day, and surely the Saudis, who cannot be more than 20 million people (they keep lying, and have for years, about their population -- J. B. Kelly explained the whys and wherefores of this to me long ago), should be asked to share their money with all their Muslim brothers, starting with Pakistan. Let the entire Pakistani public know how much the Saudis are raking in, and keep telling them, keep empahsizing that. And the Kuwaitis. And those in Abu Dhabi and the rest of the Emirates. And..here, and there, down the OPEC list.

Why is it no one ever raises the issue of using up Saudi Arabia's discretionary income by making it, that Big Muslim and Exceedingly Rich Country, the place to go to. And what happens when those poor Muslims get that money? Do you think they will necessarily be worse vis-a-vis Infidels? No. I think they will come to resent Saudi Arabia, and keep wanting more and more. Get the Infidel countries out of the foreign aid business, but especially out of giving any aid to those whose belief-system inevitably teaches them, causes them, to be ungrateful and, what's more, to hate us and wish to undo us. It makes no sense.

Yes, "war." Yes, a "fight." Yes, "self-defense." But not just with soldiers, for god's sake. How stupid, how luggish, how unimaginative, can we be? Why? We weren't before. What happened? That famous dumbing down, now rising to the top? Jaywalking (as in Jay Leno) in Washington, where one stupid remark is topped by another stupid remark?

We don't deserve this. Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin don't deserve this. They did nothing to deserve this.

By the way, some good has come, a great good, by deposing Saddam Husseina and so unsettling things, that the Sunnis cannot possibly come back. So there it is, the historic site of much of Islamic history (and we know that for so many Muslims, time stopped in 1258, when Hulego conquered Baghdad), sight of the Abbasid Caliphate, and Haroun al-Raschid, and all that "greatness" of Islamic civilization that we here constantly about in exaggerated form. There it is, the Land of the Two Rivers, under what -- under Shi'a dominance. Awful, terrible, deeply disturbing. Must eventually win it back for the real, the true, the Sunni brand of Islam. Fine. Let it stick in assorted craws. Let it be a constant source of psychic pain.

So good has come. The decision to invade was not crazy, not irrational. An important "victory" has been achieved. For god's sake, if in the Pentagon they would only take their "victory" and not "cut and run," and not even run, but right now start marching very determinedly right out of Iraq. Why? Because staying there gets in the way of a much greater victory -- the victory by which the natural fissures within Islam are exploited, by no longer working to prevent them.
Every Americvan soldier killed or wounded, every new taxpayer-supplied billion spent, every Bradley fighting vehicle or helicopter desert-degraded, is now being been squandered. Unnecessarily, counter-productively (I hate that word, but I haven't had any coffee yet and can't stop to figure out how to avoid it), self-defeatingly.

Okay, Hugh, I get what you're saying. What was Bush's real reason for going in there? My liberal friends keep telling me it was all about oil which appears ludicrous. What was his real motivation? Help me understand, please.

"This [remaining in Iraq to make it a nation-state where everyone gets along] is the last chance to make a difference in the middle east."
-- from a posting above

Nonsense. One can "make a difference" (sounds like one of those Commencement Speeches where the graduates are told by the Grand Pontificator on the platform to "make a difference") in all sorts of ways. Giving aid.
Ending aid -- especially that atrocious jizyah to Egypt and whatever the PLO now calls itself. Finding ways to lessen Saudi revenues. Finding ways to persuade Europeans to end all migration from Muslim countries. Withholding access to Western medical care and Western education to the Saudis and all the others. Preventing the sale of military equipment, or selling only equiopment that has been appropriately computer-sabotaged so that it its use can be regulated from America software, something akin to a trick that was played on the Russians, when they finally got their (Cray?) supercomputer.

The very idea that "Iraq," a place no one making policy knew much about, but all were content to assume they did, because after all so many plausible nice Shi'a -- Kanan Makiya, Ahmad Chalabi, Allawi and so on -- told them how smooth things would be, what a nice place Iraq would become as everyone would be so grateful to the Americans, given that everyone had so suffered from Saddam Hussein -- is the key to something, and that it is our only hope, our only chance, in the Middle East, is simply unproven, and counter to all the evidence of the thousand things that still would have to take place if we did instead "stay that bloody course" and all the other things the Grand Sloganeers would have us do.

How would Americans remaining in Iraq affect the islamization of Europe? How would the outcome in Iraq help keep Muslim states from acquiring trillions of dollars in oil revenues? How would remaining in Iraq another year or three change what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? How would remaining in Iraq ensure that people in America lend their support to a campaign against a world-wide phenomenon, one that is far more difficult to always identify, or for various reasons (Western publics are far more sentimental and vacuous than they were just 30 or 40 years ago), and that will require public support, strong support, for a long time to come. And at the moment barely 30% of the public wants, like you, to remain in Iraq. Perhaps they are right -- I think they're dead wrong. But even if they were, wouldn't you think that intelligent people would factor in the effect on the long-term support for anti-Jihad measures?

So that, even if for some reason you thought it best to remain in Iraq, you were nonetheless willing to admit that public opiinion in this country (and in Europe) was overwhelmingly against it, and then, in order simply to do no further damage, but rather to shore up, public willingness to suppport for the next forty or fifty years a vast effort to stop the Jihad wherever it locally manifests itselfy, in whatever way -- wouldn't you just for that reason alone concede that it is now important to get out of Iraq very quickly?

The job in Iraq is to create a more democratic country where the parties involved have a stake in its continuance.Hammered out constitution.

If this can be produced in the heart of the Islamic stronghold, the benefits to us are inumerable.Look at the borders of Iraq:Iran, Iraq, and the Saudi deceivers.

One of its side effects will be to allow for the religious moderation of Islam.

For us, it will allow us to breathe and be strong and free. For us. For us. You too Hugh.

That idea that this was ever a "war for oil" makes no sense. Are we getting oil at below-market rates? Are we getting any oil deals at all? It's nonsense. If we are imperialists, we msut be the first imperialists in the world willing to spend $350 billion and to go around building schools, hospitals, water-treatment plants, and so on. Very stupid imperialists, indeed.

That whole "Bush went to war for oil" argument infuriates. But let me comeback to it later, okay?

Okay sweetie. Thank you.

Hugh, I agree with you and disagree with you about the war in Iraq. I think perceptions matter. I agree if we leave, we should declare victory and leave. However, should we stay a little longer and destabilize the neighbors? While it probably serve our purposes if the Shia and Sunnite go to war with each other in a big way such as Saudi Arabia against Iran (they should both win!) however, I believe the neocons have a brilliant strategy that if accomplished could force on Islam a Turkish type model in the Middle East of a modern nation state. Pluralism is actually a solution to the antagonisms of each Islam to itself. At least, this is the hope. Islam and Democracy can be made compatible.

We know the dilemma because much of Islam has no respect for majority rule. Our goal is to both destabilize tyrants and thinking outside the box, perhaps to democratize Iraq, a Moslem country. Perhaps this is a naive strategy. It is certainly thinking outside the box. I am haunted that when Reagan thought he could get the Soviet Union to tear down the wall by saying it was an evil empire, people behind the curtain were challenged by this and actually agreed. I watch Middle East media pretty carefully at MEMRI. Most of what we see will keep us pessimistic about future prospects. I have noticed however, many programs recently devoted to discussing democracy and what the West wants. While most castigate that democracy is inconsistent with sharia etc., these denials may be part of a healthy process of self-reflection. Who would have thought after WWII that the Germans or Japanese would adopt democratic governments? Japan had absolutely no historical precedent basis for a democratic system. Indeed, it was contrary to its religious, empire and core caste system of beliefs. I think we need to stay there until we have at least overthrown the mullahs on one side and the government of Syria on the other. Let us not forget that our Sunni fighters intend Baghdad to be the capital of the Caliphate.

DGene,

"The job in Iraq is to create a more democratic country...If this can be produced in the Islamic stronghold..."

That's the problem. It can't, and Hugh is starting to make me realize this. When you have endless funding of terrorism, i.e., Moslem infiltration and imperial expansion, throughout the western world and you have a totalitarian mindset that terrorizes the adherents to submit to whatever the Moslem guy in charge tells them to do, then no matter how many billions of dollars we dump into the Middle East and how much democracy we try to get these people to accept, they will turn on us every time. Because their allegiance to Islam will ALWAYS be stronger than their desire for freedom.

In Islam it is:

Freedom - BAD

Mind control - VERY GOOD

The invasion of Iraq was nothing more, nothing less than payback to Saddam Hussein for offences commited against familia Bush.

After the first Gulf War, a tile mosaic of Bush Sr.s face was installed at the entrance to the "westerners welcome" Al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad. Anyone entering or exiting the hotel's front door had no choice but to trample on the visage of Bush Sr.

After the defeat of Bush Sr. in his second presidential campaign, Saddam attempted to have him whacked.

Bush Jr. really, really hated Saddam and now had the power of the Presidential office to enact suitable revenge, which he did, at the cost of over 2000 American lives.

Dgene: One of its side effects will be to allow for the religious moderation of Islam.

Whatever we do or don't do, a long term goal has to be to either truly moderate Islam or somehow
replace it. The propaganda effort suggested in an earlier posting should be a huge and continuous part of our actions. The best outcome would be to expose Islam with all its evil warts to the world, and convince its followers that Islam is the cause, not the solution, to their backwardness and misery.

No matter what we do or don't do, the oil is going to get used up. All the Islamic fiefdoms are today living on a false economy having essentially zero output. Basically, they have nothing to do all day except read the Koran, fume about Israel, and plot jihad against civilization. What will the rapidly expanding Islamic populations do when the oil revenues are gone? Will they go calmly back to their date farms and sheep herding? I don't think so.

There is evidence that they are thinking about this problem themselves. Iran (aside from building nuclear weapons that can be used for international blackmail) is working on nuclear power generation. Saudi Arabia and others are working at softening up Europe--and the West in general--as a future destination for their unsupported populations.

I think the containment that Hugh seems to suggest is a good tactical move. But something more than that has to be done. Maybe the Iraq experiment, no matter how it ends (and I think it will end badly), will teach us something about what works and what doesn't work. At least we are getting our feet wet. The point is, the war against the Islamic threat must go on after Iraq without letup, on all fronts. Many more are going to die tragically before this is over. 9/11 and Iraq were just the warmup round.

Sorry guys and gals.

The American strategy is brilliant.

We are winning the war, and will likely win it.

Syria is just a small potatoes win.

When the towers were taken down the gauntlet was thrown down: one either rises to the challenges of history or one becomes history.

Some unwise ones amongst us want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Resist them. Be strong. Support the military, defence, our way of life, our respective religious heritages, motherhood and kids (lol)- let's go the whole nine yards.

God bless the West.

"Freedom" is a human condition... it is logical. What gets me going is that some westerners say well other peoples such as Arabs cannot understand freedom.. then why do they gravitate and move to western countries! "FREEDOM!!! it does mean we have to have a blind eye to some of their motives, and truly undertand their culture and fanatical cult of islam. Freedom also teaches people responsiblity.
you need to talk to people who lived in eastern Europe when Soviets were under contol.. yes l will say it again.. DEMOCRACY WILL DESTROY ISLAM!!!!
That is why there is such a fight with these islamofacist losers! they know it.. D

Kafira...the lamest reason (excuse) for the Iraq war is 'Bush's revenge'. While I would agree that his ego gets a big massage from beating Saddam up, I dont think 'revenge' is the reason for this war. It's a lot larger than that. Larger than oil as well. If it was just oil, we could just take it, and if it's just revenge, Bush has had that so lets go.
As far as I can tell the decision to war on Iraq was made prior to Bush taking office.
When Bush selected the Council on Foreign Relations members, Cheny, Rumsfield and Powell, for his VP, Sec of Defense, and Sec of State positions I knew something was up...old cronies...his dads guys...then I read an article that said because of the selection of those guys, the US appeared to be going on a war footing. This was prior to Bush actually taking office. A war footing says who? Why? Who ordered the gathering of these warriors prior to Bush actually taking power? Who made the decision to attack Saddam before Bush had the power to do so?
Who was wispering in Geo's ear? Who's wispering in it now? I hope its not Allah...

To all who support our continued efforts in Iraq, what is victory? To defeat the terrorists? Bring democracy to a country that is not even a country . . . but an artifical set of lines in the sand, held together only from a thug like Sadam. Is victory staying the course? When the numbers hit 3000 US dead or 4000, then the arguement will change(it already has changed in this direction), we must stay to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. To accept this arguement, the Vietnam war would stilll be in full swing. We don't have to lower our flag . . . just reposition a quick-strike force to Kurdistan, maybe bomb the crap out of anybody who interferes with our withdrawl. To all who support our continued efforts in Iraq? ask this: fine, we'll stay the course, support the pres and the troops, but deep in your hearts, have you EVER seen a more hateful, ungrateful people than the Iraqis? After 100-200-300-400 plus billion spirals down the rat hole of Iraq, can't the neocons see that maybe, just maybe, as ludicrous as it sounds, but perhaps there JUST MIGHT be a better use for our tax dollars than to help rebuild 'Iraq' and to 'stand down, as they stand up.' I saw screw 'em against the wall. Pull out and watch the men duke it out. For that matter, pull out of Yugoslavia as well. Let the Arabs sort it out. Let the Eurotrash sort out Bosnia . . . maybe the French can bring some order to the chaos of Iraq. Support ony our friends . . . our real friends . . . Israel, England, Australia, the Kurds.

As far as I am concerned, we have already won the war in Iraq. Sadamm sits in a cell. The members of his thugocracy are either dead or in jail. His nuclear program is destroyed (unlike the one in Iran). Don't believe the liberal blather that had given up his nuclear ambitions.

We will soon have a democratic government elected by their second election. They function with a constitution written by the Iraqis.

Soon our military involvement will wind down and the troops will begin to leave. I say what a shame!!! I have enjoyed myself every time the US Marines kill jihadists. This is the only way to deal with them. The only good jihadist is a dead jihadist. The more we kill the better.

Soon, the Marines will no longer be kicking ass and we will be back to diplomacy at the UN. We will have to suffer platidudes such as "the terrorists have hijacked a great religion".

Casualties are regrettable, but suffering them does not necessarily mean the cause has been defeated or the battle lost. There were thousands of casulties at Iwo Jima, but at the end of the day the American Flag flew from the top of the hill.

It is one thing to pontificate about the evils of Islam on a website as Hugh has done, and it is another thing to kick jihad ass as W has done. There were hundreds of thousands of casulties in wars to fight slavery, facism, and communism. Are we so timid that we can't accept 2,000 casulties in Iraq to fight jihadists?

I think history and the doctrine of Islam have been egregiously ignored far too long where the ME is concerned. Why didn't colonialism endure? What caused the downfall of the British Empire? Democracy is antithetical to Islam; this has been demonstrated by the failure of European nations to civilize tribal muslims in the ME. The tenets of Islam directly contradict any and all concepts of democracy.

Every effort to change the ME has failed. The temporary effects of Westernization introduced by colonialism have vanished and have been replaced in almost every instance by the return to an even more radical, fundamentalist form of Islamic fanaticism. The fanatics always prevail in the end; look at Iran.

IF the Europeans couldn't change the Islamic world, and we know the extent of their endeavor to do so, why should we think for one moment that we can? Even a "Constitution" and free elections resulted in the same old same old in Afghanistan. So they elected an Islamic government, big deal. What kind of success story is that?! Nothing has really changed much in Afghanistan, and one tyrant, Saddam, has been replaced by a tyrannical Islamic government in Iraq. They want tyranny, not democracy. Why can't we understand and accept that? To them, Islam is freedom so let them have it.

The best we can do is keep them away from us, out of our countries, removed from our midst so they cannot attempt to impose their insanity on us. There are many ways to fight these lunatics, but the only way to defeat them is to isolate them from the rest of the world and let them fight and kill each other instead of us. This tactic is far more achievable and logical than trying to change the immutable.

Wouldn't we be much better off by using our resources, both human and financial, by securing our borders, strengthening homeland security, monitoring the enemy within, and concentrating on making America safe from present and future threats from the muslims we have already allowed to invade and eventually divide our country?

We are fighting a war in Iraq with muslim terrorists, but we allow muslim terrorists to enter our own country through our open, unprotected borders or with legal visas, and now ten thousand Saudis are coming to exploit the superior educational system of the inferior kafirs. We are allowing tens of thousands of muslims to immigrate to America, despite the chaos in Europe created by muslim immigrants. It is insane, utterly insane.

I voted for Bush and I initially supported the war. But if we're going to send our young soldiers to fight and die in Iraq and allow the enemy free access to our country to plot and plan our destruction from within, what, pray tell, is the point?

my above post, l pushed the button before l could correct.. l meant to say "that is not to say we should have a blind eye....etc."
To Biorabbi and perhaps Hugh, many countries are drawn and were drawn on a map... boundaries changes hands.. from the time of Turks, British, and present and pasts. This is not Vietman, that BS the left want you to believe. they dont really want America to win, they think the West and esp. America are evil..or deserve this. appologists like Clinton after 9-11, they were all these reason why the muslims hate us so much. it was oil comanies, it was Israel.. blah blah.. no you cannot back down to these thugs! Bush's army is trying to fight with its arms tied behind their backs due to the PC crowd, euro trash elite liberal media. We need a General Patton.. did you ever hear of his way he wanted to destroy the Japanese army.. if any General was caught saying those same words.. he would be haulled to PC school and kicked out of the armed forces!!! WE need to support a winning war, you can criticize the way its fought, but the way the media has lashed out at the Bush adminstration, and armed forces...they
are handing ammo to the enemy. these islmofacists
monsters, say they can win the war not in Bagdad,but in Wash D.C. where there can be found so many elected cowards in the Senate and House!
and Biorabbi you say about the billons spent in the rat hole,,that is what many Democrats liberals are saying about money invested in Israel, and armed forces..... the islamofacists have seen the movies in how in time of Clinton had left his marines to die in Somalie(BlackHawkdown), and began to belive the west, esp. America were paper tigers! gave them the ammo to attack the Towers in NYC 9-11.

GFB...it's a different world now than WW2. It's a lot more screwed up and too many people got no grit or guts either. My uncle served 162 days on the Guadacanal front. As a Fst Lt, he lead nightly patrols into the jungle. He was shot in the chest by a sniper.He lived and was called to the Korea war where on Heartbreak Ridge, a mortar landed on he and a Sgt, Killing the Sgt and blowing my uncles legs off. My uncle had grit and guts, and so do the other service men and women risking their azzes for us. They are not stupid, they know the risks. If you got any grit and guts, the first rule of war is to win it. If your gutless, you cut and run, you roll over, go belly up, whimper and play dead. I dont know if we should get the troops out of Iraq or not, but I do know we are a bunch of azz holes if we demoralize them. There's too much of that going on now by gutless, gritless people, mostly on the left. Some things are worth fighting for, the debate is 'what are those'? If I want the truth about that, I would not ask a liberal or a muslim. Allah may know, but Abu bin Michael Moore, does not...

I don't agree with Hugh at all that it's time for early withdrawal from Iraq... But I do think we need to begin to fashion the atmospherics of our withdrawal right away.

I hope we begin to make the point that this is the ME's last best chance to prove it can foster some semblance of 21st century governance... That this is the Arabist's last chance to show (finally) moderation in their supremacist goals -- that this is Islam's best last chance to prove it can exist somehow with sectarian battles waged by other means than terrorism and intolerance.... The realities of this Iraq endeavor will be unfolding for years -- if it shows some signs that Islam and Arabs can turn away from their trajectory of fascism and begin true political processes then much will be accomplished. If they prove incapable, we must immunize ourselves at becoming the whipping boy of the latter Islamic project which will ensue (mayhem of civil war...)

If it fails, if it succeeds, we must make one PR message clear and LOUD: "We did what we could for you and you took up the challenge and succeeded" or "We did what we could for you and you failed the challenge"

If we can fashion this message, and solidify it in the minds of the world -- then America comes out of this winning no matter what follows --

PS -- the House disgraced itself with the pyrotechnics we saw yesterday... Hugh is brilliantly correct when he points out that the REAL discussion hasn't begun yet in political circles -- ISLAM -- ISLAM -- ISLAM -- That's the nub of the matter...

But ponder this, Hugh -- It is probable that the ONLY way the West will finally confront the truth about Islam is by having our noses wiped in events like 9/11 and the putative failure you maintain Iraq has become ( which I don't agree with -- not now -- as I obstinately keep stating ) As messy as it looks, all of this is probably necessary -- all the naivete -- all the missteps -- all the continued carnage and blindnesses --It is not hard to garner from my other posts what that I think this all is leading towards - Whether Iraq is successful or not, there are harrowing times ahead for Islam and the West. Doing thought experiments several moves ahead -- the prospects get bleaker and bleaker in my mind -- so I truly prefer to consider expending luxurious amounts of time, energy, treasure, and even the precious lives of Americans to avoid FAR FAR worse times ahead... Irony of ironies -- if we are completely successful at preventing Armageddon, we will never be able to comprehend that fact... But who would have it otherwise?

I dont know if we should get the troops out of Iraq or not, but I do know we are a bunch of azz holes if we demoralize them.

There is no reason for demoralization. By any sane measure of success the U.S. has already achieved it. It destroyed the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks. It marched in triumph through Baghdad, the Rome of Sunni Islam. It ferretted Hussein out of a rat-hole and brought him to trail while capturing or killing almost all of his top cronies. And most importantly it assured that Iraq (or more precisely its rump remainder) will never be a nuclear or conventional threat to the U.S.

All this was achieved 2 years ago, when the casualty count was still in the hundreds. But the Bush administration, ignorant of Islam and the unquenchable hatred and defiance it inculcates in all believers, arrogant and dismissive towards all expertise not in conformance with its ideologically-driven view of reality (Cheney and Wolfowitz set-up their own Iraqi intelligence analysis operation in competition with the CIA's because, quote "We want to show these f*ckers that they're wrong.") thought it could tame a savage, Arab/Muslim hellhole like Iraq into a sane and decent place if only enough blood and treasure (though in keeping with the rest of Bush's career, the blood and treasure would be someone else's) were spent. They alone understood Iraq was on the verge of immediately acquiring nuclear weapons, so forget CIA quibbles about the reliability of such intelligence assets as Ahmed Chalabi, Bush's fellow "hero in error [lies]". They alone understood that "everyone wants freedom", and so forget the brilliant insights into the Arab/Muslim psyche by scholars like Bat Yeor. And so they persevere- or, I should say, order our soldiers to persevere- in this fruitless, thankless task, because they cannot admit they were wrong and probably still believe their own deceptions and platitudes.

The U.S. could have given control of Iraq to the U.N. in the immediate aftermath of the war and made it THEIR disaster, but they didn't, much to the amazement of, not Thomas Friedman, but that light-weight former-head of CENTCOM Anthony Zinni. Instead they made Iraq into their special project, probably so they could show those U.N. f*ckers they're wrong.

The U.S. achieved its major objectives in Iraq (ending once and for all its nuclear program, and ensuring that a friendly- Kurdistan- or at least weak- rump Iraq- state would succeed it) 2 years ago, and acknowledging it by withdrawing our troops on our own schedule, and not when public opinion, a change in control of Congress, or unendurable strain on the armed forces compells us to is the wise and intelligent thing to do. For those who counsel "staying the course", the burden is on you to show a credible plan of winning what is a war of attrition that cannot be brought to a decision but will drag on as long as there are young Muslim men who hate infidels more than they enjoy life; a war of attrition that, even with a casualty ratio of 10:1 (are 2,000 U.S. lives really worth the 20,000 jihadists killed so far; are 20,000 worth 200,000?) is fought from a position of disadvantage to our forces; a war of attrition that serves no meaningful, yet-to-be-achieved goals.

And that takes care of that.

Elephant in room alert -- And the inferences that will be drawn if the US were to follow Hugh's or diocletian's dictates? Apparently we can assume no inferences will be drawn, no consequences will follow except a neat tidy little civil war which we can sit back and enjoy -- LUDICROUS!

Who will be blamed by all global constituencies when Iraq devolves into utter chaos and civil war?
What mileage will be extracted from the undeniable appearance that American was successfully chased out by a handful of holy warriors?
Nary a peep -- I guess those tactical considerations don't enter into your ample heads or are not worth addressing?

Losing over 2,000 soldiers with many more wounded and maimed is difficult to take. For those of you who are sad and uncomfortable about this I ask you - will you feel sad when Iran drops a nuclear devise on Israel or a major US city? Will you feel sad when hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and hundreds of thousands more slowly die from the radiation and the fallout and our economy goes back to the stone age?

The Saddam regime with his two sons represented a long term nuclear threat. Saddam spent his whole life attempting to obtain muclear weapons. He was stopped by the Isralis when they bombed his reactor, he was stopped by the US with the first gulf war.

We found a centrifuge buried in the garden of one of his scientists. After the invasion, the Kay report indicated that all of Saddam's muclear scientists were still together, on the payroll and in assigned facilities.

To assume that he or his likely successor sons had given up thier nuclear ambitions is simply not accurate. Given the recent tendancy of repressive regimes to be succeeded by their sons such as with North Korea or Syria, it is certain that eventually the regime would reconstitute its program.

The fact that Lybia was also persuaded to give up it's nuclear program is by itself a justification for the invasion. Lybia and Iraq off the table - that leaves Iran and North Korea left. The Iraq invasion reduced the potential for a muclear catastrophe by 50%

The only way to stop these programs is by force. Diplomacy is a charade for useful idiot appeasors to feel good. After years of negotiations and bribery, North Korea has nukes. After years of negotions by the European Sap three, the UK, Germany and France, Iran continues to advance its program.

No my friends, the only way to stop these jihadist regimes is by using the military. Most Americans do not understand the true nature of Islam and what they are really all about.

Whatever type of government emerges in Iraq, it is certain to be far superior to its Bathist predecessor. Lets not expect Iraq to become another Norway. Lets lower the bar a little bit. If there is a minor civil war - so what? A little payback by the Shiites for years of Sunni oppression may just be in order.

We are coming down the homestretch. A number of generals have indicated that by spring we will start troop draw downs (see JW subsequent post). Lets be patient and see the mission through to its completion.

There is no "homestretch" in a war of self-defense against the promptings of Jihad. It goes on, essentially, forever. It can be managed. The same instruments of Jihad that are being used -- not only or mainly military in nature, but also money, propaganda to spread Islam and frighten Infidels, and demographic conquest -- can be used, save for the latter, where it is unlikely that large numbers of Muslims will jettison Islam though, in such places as Iran, it is not impossible.

If there is no "homestretch" and there is no "victory" then what does Iraq mean for Ameridan or Infidel policy? It is justified only if it leads to a significant weakening of Islam, not its rescue or re-emergence. And that means playing to whatever in Iraq will help to divide and weaken Islam, and that is all that matters. Not making people in Iraq have happier, more prosperous lives. That means nothing unless it helps weaken Islam. There is no hint that the fantastic prosperity of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., and other Arab states that live on vast oil revenues, has done anything to weaken the hold of Islam. We want to weaken the hold of Islam, the putative unity of Islam, the attractiveness of Islam to all the weak-minded in Infidel countries. That can only be done by allowing the sectarian and ethnic fissures to widen, and to be the source of constant instability and division, ideally bringing in and soaking up resources from Muslim states outside.

This was never understood by the Bush Adminstraiton. That's okay. That's understandable. When amygdalas lit up all over Washington on 9/11/2001, one could not have expected that people who had ignored Islam would suddenly become experts. At least they did not, like the previous administration, actually call in the likes of John Esposito to enlighten them. But they didn't allow themselves the time to think and to study, Islam, or to receive tutoring that would not be a kind of higher apologetics. Lewis is strange; he both realizes, at times, the full menace of Islam and what it is all about, even warning (a lot later than Bat Ye'or) about the inevitable (if nothing is done) islamization of Europe, but in his policy enthusiasms, whether it be for the Oslo Accords, so obviously in accord with the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, and in his enthusiasm for Iraq the Model (even going so far as to suggest Prince Hassan to be a new Sunni monoarch for Iraq, he shows himself strangely out of touch with realities, and has confused, as many in Washington did, all those polite, plausible Shi'as in exile who assured one and all how smoothly things would go once the Americans had rescued the fair damsel Iraqa from the dragon Saddam Hussein.

No "homestretch" and no "victory" -- but it is now time to again and again insist that the Iraqis take over, for whatever happens from now on, we have done enough. We have done more than enough. We have to care about American lives. They are not expendable the way the Iraqis appear to believe -- to be used up essentially protecting the transfer of power from Sunni to Shi'a. The soldiers, the money, the materiel, the sinking morale among both soldiers and civilians when that morale must be kept up -- all show the need to get out very soon. Congressman Murtha, one can be sure, has close ties to the military. He has been their strong supporter. He talks to them, and they talk to him. If you were a high officer, and you were alarmed about the state of affairs in the services, and you thought it was important to leave Iraq, of course you would contact Congrssman Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and an ex-Marine. Wouldn't you? His speech was not his speech alone. He was speaking for many others as well.

And he was, and is, right. And the farce of that phony vote, and that lame-duck no-cut-and-runner who is essentially too obstinate to admit, or even not to admit, but merely to act to show that he recognized,mistakes in policy -- that has enraged a great many people. Bush cannot win them back. He can't. It's too late.

He can conduct a 4hetorical campaign against the Michael Morres of this world, and pretend that everyone who wants the Americans out promptly must, perforce, be a running dog of Moore or MoveOn.org. But that cannot possibly apply to those who give evidence of both understanding and wishing to diminish, the world-wide menace of the Jihad, and who for that reason wish for a policy that was so blind to the obvious gains to be made by leaving Iraq, and a cutting, not a cutting and running, of the intolerable misallocation of resources in Iraq.

The people who conducted the Cold War were cunning, clever, and many who were most useful were far more experienced in dealing with Communists than anyone in the recent C.I.A. seems to have been with Islam. There has been no use made, it seems, of defectors from islam the way, once, defectors from Commmunism were listened to. ibn Warraq has not spoken at the Pentagon. Why not? Why hasn't he been invited? Why has there not been established a unit that will do nothing but propaganda intended, not to win over Muslims by telling them how wonderful America is for Muslims, and how many good things America does for Muslims abroad, but taking a different approach, has members whose sole task is to think of ways to divide and demoralize and contain Islam.

We've done it here -- all for free. Why not take a look? Why not think about it? Why not stop clinging to a policy just because it is a policy, and admit that sometimes, after one acquires more information, and understanding, one changes poliicies. It happens all the time. Only the foolish would continue to ignore what is now so clear to so many.

I have to agree with Hardliner 100%.

Hugh? You're a bright guy. However, if the pro-islamist posters on these forums start agreeing with you.. you might want to ask yourself Why?.

What "pro-Islamist posters" are you thinking of who thoroughly approve of the Americans leaving Iraq, for the sole purpose of more effectively, at much less cost with much more benefit, pursyuing the world-wide campaign of self-defense against the Jihad?

Name them, please, so that I may look them up at this site and see exactly what they have written, and what their reasoning is, or how they have expressed agreement with me.

I am confident that Ibn Warraq and Bat Ye'or have lost whatever belief, if they ever had any, they might have had in the possibility of this Iraq venture succeeding. Bat Ye'or thinks that the Western world should reduce all direct contacts, especially of the "nation-building" kind in Iraq, to an absolute minimum -- she thinks, and has said, that no good can come of it, no good to the Infidels who will simply be lured into various Muslim spider-webs like so many insufficiently unwary flies.

Do you think Robert Spencer disagrees with me? Ask him, next week -- no, I'll ask him to put in a little something about Iraq. Would he be among the "pro-Islamists" whom you describe as approving of my views, which you don't like because they can't be dismissed quite so easily as all those idiotic michael moores -- can't be dismissed because the angle of attack, the reasoning, the motivation, are entirelly different. It is silly to try, when evidence and logic fail, to attempt to undercut an argument by suggesting that it is the same argument -- it isn't, not at all -- of obviously detestable people. It's a transparent rhetorical trick. Tell me again what wonderful things will happen for Infidels, and just how Islma will be weakend, if we stay in Iraq.

I'm all ears. And so is Ibn Warraq. So is Bat Ye'or. So is Ali Sina. So is Robert Spencer. Tell us all about the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Project, and how that will put paid to the Muslim project of islamizing Europe. Or how keeping the Sunnis and Shi'a from being at each others' throats somehow makes it easier for us to destroy Iran's science project. Why would it be easier than if the Islamic Republic of Iran were deeply distracted by Sunni-Shi'a battles next door in Iraq?

Tell us.

l am surprised at the attitude that some people think that Pres.Bush does not know what is in the Koran! if little o me can find out, dont you think people in the president's circle, experts cannot read the same information as we have here!! what Bush knows is that bringing Democracy to the mid east will destroy islam as it is! Bush and his administrative cannot go out and say the things we know about the koran..he has his hands tied with the pc media crowd and eurocrats/UN gang. again Democracy will kill the Koran!

Hugh - Siding with the Islamists by poster above

Or saying it another way - siding with Islamists who want us out of Iraq ?

State the most obvious:

Saudi Arabia wants us out; Iran wants us out; Syria wants us out; Turkey (wouldn't let us through) wants us out.Lots of Islamists there - largely the most virulent in the world.

Iraq is a brilliant American strategy, a strike into the very heart of Islamism which puts political pressure on the religion as well as regimes to force and encourage change - and we are winning, and we will likely win.

Hugh, in my view you are brilliant and am grateful for your insight, but look who your allies in this view are.

Hugh? Did I call everybody who ever posted on this forum or who otherwise agrees with you on this issue a pro-islamist? No.. I did not. As you must surely be able to make that distinction as to who the 'real' pro-islamists are, you look foolish trying to deny that you even know who they are.

Secondly, your false extension of the 'pro-islamist' umbrella to encompass others who are in agreement with you, such as Spencer and Warraq et al., belies your vulnerability on this issue as if you're scrambling to find bigger skirts to hide behind.

Your knee-jerk response to my post raises an eyebrow that perhaps you are driven by some "Get Bush!" agenda. And your refusal to even explore the question I raised as to why 'real' pro-Islamists happen to be in agreement with you on this issue is a disservice to your JW readers. Or, are you simply of the opinion that there really are no valid alternative viewpoints on this issue other than the ones you espouse? That smacks of elitism. And your constant handwaving in this regard makes it appear as if you're in steadfast pursuit of a political agenda. Isn't this site about getting to the truth? Or, is this site, with your learned and steadfast persistence, devolving into another wing of the Leftist media establishment?

"your false extension of the 'pro-islamist' umbrella to encompass others who are in agreement with you, such as Spencer and Warraq et al., belies your vulnerability on this issue as if you're scrambling to find bigger skirts to hide behind."
-- from a posting above

What nonsense. I invoked their names because at least one poster on this theme of why we shouldn't leave Iraq keeps yapping about "what does Robert Spencer think, what does Robert Spencer think" and therefore I decided to mention that I know what Ibn Warraq thinks, I know what Bat Ye'or thinks (both did not object to the initial invasion, and both think it is long past time to leave the place, and not to get entangled even with so-called moderate Muslims -- it always muddies and confuses things, and raises hopes, and delays the day of complete bleak understanding), and that, furthermore, never once has Robert Spencer ever suggested the slightest disagreement with me.

But if he did, so what? You apparently have missed entirely my world-view if you think there are any skirts, anywhere, I would look "to hide behind." Even if no one agreed with me about Iraq, I still would -- and that would be enough for me.

I don't think Saudi Arabia, or any of those other countries you have mentioned, necessarily are so terribly eager for the Americans to leave now that they realize, or some are coming to realize, that the end-result will be the breakup of Iraq, with the Sunnis left with nothing. They can't say this openly, but Saudi Arabian leaders did mention that they were "relieved" to find that the chances of civil strife [read: Shi'a suppression of the Sunnis] had diminished.

Besides, given their experience of a succession of unwary, innocent regimes, the Arabs cannot conceive that the Americans could ever begin to behave in truly machiavelllian fashion, actually do something about the islamizaion of Europe, actually contemplate cutting off Saudi and other Arab access to Western technology and arms, actually give up the will-o'-the-wisp of that "two-state solution" which cannot possibly end Muslim refusal to accept, forever, the existence of an Infidel state in the midst of Dar al-Islam, that the Americans might even be planning to seize the southern Sudan and Darfur to draw a line against further Muslim (i.e. Egyptian) expansion of influence and power southward to extend to the headwaters of the Nile.

No, none of this is in the minds of the Arab rulers anymore than it is yet firmly in the minds, as yet, of American policymakers, whose ignorance of Islam and of the specific fissures within Iraq helps explain, along with the usual explanations (stupidity, lack of imagination, lack of leisure to think in the hectic vacancy of Washington). So if, as you claim, they all "want us out," it is only because they are complacent about what would follow.

I want us out to prove them wrong. To get out for the right rather than the wrong reasons, and to follow or accompany such a withdrawal with a hundred signs, that should make the new American attitude of determination to weaken, divide, and demoralize Islam crysal clear -- to everyone, Arabs and MoveOn.org as well.

I have no doubt that shrill cries will go up everywhere when the Americans leave, cries of "you can't just leave" or "we ruined Iraq, we have to stay" or "we broke it, we fix it" or "we can't let Iraq descend into civil war." That's from what some describe as the "left" but I prefer to describe such simpletons, with their easy and diseased compassion, as simply the Universal Confederacy -- or should it be Union -- of Dunces.

And if one must fashion one's views to make them the opposite of whatever it is the Arabs want, then along with your allusion above to the Arabs wanting us "out of Iraq" I will offer up, per contra, the story from today's New Duranty Times (Sunday edition)which suggests that they do not want the Americans out if that would bring anything like what I am sure would happen after a withdrawal in six months as Murtha suggested. One finds in that paper a report on a meeting sponsored by the Arab League, that malevolent organization. So what does the Arab League think about what's happening or could happen or will happen in Iraq? What are they worried about? Here's what:

"Protecting Iraq from the dangers of sedition or civil infighting is in the best interest of the Arabs," said the Arab League's secreaty general, Amr Musa. "No one will gain anything by transofrming Iraq into a battleground for regional and international conflicts and tensions." (page 6)

No one?

Hugh:
Iraq is the best place for the American military to be. It is successful beyond whatever we who recognized 9/11 for what it was, a civilizational wake up call, could have ever hoped for by this time.

The cost is high, but nothing compared to what Old Europe and France will have to pay in the next decade or two as they slide down the memory hole of the failed states of history.

Iraq is our best killing ground to kill Jihadist scum. They just dont have the smarts or bodies to defeat us and they will be beaten (unless losers like Kerry and Kennedy ,and the NYTimes) win the day, and they will not - for who wants to back a loser ?)

Hurray for the military and our fighting men and women.

God bless America, our people, our families.

Keep your powder dry.

Iraq may not succeed, but if we stay the course we can only succeed whether it succeeds or not. There is no exit strategy, only a surrender one.

l know there is an element on the left that does not want the US military to succeed. its their mind that the west deserves this punishment.. some of the left loony wakcos call it cause and effect...
before the US went into Afganistan, there were many nay sayers, saying that the Brits and Russian got caught and lost in Afganistan. but look at the how quickly and successful the U.S. military took over. although not perfect, but moving in the right direction. the reason you do not hear much clap trap from the leftist media, is that Afganistan is a success! Iraq is a challenge, but for success to be achieved the politicians need leave the Armed Forces alone! l am new to this list for posting, l have been reading it for a couple of years, but feel the need to be positive.

The postings just above demonstrate the problem. A refusal to admit that the word "war" does not always imply the use of military force, that "fighting" can take place without "boots on the ground" and hurrah-patriotism of the "long live the American fighting man" variety that gets no one anywhere. A failure to see that no "victory" in Iraq is achievable that does not end in weakening Islam, and the best way to weaken Islam, through the situation in Iraq, is to wish for the Sunnis and Shi'a to be permanently hostile, and more than hostile, and to wish that the Kurds might establish, in defiance of Arab supremacism, their own state, and to wish further that Iraq will use up Arab and Iranian men, money, materiel, attention, and morale as it has been using up so much of ours. No matter how often this is stated, with the evidence amassed, there are those who simply do not wish to consider the evidence or the logic --because to them, whatever the Adminstration started to do it is somehow committed to continue doing. It is impermissible, apparently, for the government to change its policy, to see that much of it may have been based on assumptions that turned out to be false (I'm not talking here about weaponry -- I think in that case it was important to err on the side of worry, and do not think apologies or embarrassment are necessary), to reformulate policy based on new experience (the experience of 300,000 American troops in Iraq, as well as civilian diplomats and contractors), on the new understandings, and new fears, prompted by Islam-connected events elsewhere (such as the behavior, and expressed attitudes, of Muslims in France, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, England, and other countries of Europe), and a painfully slow attempt at coming to grasp the nature of Islam without the cliches of the age. All of this would lead an intelligent person to realize that Iraq is now a place where squandering, not husbanding, of the resources necessary, is taking place.

If the most wonderful regime in the world were safetly installed in Baghdad it would mean little or nothing to stop the islamization of Western Europe, or the aggressive demands made by local Muslim groups in North America, Australia, and elsewhere. It would not end the Lesser Jihad against Israel nor the Greater Jihad against all the rest of the world. It owuld not be a Light Unto the Muslim Nations becuase except for Iran (which is deep in a darkness of its own making), all the Muslim states, Arab and non-Arab, are Sunni-run, and share at least a great distaste, and at most a murderous hatred, for the idea of a Shi'a-dominated Iraq. But this wasn't understood in Washington. It was believed to be a minor matter, greatly exaggerated, and to be overcome by American stick-to-itiveness, goodwill, and lots and lots of money. It is disturbing, but not maddening, when policy is made by those who haven't sufficiently studied the matter, or consulted -- not the appeasers -- but those with long familiarity with that world, and who furthermore are not out to defend or protect Islam or any of its adherents.

Islam, not next year, or the year after, but right now, has to be stopped from spreading further in Western Europe. The people in those countries must come to their senses, and they are less likely to come to their senses as long as Bush, presented to them as an insufferable religious fanatic and country-bumpkin, continues to wrap himself, and his policy in Iraq, in the flag. A withdrawal from Iraq should mean, not a withdrawal from the anti-Jihad, but a signal that we are even willing to allow the assorted Muslim groups to fight, that we will remain stonily indifferent to those who will immediately say "we just can't leave" and "we broke it, we have to fix it" and "we can't have a civil war in Iraq -- that would undo everything we've tried to do." Ignore that stuff. Welcome, with glee, the anxiety of the appeasers who kept calling for American withdrawal, for no war in Iraq, and who are now about to get their wish -- or rather, what only looks like their wish, but in what it should really portend, is actually their nightmare.

And then, out of Iraq, concentrate on the Iranian science project and on Da'wa and demographic conquest, and the money that keeps piling up, and piling up, in the country that with Iran is one of the two most most malevolent and dangerous, to Infidels, of all -- Saudi Arabia. The kinds of planning and deployment of resources, not necessarily or mainly soldiers (the idea that this kind of "war" is to be fought only with military means is wrong and dangerous), that now have to be considered -- well, start, with this Iraq business ot of the way, and what "victory" can be achieved having already, with the overthrow of the Sunni dictatorship, achieved (though not recognized by the Americans who did the achieving), get on to what counts far more than whether Iraq is stable, unstable, not stable at all.

Hugh:
You're saying one cant walk and chew gum at the same time.

The way you beat the home grown variety of the banlieus and the Londonistans is to siphon off the Jihadis to Islamic killing fields and killing them.

And one cuts off funding, and one educates and enlightens (what you do quite well)the public in the West to the demographics of Islam,and of what is tolerable and what is sedition.

We're winning. And part of that is thanks to you, and your fine website, even though we disagree on this one(and your environmental views as well (lol)).

Reply to above:

We are not "winning" in Iraq by killing ten or twenty-five or fifty-thousand Muslims who are actively trying to prevent the takeover of Iraq by Shi'a. They are not opposed to "democracy" as much as to the loss of Sunni power, though the outsiders will have the policy of attacking and killing Shi'a presented as necessary because they are 1) collaborators with the American Infidels and 2) Infidels themselves, Rafidite dogs. "Winning" in Iraq needs to be defined. It can only make sense if it leads to a far greater weakening of Islam, all over the place, than the mere killing of even tens of thousands of those actively engaged in military Jihad through qital, combat. They can be replenished, and while the cost to maintain them is small, the cost to Infidel Americans to maintain their army, their men and materiel, in Iraq is gigantic.

"Winning" can only be achieved by exploiting what is presented, on a platter, in Iraq. What is presented? Those sectarian and ethnic fissures. Why is there such reluctance by some who come to this site to accept these fissures, and this conceivable exploitation. Are they so blindly loyal to the policies that were furmulated by people who still seem blandly unconcrned about the islamization of Europe, and have in every other policy that links ot Islam, whether it be pressuring Israel to keep making concessions for this idiotic "two-state solution" and coming up with nothing much to deprive the Saudis of revenues except drill for a relatively trivial amount of oil (compared to what is needed) in Alaska; to tiptoeing around the Darfur matter, and enraging Congress by the Administration's timidity; by the continued handouts of jizya to malevolent and corrupt and anti-American and antisemitic and anti-Copt Egypt; to promise, along with other misguided Infidels, to supply the "Palestinians" with yet another infusion of cash after the billions that were sent and then disappeared with the death of Arafat -- this time amounting to $9 billion over three years. More jizyah, more timidity, more dithering. Why should one assume they know what they are doing in Iraq, and have Islam's number, when everything they do or fail to do shows exactly the opposite?

As for this chewing gum and walking at the same time - well, there is something to that. Iraq is taking up, tying down, the entire American military. John Murtha did not speak as he did without carefully consulting people in the military, people who feel they cannot speak out without risking their careers -- but they have levelled with him. Isn't that clear --- that he, given his own service in the military, and what has been his area of main interest during his entire political career (now Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee) that he knows what this Iraq business is doing to the military.

It's Iraq that is getting in the way of standing back, studying carefully Islam and what it is all about, and then beginning, together with allies threatened by Islam who need some help from the Americans, but won't accept such help as long as this silly business in Iraq continues, because even if they do not exactly oppose it for the right reasons, their sense of unease about it is correct.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we try to work against the very conditions that we should be delighted to find and hope to exploit there, the worse things will get and the more resources will be squandered, and the willingness of the public to support a resolute and wide-ranging policy of checking the instruments of Jihad will go down, down, down.

The invasion of Iraq was undertaken in a period when both Islam and Ireaq were misunderstood. That does not mean that initial invasion was wrong. It was rational, it was prudent. It is perfectly justifiable. It is what is going on now that is merely a reflection of obstinacy posing as resolution, and timidity posing as toughness. It is intolerable, from first to last. And it will not last, in any case -- because the public, including many who voted for Bush, who were enthusiastic about the invasion of Iraq, and who have educated themselvges, far more thoroughly and deeply in the nature of Islam, its theory and practice, then have many of those makinig, or commenting on, policy among the hoogende-moogende, the high-and-mighty, the mighy morph rangers, the muck-a-mucks who presume to make high policy or explain that hihg policy, to us. They are, many of them, content with slogans and cliches -- phrases on tap. They should infuriate everyone. They infuriate me.

Hugh, you're Leftist stripes are beginning to show. And you get all rankled when somebody offers a juxtaposing view. Again, your attitude smacks of Leftist Elitism. What a shame.. and I was beginning to like you too.

One observation on one of your rants. You wrote: "A refusal to admit that the word "war" does not always imply the use of military force, that "fighting" can take place without "boots on the ground" and hurrah-patriotism of the "long live the American fighting man" variety that gets no one anywhere."

I'm sure the millions of people we liberated from the grip of Nazi Tyranny would differ with you on that.. As would the those we liberated from the Taliban Fascism in Afghanistan. And certainly those we freed waiting their turn in the plastic shredders and rape rooms would disagree vehemently.

Bottom line is this.. Group hugging the enemy never won a war. Neither has the policy of cut-n-run like you're advocating. You're a Vice President at Jihad Watch and you don't even understand that these islamists only respect superior overwhelming firepower? Yikes!

the post above quoted "silly business in Iraq" is a very foolish statement if l ever heard one. to look at another time, when cut and run was used, left millions to die in Cambodia, (the killing fields) if the US military were to cut and run, not only would civil war would be caused, but price of oil would sky roctet plunging economies. are you willing to risk this? stopping the spread of islam in Europe does not depend on the U.S., there needs to be a rival of conservative agenda in Europe. l heard on the Praeger radio talk show,he said it would be difficult for Europeans to defeat Islam. That itis almost imposible to defeat a culture/religion/cult a people who beleived in something by a culture/people (Europeans) who beleived in nothing(liberals). That is why l believe our last hope is America, and yes l am Canadian, and l can see how our liberal government has paid immigrants to be separate, yes with our tax dollars. Western governments need to educate and teach that our way of life is superior, and demand
assimilation from immigrants. These necesary changes need to be done by all Western Countries. Cutting and running from Iraq will not improve policy changes in Western Countries. only by
bringing in democracy in the mid east will the stop and or lessen the flow of emigrants from middle eastern countries. It is human nature to want to live in areas of safety and freedom to do
commerce, improve ones's economic situation. and that is where capilitism with democracy will achieve these goals!!!

What "leftist stripes"? You know nothing about me or about my views outside of what very little I choose to offer here about Islam. Few of those views, I suspect, could conceivably be labelled as "leftist" except by the most primitive and eager-to-pigeonhole minds, save possibly for my distaste for the cult of economic growth or for the belief that the worldly success of the tycoon or captain of industry, of anyone who manages to make some kind of fortune, no matter how he managed to do it, thereby entitles that success, no matter how babbittish or jejune he may be, to be listened to, as having a colorable claim to virtue or intelligence. Neither Engine Charlie Wilson in 1956 ("What's good for General Motors is Good for the Country"), nor George Soros today, nor Jack Welch of GE, nor some hedge-fund Wall Street star, or for that matter any of our Hollywood stars and starlets, strike me as people who, simply because of their positions or their money or their celebrity, have any claim on our attention. I am not a fan of mass mis-education. I am not a fan of monographic mania in history departments, nor of the attention given to the ethnic, sexual, religious, and other background of writers, often selected for attention for reasons other than literary merit, in English departments. I am not a fan of social engineering that takes as its premise that we are all equal, and equal we all must be, in any sense other than equality before the law. I am not a fan of spiritual searches, or looking for oneself, or finding oneself, most likely in California. I am not a believer in "getting in touch with oneself" or "putting things behind you" or any of the other things that people now say they are doing or have done simply because these phrases are at hand, on tap, just turn the faucet. I do not agree that everyone has an opinion that one need listen to, much less heed. I am left cold by sentimentality and easy expressions of compassion. I am not a fan of Big Schemes to End World Poverty or Bring World Peace or intervene here, and re-do everything over there, because The Whole Wide World Has To Be Fixed. I am not a fan of the World Bank, or of Jeffery Sachs. I am not a fan of the mass media, typified by Tom Friedman and The New Duranty Times. I am not a fan of the European Community, which seems to think that creating the Big Market for homo economicus justifies the diminished consciousness of of national languagese, literatures, histories, of everything that makes a country a country, and that has nothing to do with Markets and with Economic Growth, which by now, for many, is the only measure of meaning. I can't stand the malevolent and vicious United Nations. I do not agree that one has to continue to support the American presence in Iraq, which I find illogical if the goal is, as it should be, to weaken Islam, and do not think that because the Bush Adminstration is behind it, and he's "our man" (he's not my man, even if I may have voted for him more than once), and he can do no wrong, and only "leftists" can conceivably find fault with him. And there is more about the outward and visible signs of the degradation of the democratic dogma, to borrow a phrase from Henry Adams (though both he, and his Law-of-Civilization-and-Decay brother Brooks, were far too unpleasantly "elitist" in another sense), and the underlying degradation itself, that sticks in my craw. But if I am to be so absurdly labelled, so reductively misunderstood, it is probably a waste of time to attempt to set things straight, even a little. The minute one starts talking about anything having to do with politics or world-views, nuance and fine distinctions are quickly trampled underfoot. And there's enough of that taking place. So I'll stop.

Let's get back to the matter at hand. Tell me again how those "boots on the ground" in Iraq will help prevent the islamization of Europe. Tell me again how the Marines in Ramadi will prevent the willingness to meet Muslim demands in Paris or London, in Barcelona or Portland, Oregon. Tell me again how spending $350 billion in Iraq (and Afghanistan) will do more to weaken Islam than would spending $350 billion at home on energy and conservation projects. Tell me again how Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the (Sunni) Muslim Nations, Shi'a-dominated Iraq being kept together as a single nation-state through continuing American efforts, will weaken the power of Islam in Iraq, and divide and demoralize Muslims outside Iraq.

I want to know.

You know, I was originally opposed to Mr. Spencer's idea of closing the comments section, but with all the mud slung at Hugh lately, I'd rather read his opinions in peace rather than see him have to defend himself to so many who appear to use this forum to advance their own agendas. This is getting way out of hand, and is not helping the anti-jihad venue one iota.

to kafira, there is no mudslinging from me, just debatting from the arena of ideas! we all agree on the dangers of islam. discussing the methods of its reform or destruction etc is not attacking Hugh. he seems quite able to defend himself. infact our input he regards as not worth reading, that is his choice. some happen to agree with his statement as boots on the ground, others do not. this is supposed to be free speech,but people need to realize there are consequences to free speech, and some people do not like what you say. isn't that what the immans hate about us, we say what they do not like? so to put a stop to discussion would play into their hand. l came from a large family of five older brothers, and three sisters, our diner table where my father and especially brothers had some very heated discussions..they did not back down
but had to defend what they said. that is what we need to do. again l never attacked Hugh, just disagreed with him on a very very things. l enjoy much of what he writes, have learned quite a bit from him.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009068.php#c144831

Of course Murtha was right. He may not care, he may not know, that such "victory" as is possible in Iraq will only come about through an American withdrawal, which will permit the ethnic and sectarian fissures to grow, and grow, and grow. And that can only be good for Infidels.

Was the Egyptian-Saudi proxy war in the Yemen a good thing for Infidels? Was the Moroccan-Algerian proxy war in the Sahara a good thing? Was the Iran-Iraq War, that went on for eight years, a good thing?

Posted by: Hugh at November 18, 2005 11:37 PM

Hugh has been repeating this track for so long. I have made a reply to Hugh a long time ago but I don't remember him responding to my arguments.

Here is my reply. It is posted at

http://www.geocities.com/informed_christian/2005/10/26/index.html

You can discuss about it at

http://informedchristiannews.blogspot.com/2005/10/halal-and-haram-speech-at.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Briefly on Iraq.

I think you are wrong for calling for too early a withdrawl.

You seem to want to leave Iraqi to themselves and let them tear each other apart so that they will be too occupied to bother the rest of us.

There is a major flaw in this line of reasoning. Some historical facts indicate that things might not go as you wished.

I give you two examples. Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawl and the Iran-Iraq Gulf war.

During the Iran-Iraq war, they were fighting quite savagely but terror attacks were going on even then. Both Iran and Iraq were able to work on acquiring WMDs (Weapons of mass distruction) while slaughtering each other. Both countries also supported global terror while at it (Hizbullah by Iran and PLO by Saddam).

The same is true of Afghanistan. When the Soviets left there was a bloody civil war but that didn't make the world safer. Instad Osama and co took advantage of the chaos and build basees there that training thousands of terrrorists who are now all over the world.

My point is that lettting them tear each other apart is not going to make us any safer as you can see from this.

I think it would make it even worst for US.

Look back to Afghanistan. When the world left it to itself it became the al Qaida head quarters from where they launched the 9-11 and other attacks.

To stop them the US end up having to go into Afghanistan. So much for leaving them to themselves.

The same will also happen in Iraq if the US leave too soon. It will became a launch pad for terror attacks and the US will have to go back into Iraq again to stop them. So why leave? We are just going to have to go back in anyway if we leave.

I don't think any cent or drop of sweat or blood should be shed for those who are forever ungrateful. Those with eternal hatred for us deserve no help. But to preserve ourselves somethimes we might have to stabilize or try to make it as best as we can instead of letting it get out of control and then have to deal with a worst problem later.

The old "Domino Theory" is really true. We can't just wait like sitting ducks while the rest falls down one by one. "Paleo-con" ideas of "isolationism" didn't work as Pearl Harbour and WWII followed. Fortress America mentality might lead to WWIII.

I have said something like this before but I don't think I have had any replies from you yet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IC

IC-

You're neglecting the fact that it was the U.S. who armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan (who became the Taliban) so they could better fight those dastardly Soviets!

If this current war had been planned better, with more of an eye to the danger of Islamic fanatics rushing to Iraq from other countries, perhaps we would not be in this mess. Or maybe civil war was in the making all along given the eternal presence of Sunni-Shiite conflicts and the fact that Saddam would not remain in power forever.

Attempts to "stabilize" situations like this, by using military means, almost always fail, no matter which country tries to do the stabilizing. If Iraq was surrounded by democracies, your domino theory might be applicable, but democracy is in extremely short supply in the Middle East. All of us here know the reason.

Where History and Analogy Fails... VietNam the Model...

Sometimes everybody is a critic -- and the topic of this thread is a paramount topic with strong arguments on both sides -- 'Iraq the model' will answer some or all of these central questions: Is Islam redeemable? Can Arab society reform? Is there a framework wherein Islamic/ethnic factions in Arab society can be forced to settle disputes by ballots and not by murder and terrorism? Is there something about Islam and Arabs which condemns them to be only governable by fascist brutality of whatever flavor? Can a transplanted notion of Western Pluralistic Democracy be succesfully grafted onto an Islamic/Arab society or any Islamic society? Will it survive? What will the consequences be for America from our actions in Iraq? None of these questions has been answered here for me... And one reason to discourage withdrawal is to simply say that it would circumvent a full hearing on these pointed questions... and possibly prevent them being asked again forever... But I wonder about looking deeper into this Iraq debate by looking towards VietNam, not so much to draw direct parallels between the conflicts, but to observe the theories and aftermath of "VietNam the Model" to possibly shed light on Iraq and this debate today... not least of which is the historical context which partially explains the lack of traction for Hugh's opinions about Iraqi withdrawal...

Speaking of history, I feel I must make an aside here...: My intention is not to take this thread off topic to discuss the VietNam war. If Hugh and others ignore the significance of this context, their opinions about Iraq and our leaving may remain fringe at best... Pondering 'VietNam the Model' (and by this I mean the larger context of VietNam, including the suppositions to wage the war, the conduct of the war, the reasons for withdrawal, and the surprising consequences of that withdrawal) reveals one reason I question Hugh's and other's arguments in this particular matter. Rather than the arguments, I should probably say the conclusion that we should leave now, and the actions he proposes to conduct a cold war against Islam in the aftermath of our withdrawal... Among other things, through examining the VietNam the Model we can learn that predicting the future is not a science... that extremely convoluted things happen to flout the best theories, and that holding unquestioning opinions about the future is probably empirically a faulty approach...

Speaking of faulty approaches, I feel I must make an aside to my aside here...: With the hope of furthering the debate, and preventing others from resorting to straw man arguments (Hugh?) , false authority (Hugh?) or false analogy (Everybody?) I also admit that VietNam isn't a perfect analogy -- I MAGNIFY that I am not suggesting that your arguments justifying withdrawal bear any resemblance to the fatuous arguments of Leftist "anti-war" activists (read "anti-self-defense" traitors) -- Without getting in the mud and defending my own posts against various suggestions that I or others have "parroted" tired out axioms like "Stay the course" or "Cut and run" or by repeating tired out absurdisms like "America trained the Mujahadeen -- and thereby implying that we have no right to defend ourselves if they turn on us, but should languish in guilt and self loathing for using them to defeat the Soviets... --- I would prefer if there's any response that I am paid the courtesy of responding to my arguments, not trashy simulacra of same. The lack of questioning, and the emphasis on declarative statements for and against withdrawal are red flags for me -- Nevertheless I happily admit that I am in agreement with Hugh and most others here that Islam is inimical to us and that Islam is our enemy... But I observe that so far we appear to be genuine minority in the population at large. Our leadership doesn't yet recognize Islam's threat, or lacking a sufficient countermeasure, they are loathe to say so publicly. History may tell us that Islam won't reform, and Hugh may be correct that our best long term strategy is to wage a cold war to contain Islam, and hamper it whenever and however we may... ONE LITTLE PROBLEM -- whatever the etiology of current circumstances -- Hugh's position presupposes that Westerners, who require consensus to carry out long term complicated and expensive policies show little sign of said consensus regarding Islam. Without such, it is FOLLY to abandon Iraq and fantasize about declaring a cold war against Islam which will not be waged...

So back to VietNam the Model... I can't help but ponder the following: The spector of Viet Nam still looms large in the American psyche and in this debate. It too can be used to make both sides of the argument for staying or for leaving. But interestingly it illustrates how similar predicting the future is to pushing on a string... Contrary to what many predicted, American failure in VietNam didn't translate into the advent of world communism. Post facto, this inconvenient fact served to undermine the premise for the war in the first place... that being the "Domino Theory." It is also interesting to note that the same tactics which the Soviets employed against us, and which brought about our humiliating defeat formed part of the playbook the US later used to defeat the Soviet Superpower in Afghanistan -- This doctrine is now central in the Islamic Jihad against us in Iraq and globally. 'Bleed 'em dry, and with the help of the Leftists and phony "anti-war" crowd (read "anti-defense" crowd) they will crumble before us...' (Of course, again, I don't lump Hugh or other posters here who support him in with this seditious crowd of America bashing traitors... nor do I equate most of the leave Iraq now arguments here to that...)

So we can see how Vietnam the Model unexpectedly helped to shatter Soviet Hegemony in the 1980s in Afghanistan. We can see that when America supposedly lost in VietNam, she eventually won everything against the USSR by fighting a proxy war against Russia using Russia's own playbook. We can also see the historical lessons from 'VietNam the Model' illustrate some very basic rules:

FIrst: the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

Second: that predicting the future is a tricky business...

Don't get me wrong -- 'Hugh The Irascible' -- I'd relish declaring openly our collective social, political, economic, and philosophical antipathy towards Islam,. (or haven't you been reading my posts?) I too am convinced that Islam poses a dire existential threat -- we're just not collectively there yet to openly state this antipathy, let alone wage a cold war against Islam. Your argument betrays a certain negligence I believe by calling for withdrawal from Iraq while there is no convincing evidence that it will be followed by a global war against Islamic encroachment. Simply put, you're ignoring the political realities on the ground...

If your proposed withdrawal isn't followed by the cold war you call for, what then? What if we are left with a world even more dhimmified and terrified by the horrors fomented in Iraq, the horrors which are bound to disrupt the flow of oil to an insatiable world -- a world which will be only to happy to play the cynical game of the French and appease the furious destabilized Muslim and Arab regimes in order to curry favor and more importantly oil -- what then?

SO is what Hugh saying that we should just let Iran have Iraq??

WE ALL KNOW HE DRIVES A SOLAR CAR???

Now if he was saying we should just radiet the whole place he might have a point, but as in the real world the sky is blue WHAT IS HIS POINT??

His point is his heart is hardened doesn't think any mulsum can live in peace with their neighbors maybe he is right??

If he is right what does that mean??

What does that mean for the rest of the world??

Does that mean we should do an FDR most here would agree??

Hugh is a pretty guy with pretty words but this does not always make him right!

9/11/2001 happened in the USA 3000 people died and the USA lost 1 trillion dollars?? People are still taken off their shoes in the airports !

islamic terrorist said we would not fight back does cutting and running help the Iraqi people or will they be killed like the South Vetiamses what was it 2,000,000 killed after we pulled out??

Yes I'm sure Hugh has his solar car and his solar farm to grow his own food with his pretty words??

Me I see the sky is blue above the clouds!!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009068.php#comments

Hey Catherine_

The Saudis have all the solar power in the world, living in the desert, but they have no solar electricity, no solar-grown food, and no solar cars. Hell...gas is cheap!! For the moment. And if you're a male.

I missed what you were saying about Hugh.

Hugh wanted answers about how to make Europe safer from the Islamic assult and how by being in Iraq will make it so. Bin Laden was interveiwed by an ABC reporter saying that with the American pullout out of Somali with only a dozen killed, he came to the conclusion that it was easy to defeat AMerica, they had become paper tigers. It was the cut and run from Somali, that gave the islamofacists the nerve to kill over 3,000 people on 9-11. oh btw way. it was Rep. Murtha who talked to Pres.Clinton into getting out of Somali. You see by backing down to these murderous slime, you give them some nerve to attack you, ie Cole, etc. Perhaps when France puts out their fires in over 300 cities, they will wake up to see that no attacks on the US since 9-11. The Patriot Act also has helped. Also they should think more conservatively, and stop paying people from to stay home and have a pile of kids! Hugh made a comment on how all the money wasted in Iraq should be spent on the environmental causes, a good read should be the book by Michael Crithton, how the environmental movement got hijacked by the leftist marxists.
also a good idea would be for Hugh to listen to Rush Limbaugh for at least a few weeks. might take more time. Takes longer for Cdns to see the light!

Lulu-

To say that Hugh needs to listen to Rush Limbaugh is akin to saying that Mozart needs to listen to the Partridge family, the Backstreet Boys, or 50 Cent.

Kafira, l believe you need it more...LOL...