Iraq's Growing Civil War

What "civil war"? The Americans are training "Iraqi" forces. These "Iraqi" forces have, because of a few months of American training, learned to forget 1350 years of Sunni persecution of Shi'a. These "Iraqi" forces have learned to forget that the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs are at each others' throats in the north, where the Arabs have steadily encroached on ancient Kurdish lands, believing that Iraq is "Arab" or more specifically, Sunni Arab," and the Kurds must be content with the autonomy they have, and not dare to dream of retaking any of the deliberately arabized Kurdish territories.

An "Iraqi" army. An "Iraqi" police. With officers and men too busy fighting to take any notice of their fellow soldiers, or their officers -- why, they could hardly tell who was a Sunni, who a Shi'a, who a Kurd. It doesn't matter to them.

Ask the American officers now training them, how much it matters. Ask them how long they think it would take to create an "Iraqi" army as opposed to Shi'a units, Sunni units, Kurdish units. Ask them whether it was the "Iraqi" army or rathe the Kurdish pesh merga that has been performing well in northern Iraq recently? Ask them to tell you that away from higher-ups, possibly anonymously -- see what they think about the plausibility of a real "Iraqi" army putting down an uprising, say, in Fallujah, or Mosul.

There are possible tasks. There are nearly impossible tasks. And both kinds of tasks, the possible ones, and the impossible ones, for the Americans now in Iraq are time-wasting, money-wasting, life-wasting, and do little to further the campaign against the Jihad. Iraq, at the very best, may in many decades, if the very best people, the most secular people (these would be Allawi and his group) were to obtain power and constrian Islam, might look in 30 years like Turkey. But Turkey itself, one can see, is a place of backsliding into Islam, and Islam itself is a permanent feature of Muslim countries. It can only be contained.

Right now, it has to be contained in Western Europe. And more than contained. Much more.

Hugh from above: "Right now, it has to be contained in Western Europe. And more than contained. Much more."

Allah is busting out all over...you cant contain Allah. Everytime you think you got him, contained he slips through a crack and pops up elsewhere. It may be possible to nail his shoes to the floor, but I'm not sure Allah wears shoes.
Allah is very magickal, he is capable of multiple appearances, in different locations, at the same time. He does not appear to infidels, only muslims. He speaks to them by means of a talking book...they open it, it speaks. A lot like a geni in a bottle, when muslims open the book, Allah grants them wishes in exchange for blind obediance. Allah lives in that book...the Quran. The only way to contain Allah is to gather all those books into one place and burn them...it wont hurt Allah, it only wrecks his communication system. Like draining a mosquito
infested swamp, dry up the source and the bugs either die off or vacate the premises.

"The Iraqi police are in evidence outside, but so are increasing numbers of militias running their own checkpoints - men in balaclavas or wrap-around sunglasses and headbands, with leather mittens and an array of weapons."

Once our military leaves they will resort back to the cockroaches that they were under Sadam. Total Civil War............something that they need to fight anyway--the sooner the better.

Oh darn Hugh, I forgot again, there is no "civil war." Only a few thousand "terrorists" fighting to gain a stronghold in the broader ME, fighting against the "brave Iraqis" whom, Mommy Karen assures us, "want the same things for their children" as we do. I keep forgetting that.

"We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us." - Sec. Rumsfeld

What he was thinking: "No certainly not, mustn't give the terrorists hope...must hang on in Iraq...show resolve...spit and polish...American know how...American values...we got 'em on the run now...why heck, we killed 57 known terrorists just last week...at this rate we should finish off the last of them in, at most, a couple years...oh was that me wonderin' about the madrassas pumping out terrorists faster'n we can kill 'em? No not me, forget it."

“see what they think about the plausibility of a real "Iraqi" army putting down an uprising, say, in Fallujah, or Mosul”

“Once our military leaves they will resort back to the cockroaches that they were under Sadam. Total Civil War............something that they need to fight anyway--the sooner the better.”

Iraq was a pseudo-safe society when Saddam was in power. No one crossed his neighbor for fear of being slandered and arrested by the regime. No one spoke against Saddam or his sons because there were eyes and ears everywhere. Only a ruthless regime could keep these “cockroaches” at bay and only a ruthless purging will stop the current insurgencies. He who is most ruthless, wins the prize. Right now, that is Zarqawi. He doesn’t worry about party politics, or amnesty int’l. He only cares about blood and souls for his satans.

If this war is to be won, it will be without embedded reporters.

"When the hurlyburly's done/When the battle's lost and won."

What does it mean to "win" in Iraq? What would "winning" consist of? Would it mean "a better life for all Iraqis"? Would that be "winning"? Would it be the instituting of "democracy" in the most primitive sense -- i.e. head-counting? Would that be "winning"? Or would it be something else: exploiting the natural fissures that were not created yesterday by the Americans, nor over the past three decades by Saddam Hussein, nor by the Sunni rule since 1932, but rather by features of Islam -- the Arab supremacist ideology within it, and the Sunni persecution of the Shi'a -- that goes back 1350 years. Don't fight City Hall is the old slogan; don't try to remake Islam, or think that you can. The American soldiers should not be asked to do the impossible -- to somehow make the Kurds forget years, decades, centuries of Arab mistreatment, nor ask the Shi'a to forget years, decades, centuries of Sunni mistreatment. It is cruel -- a cruelty born of ignorance -- to ask them to somehow undo all of that, to create, in a year or fifty years, what cannot be done from outside, by anyone, nor one suspects, from the inside either.

The best way to come out ahead in Iraq, to really come out ahead -- and forget Tom Friedman or Nicholas Kristof or Lawrence Wilkerson now tut-tutting about how "we just can't leave, it wouldn't be right" and so on and so predictably forth -- forget about them. Leave. Think of how the Iran-Iraq War managed to preoccupy, for eight long years, both Saddam Hussein and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Think of the proxy war between Nasser's Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Yemen in the early 1960s, and how useful that was in weakening both sides. Think of the proxy war in the Sahara, between Morocco and Algeria, when the latter gave aid to the Polisario Movement.

It can happen again. And this time if the world's Sunnis and Shi'a and Infidels are paying attention, it may instigate Shi'a-Sunni tensions, never absent, elsewhere within Dar al-Islam.

If the Infidels are lucky. But they have to get out of the way to obtain a so-called "victory." Get out of the way.

Hugh -- I will grant you this -- Islamic ascendancy has reached it's current heights during the relative calm aftermath of our first Iraq war -- It is certainly possible to make the case that an Islamic world which isn't preoccupied with internecine wars is a Muslim world which will export the festering sore of Islam to the rest of the world... From that perspective your argument makes a lot of sense.

In general I consider our endeavor in Iraq as Islam's and the Arab's best last hope -- I fervently hope Western leadership considers it as such, and that this message is being quietly conveyed to all the dissembling cretins who are funding this "civil war" in Iraq as we speak...

Hope hope hope -- not a very good plan for victory... I know... But despite what I sometimes say, I don't think it's too late yet, and I certainly don't want some of the things that will follow if Iraq fails to follow if Iraq fails... More for Muslim's sakes than our own... They know not what they do... said more in a "vengeance is mine" kind of way than a Christlike way...

"I certainly don't want some of the things that will follow if Iraq fails to follow if Iraq fails... More for Muslim's sakes than our own... They know not what they do...."
-- from a posting above

You can care about the well-being of Muslims, or you can care about the well-being of Infidels now under assault and attack and challenge from Muslims all over the world, deep within the Bilad al-kufr. I'd stick with worrying about the well-being of Infidels, considering how much they will have to change, and how much more intelligent, clever, and relentless, they will have to be than they have so far shown themselves. than Many of the Idols of the Age will simply have to be thrown over, toppled from their pedestals -- things like "we all share the same beliefs" or "we all want the same thing" or "diversity is always good" or -- the most horrifying, "we simply can't do that." To save ourselves? France? Italy? England?

Oh yes we can. Ask Benes. Ask Masaryk.

One more thing.

If one really wished Muslims well, what is the one thing, above all other things, you would wish them? You would wish to create the conditions whereby they themselves would come to certain conclusions about Islam. Not persuaded by others, not forced by others. Simply, no longre propped up by Infidels, by Infidel money, by Infidel medical care, by Infidel education, by access to all the technologyical gewgaws and luxury frou-frous of the Western world. You'd want them to have freedom of conscience. You'd want them to have free speech. You'd want them to stop inculcating hatred of all non-Muslims that is beginning to be understood, and stick in the craw of, all those various hated non-Muslims. You'd want them, in short, to have to come to terms with, come to grips with, Islam itself, and what it teaches, what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

And the only way to do that is to do what was done with Soviet Communism: contain it, try to make sure that those in control are constantly kept on edge, work to use the same principle of jiu-jitsu that Muslims use on Infidels, when they exploit our freedoms to protect themselves as they work to undermine those same freedoms, and the deep understandings, that were arrived at over centuries of intellectual and moral development, that lead to those understandings.

You want to be nice to Muslims? Then you should want to weaken Islam as much as possible, to show up its divisions, to show the non-Arab Muslims how much a part of Islam is Arab supremacism. You'd want to show Shi'a and Sunni that their "religion" does not exempt fellow Muslims from being enemies, or being rather -- rough -- with each other. You'd want to use up Muslim resources, in Iraq itself, for according to Chalabi, Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the world. This was stated last night on television by that affable, intelligent, plausible man, whose appeal to policymakers in Washington one could understand. Yes, he's very nice. But his goal is to create a stable nation-state, and he himself does not see Iraq as a place where, in the interests of Infidels, that "stable nation-state" is 1) hardly possible 2) if possible would require such an effort, such cost to the Americans, that they would have no energy, attention, or men and monoey left over for the much wider and longer anti-Jihad movement. Chalabi has his eye on Iraq; we should have our eyes right now on Western Europe. 3) Chalabi sees himself as at best an "Iraqi (Shi'a) patrot." We are Infidels. We are trying to make the world safer for Infidels by weakening Islam. It's a different thing.

One should wish to create those conditions in which people born into Islam can begin to realize, just as Alexander Yakovlev and Gorbachev realized about Soviet Communism, that something is deeply disturbing about that belief-system and once that is realized, and thoroughly understood, either work to change it (doubtful) or to work to contain Islam within circumscribed limits (as Ataturk did), or possibly to work to jettison it altogether (this may work with some non-Arabs, and is less likely to work with Arabs for whom ethnic identity reinforces faith in, or identification with, Islam (one reason for the phenomenon of the Arab "islamochristian").

Pres Bush's policy of pouring blood and money into the sands of Arabia, is rewarding the enemy instead of punishing it, while leaving the door open to the RoP at home.

I could'nt think of a more perverse policy.

Hugh posted: If one really wished Muslims well, what is the one thing, above all other things, you would wish them? You would wish to create the conditions whereby they themselves would come to certain conclusions about Islam. Not persuaded by others, not forced by others.......Then you should want to weaken Islam as much as possible, to show up its divisions, to show the non-Arab Muslims how much a part of Islam is Arab supremacism. You'd want to show Shi'a and Sunni that their "religion" does not exempt fellow Muslims from being enemies, or being rather -- rough -- with each other.

And who would begrudge any human for wishing well on fellow humans.

The trick is that we have to give muslims an incentive to reform. So far, we have given them incentives not to do so. They are

1. Allowing immigration of muslims so that it takes the social pressure off muslim states.

2. Vast amounts of Jizya.

3. Hyper-sensitivitty to muslim feelings.

Just these three are sufficient incentives NOT to reform islam (A reformed islam BTW will not be islam anymore. Why would muslims want to reform islam, if the going so far is quite good. Why would any muslim want to stick his neck out for moderation, when he would be castigated not only by his fellow muslims but shunned by Western reporters and intellectuals.

No wonder thare are no signs of moderate muslims. Seriously, if I was a muslim and moderate, I would be crazy to stick my neck out.

RE: And the only way to do that is to do what was done with Soviet Communism: contain it.

The Russians didn't use suicide bombers. Would containment have stopped 9/11 > Clinton's feeble responses only embolden the terrorists.

The strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
has no value against Islamic terrorism.

Frontpage Magazine had an excellant article about Iraq's WMD and nuclear program > a MUST read www.frontpagemag.com

I have not seen this torture room in the MSM.

Fascinating symmetry.

Muslims get upset only when Muslim suicide-bombers kill Muslims (whether intentionally or accidentally), outraged that such a thing could occur. But there would have been no outrage had the victims been Hindus in Bali, Christians in New York and Washington, Buddhists in Thailand, or Jews everywhere.

Non-Muslim apologists for Islam get upset, per contra, not when Muslims in Iraq mistreat (so it is claimed) other Muslims, but only when (so it is claimed) Infidel Americans are the supposedly guilty party. Little interest in the story, because no angle that would make the American military look bad -- American soldiers, after all, are the ones who did the uncovering and rescuing here.

There is a simian similarity in the symmetry, or rather lack of it, here, in the responses of Muslim apologists for Islam, and non-Muslim apologists for Islam. Each concentrating on its own area of specialization.

Certainly not commendable. But certainly commentable.

Hugh:
I posted this on LGF in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

One issue that has not been analysed in any depth is asymmetric warfare. It has been commented on that in an asymmetric war, the enemy exploits its opponents own technology (planes,trains, trucks, automobiles and computers) and uses it against us. The main reason though that allows asymmetric warfare against us to succeed is that we ourselves have tied our own hands.

One, if not the main principles of the Islamic war against us, is that infidels should be converted or killed, but it must not lead to significant harm of the Umma. And we in the West have made it abundantly clear that we will go to absurd lengths to avoid any harm to the Umma. Thus the way is clear for the continued prosecution of this war. We will continue to sustain massive civilian casualties, with no reciprocal harm to the Islamic world. Worse, we will have to sacrifice our open society. Meanwhile the Jihadis will gain access to a licentious paradise in the sky. Its win win all the way. The civilised world needs to come up with response better then the current one. If Winston Churchill, the greatest of wartime leader in modern times, was alive and in power today, I’m fairly certain what his response would have been.

That was good. Good, and Early. And those were right the earliest, about things, deserve to be listened to most attentively now. Especially since everyone from Tom Friedman (now even managing to recognize that there are "Sunni Muslims" who can be distinguished from the other kind, at least he tried to the other day) on up is beginning to get just a hint of something like a little glimmer of a shimmer of the truth espied dimly, through a very dark glass, even more darkly.

For example, some who a year ago had never heard of Bat Ye'or and made light of what is happening in Europe have suddenly discovered it is no joke, and have begun throwing that word "Eurabian" around, and carefully ignoring their own past frivolity. See Lawrence Auster's article on Mark Steyn for more.

Occasionally one would like those who have been off, whether slightly or greatly, to admit, publicly, how they have been wrong, in what ways. The fellow making out like gangbusters who has been promoting the "moderate Muslim" idea, or Lewis with his Oslo Accords and this his Iraq as a Hashemite monarchy, or all those Bright Young Conservaties who have stuck by Bush in Iraq, and echoed all those phrases about a "war on terror" and not "cutting and running" and haven't still the time to study Islam, because it would be too painful (and this goes for many of those in the Wall Street Journal too, which just a few years ago would have seemed a model of sense, but cannot dare break with the received slogans about Islam).

Eventually they will all have to come round to what is being expressed here, has been expressed here. Let's see how many of them acknowledge it.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Hugh, than are dreamt of in your philosophy... Passion is great, and especially in this ALL IMPORTANT MATTER being addressed at JW... And I too deplore all the obliqueness in the West, all the tucking of heads into the shifting sands of denial -- I too want to excoriate the people who have brought this about by their heinous intellectual fumblings and falsehoods... but is that really going to accomplish anything?

If you posess wisdom in similar measure to your obvious intelligence, then you would know that zealotry turns people off... Standing on a box and screaming until your veins are popping out only makes the people conscious of your veins and bulging eyeballs -- they don't hear what you're saying...

This site is magnificent. Its mission is heroic. Your contributions here are priceless -- but sometimes a certain shrillness enters the discussion -- a certain off-putting righteousness, something that probably repels some who otherwise would stop and listen to what is being said...

You said: "Eventually they will all have to come round to what is being expressed here, has been expressed here."

Oh really? What makes you think they "have to...?" It might not go that way at all -- The fate of India... Byzantium... Persia.... might befall us too! And what possible reason could you have to say "Let's see how many of them acknowledge it" other than to extract a certain kind of satisfaction that probably doesn't further a big idea? It may be personally gratifying to your ego, but is that really the tone that's best to set?