Miniter: Sign of Al Qaeda Desperation

NOW is the time to pull out of Iraq immediately then.

"Mrs. al-Rishawi's family history reveals just how effective the U.S. military has proven to be in eliminating insurgents"

At the point where headway is being made, why not follow history and leave now? This would be like Vietnam. There was a lot of incompetence and civilian slaying granted but I understand if the campaign had continued the Vietnamese would not have been left to suffer under communism. Remember communists slay civilians on purpose and all the time.

Thanks to the victory of the anti-war demonstrators (good job at the time of the crusades self-sacrifice was still in the dictionary) the USA fought totalitarianism by supporting sub-human fighters across the globe like the Taliban, Saddam, etc. That is why Americans are hated in many places and we have this mess to try and clean up today.

Or you could follow the example of the campaign in Malay which was followed through and successful in defeating the communists.

I have a lot of problems with the way the war was justified and executed but pulling out at this stage is a greater evil. Even the left in the UK realise that; I can’t understand why the left in the USA doesn’t.

Why is there this fascination with number of troops killed in the press and not the number of jihadists?

I expect soldiers to die in war, but I do like to know they are dieing making good progress against the enemies of humanity?

Shout some more about the death of jihad fighters.

Having the Islamist crazies come on to your best forces is a military strategists dream come true.

Kudos to the 13 senators who voted against a staged withdrawel.There must be presidential material amongst them.

No withdrawel unless the job's done and its a military request.

Soon it will likely be junkyard dog Zarqawi buying the farm. The future can be friendly.

"I have a lot of problems with the way the war was justified and executed but pulling out at this stage is a greater evil. Even the left in the UK realise that;I can’t understand why the left in the USA doesn’t.
."
-- from a posting above

But "the left in the UK" is more aware and far-seeing than its counterpart in the United States. It realizes that it would be bad for it, and for Muslims, if the Americans pull out. Since 95% of the troops are American, it is a lot harder for "the left" (not my phrase) in America, having ranted and demonstrated against the Americans in Iraq, suddenly decide that for the good of the Iraqis the Americans must stay. They are not quite so hard-core and calculating as those in the UK, where the proportion of Muslims and Arabs is far higher. They know what is likely to happen, and why it would hurt them.

Why is it a "greater evil" to remove the American troops whom, we are told, simply inflame the Sunnis, so that the Sunnis ahd Shi'a and Kurds can all figure out how to arrange things amongst themselves. That will have to happen sooner or later. Let it happen sooner. There are many other responsibilites that call. We are not on a permanent civlizing mission to the Dar al-Islam. It is they who will slowly have to made aware, by facing the consequences of, what Islam does, how Islam helps explain the moral, intellectual, social, economic, and political failures within Islam. The connection is both direct and indirect. The failure of leaders in the Western world to make that connection themselves disappoints, and in places, astounds. It is not difficult.

Or you could follow the example of the campaign in Malay which was followed through and successful in defeating the communists.

The use of Brit troops then and American troops now is in attacking the existing insurgents. This is not enough on its own and must be coupled with local action.

In Malaysia the British granted power to the local Malay (muslims) to persecute the conflict against the local Chinese (buddhists) who made up the bulk of the Communists. There were several massacres, lootings, beatings of Chinese civillians which the Communists were not able to stop. The Communists were made to look weak and their support dwindled.

If America is to follow this path they must grant leeway to the Shia to harrass the Sunni in the same way. It is for this reason alone that I find it wholly positive that the Shia are now torturing Sunni in basements in Iraq. It is the first step in a long process that will eventually lead to the Sunni accepting that rebellion is futile.

Sorry for hogging space -- I posted this elsewhere but I think the thread expired -- I was hoping for a reply --

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?