Fitzgerald: Before we can deal with Iran...

That light in Bush's/Condi's eyes more closely resembles a TV test-pattern than intelligence.

His capacity to disappoint knows no bounds.

Interesting article, though all the talk about Bush's naivete, ignorance, and obstinateness doesn't add to Mr.Fitzgerald's credibility. I see a lot of name-calling, but not a lot of evidence that supports Hugh's claims.

If you are about to start a war in Iran, why is it a bad thing to have troops in Iraq? Why does Hugh call them "hostages", as if they were helpless children? Last and not least, won't a pullout send the worst kind of message to the enemy?

I agree that our resources are misallocated, but talking about complete pullout of Iraq is a waste of time. I think Mr.Fitzgerald would be more persuasive if he offered a more realistic plan, and abstained from remarks such as "oh my god" and "can somebody explain to them", and "unable to recognize". To me, such rhetoric sounds a bit childish.

Ivan, if it became necessary for the US to attack Iran's nuclear sites, wouldn't you agree our bases in Iraq are a sitting duck for missiles from Iran. In case you haven't noticed, sectarian war in Iraq is heating up. All this democracy (voting) is just a veneer to be ripped away in the next few months.

John,
I think you're raising good points, but I think and I hope, that when sh** hits the fan in Iran, the troops who are currently in Iraq can be redeployed and help the effort. I see them not only as a liability, but also as an asset. If I were to plan military action in Iran, I would want troops who've been in the region. I wouldn't bring them back to the US and then bring them or other troops back in the ME.
I have little way of knowing how serious Bush is about Iran, and if he's not, then things are worse than I imagine. In any case, I am trying to be constructive with my criticism. I share Hugh's concern, but some things he said seemed counterproductive. If you want something to be done about Iran, splitting Bush's base (by demanding a pullout and calling Bush stupid) is not what you want to do.

"I think Mr.Fitzgerald would be more persuasive if he offered a more realistic plan, and abstained from remarks such as "oh my god" and "can somebody explain to them", and "unable to recognize".
-- from a posting above

A "more realistic plan"? I have offered all kinds of suggestions, in great detail, over the last 3 years and thousands of postings. Google a few of them -- start with "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" and then put in all kinds of phrases -- "Sudan" and "Ethiopia" (for taking control of the southern Sudan and Darfur), or "Kurdistan" or "Biafra" or "sectarian and ethnic fissures" or "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" and you will get all kinds of possibliities, that attempt to take advantage of, rather than messianically attempt to transform, local conditions.

What exactly is "unrealistic" about removing American soldiers from Iraq, with the exception of some possibly remaining among real allies in well-protected Kurdistan, which is a different matter, in order to exploit, rather than to fail to exploit and even to undo, the sectarian fissures that for 1350 years have divided Sunnis and Shi'a. Is it more "realistic" to ignore this history, or to pretend that it is all just a result of the last 15 years of Saddam Hussein's rule, or perhaps of the last 80 years of the modern state of "Iraq"?

Why is it "unrealistic" to wish to make local conditions work for us, rather than to ignore them or still worse, to attempt to change them in ways that will no longer permit them to work to our advantage -- which is what all this labor to create an "Iraqi" army and a decent "Iraq" -- if it were to succeed, which it cannot possibly, would lead to?

And why would other things I have suggested, in cluding coming up with a way to articulate the problem -- the menace of Islam -- without as yet still mentioning "Islam" tout court, be considered "unrealistic"? All the Infidels have to do is to say, with a straight face (see the article on advice to John Howard for more) that

"We are not against Islam. We are only against that group of Muslims who suppoort Jihad to spread their ideas and to force others to accept them, to submit to 'their brand' of Islam."

And so on. It's all nonsense, of course, but what it does is force the enemy either to say:

1) But we all support Jihad. We all support the spread of Islam until it covers the globe

OR alternatively to deny it

2) Yes, we are against those waging Jihad. We do not believe in Jihad except as a "personal struggle" within oneself.

The first will enlighten Infidels. The second will demoralize and confuse Muslims themselves, without really winning over any Infidels.

Why can't the Adminstration do it?

I'm not the one who is "unrealistic." I'm not the one who thinks that $450 billion spent to make Iraq and Afghanistan wonderful places is money well spent -- I think it would have been best simply to topple Saddam Hussein and leave a month or two latter, wishing everyone well, and taken the $350-400 billion saved, and put it in to energy programs, so as to diminish the "wealth" weapon so important to Jihad.

Is that "unrealistic"?

Tell me more about how "unrealistic" I am in the article above, or anywhere else, as compared to Bush and Rice, and two-state solutions, and those "who have perverted a noble religion" and who recognize that "everybody wants freedom" and that "war on terror" and that plaintive "everyone wants to live in peace, don't they" and all the rest of it.

I'm all ears.

Hugh,
I don't need to google your articles because I've been reading this site for over two years, and I greatly apreciate your contribution to our understanding of what we're up against.
The reason I called your call for pullout unrealistic is because Bush won't do it. If my tone was disrespectful, I am truly sorry.

Toppling Saddam and leaving was what I wanted done when the war started. However, I supported Bush on it because the alternative was to have no war at all. And I still think that what happened is better than leaving Saddam in power. My point is, we've heard the "Iraq is a disaster" meme too many times. That, coupled with your animosity towards Bush, is unlikely to get a positive response from someone like me, even if I agree that a lot of that money was indeed wasted.

Why Bush has been so stubborn about the whole "religion of peace" nonsense, I don't know. It could be because of the Saudis, it could be out of fear of ethnic clashes in the US, it could be because of something even more stupid. In any case, I certainly agree that we should call it as we see it. I think our Administration should start doing it. I'm just not going to call them stupid for not doing it, because that would only anger a lot of people who are actually on my side.

Okay.

Hugh-Don't agree with you re Iraq. In another place on the Watch board I wrote-

The truth is that the leadership of Iran (as much an enemy of humankind as the leadership of Nazi Germany-and potentially more dangerous), is being geopolitically surrounded, north, south, east, west(from Iraq in the west, Pakistan, Afghanastan in the east, etc.)-and its happening just as it happened with Hitler's Germany-but its happening sooner than happened with Nazi Germany because we do not intend to make the same mistake twice.

The ring is getting tighter-and they know it.

Today I add: I think that a withdrawal from Iraq would be a geostrategic defeat for the U.S. and would be seen as such in the region.

Zbigniwq Brzezinski wrote (1997-The Grand Chessboard-page 137) "Although Iran's current geopolitical aspirations are narrower than Turkey's, pointing mainly at Azerbaijan and Afghanistan, the entire Muslim population in the area—even within Russia itself—is the object of Iranian religious interest. Indeed, the revival of Islam in Central Asia has become an organic part of the aspirations of Iran's current rulers." To that end they seek the bomb.

Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a noose around the neck of the"Arian Nation." The Looney Toons that rule Iran are finished-but they don't know that yet.

The Iranian troops might find it difficult to cross a radioactive border.

The Texican.

"being geopolitically surrounded, north, south, east, west(from Iraq in the west, Pakistan, Afghanastan in the east, etc.)..."
--- from a posting above

"Geopolitically surrounded"? What does this mean? How is Iran threatened by the handful of American troops in Pakistan? The 15,000 or so American troops in Afghanistan? (And how many thousands of miles are those troops from Iran's nuclear facilities? And how many missiles and planes are available? In Iraq, where American troops are threatened every time they take a drive in a Humvee, by any number of possible enemies?

Hugh -- I read JihadWatch occasionally, so I'm not familiar with your many posts that the current Iraq policiy must fail. You are knowledgeable and not part of the "Bush and the US are always wrong" crowd, so I find your comments interesting.

I don't really know myself. It seems to me that the war in Iraq has gone well, all things considered, and I've got my fingers crossed. It is at least an active attempt to break the various deadlocks in the Middle East that are always threatening to spill over into terrible crises. Of course, it's been expensive and risky, and we're not out of the woods yet.

I'll read what you write.

Hugh-

I am not an expert in Geopolitics, but I know that staging points are very important in the matter. For example, Churchill warned in 1938 that Munich meant that Poland was being geopolitically prepared for attack by Germany. He was right. Churchill wanted a policy that would encircle Germany. However, England was too deaf, France too fearful, Russia not sure of England and France, and Hitler too clever, to let Churchill prevail.

The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must appear to Iran as Iranian troops in Canada and Mexico would appear to us. It would appear to us, under such circumstances, that we were being "Geopolitically surrounded."

I see Iran as the pivot of the region, as Germany is the pivot of Europe. The Iranian government is being encircled, and will be removed. The prize is Iran and our troops will leave Iraq when the Loonytoons leave Iran. They are the most dangerous regime on earth. (Thanks Jimmy Carter-LOL.)

Hugh:
Remember the Korean war? When we supposedly crossed the famous Parallel, China came in and changed the outcome of history.

Should Iranian Troops enter Iraq to stike our forces, there may be another regime change afoot. With a block of Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and Pakistan (and we are not talking the game "Risk") the door is open to us for the traditional invasion route to the middle east. Our presence in Iraq, is actually a threat to the Mullahs in Iran and must cause them more than a little concern.

I think that when it comes to Iran we are just quickly running out of time, theyt have already threatened Israel directly with nuclear weapons and will no doubt give them to AlQaida, HAMAS,Hezbollahahd all othet islamofascist groups...

Bush says: Al-Qaeda hates the fact that all the Muslim lands are divided up among so many nations, so they try to make 23 Muslims nations into 22, then 21, then 20...then into one caliphate.

Bush's agenda in Iraq: Make essentially three Muslims nations (Sunnistan, Khurdistan and Shiistan) into one nation. Is Bush on Al-Qaeda's side?

A land invasion of Iran would not make sense. Where would the Ameridan troops come from? Would they be dropped from planes? Would they be taken from the forces already pinned down by IEDs in Iraq? In Iran, even those who do not wish the regime well are, by and large, opposed to any tampering with the nuclear project -- nationalist pride trumps common sense. American equipment could not overnight be moved in, and the equipment in Iraq has been dangerously degraded by desert conditiions. American forces in Iraq are now traiing the very Iraqis, especially the Shi'a, who could and would turn on the Americans in a New York minute if they were whipped up by Iran to avenge an attack on fellow Shi'a. Just a half-year ago Jaafari in Washington, oozing the most Uriah-Heepish at-your-feet sentiments about a new "Marshall Plan for Iraq" -- "let's call it the Bush Plan" -- that he thought he could squeeze out of the American taxpayers. Today, however, he dared to denounce Zalmay Khalilzad for suggesting that Americans would be disinclined to pour more billions into an Iraqi government that was "sectarian." How much do you trust Jaafari? Moqtada al-Sadr? The SCIRI Party? You don't trust them at all, do you? And the Sunnis are already enemies, even if we were to suddenly turn our attention to suppressing Shi'a enemies in Iran or Iraq.

The Iraq fiasco makes it much harder to attack Iran, because the troops are now already in place in a different country, assigned different tasks, and surrounded by a population that could turn on a dime and start to attack them (or at least the Arabs would, though not the Kurds). You seem to think the Americans "have Iran surrounded." Not at all.

Iran has 70 million people. For eight years, despite internal disarray, Iran continued to fight Iraq, which received American intelligence information, and Saudi tanks, and tens of billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E., to a standstill. Its Basiji displayed the fearlessness of the primitive fanatics they are. Why would such fighters not suddenly spring up in Iraq today, determined to wreak vengeance on the Americans, some of them already isolated in "Iraqi" units to which they have been assigned, and where they are now sitting ducks.

In Afghanistan the American troopos are far from the border with Iran, and even farther from Tehran. The terrain is impossible. This is not a case of Panzer divisions rolling through Belgium. Mountain passes, nonexistent roads and bridges, a hostile population everywhere -- not easy.

What are missiles and planes for? Simply to store up, and count, rubbing our hands in Uncle-Scrooge glee? Or is the Air Force and all of its powerful armory to be put to use? And what are those bombs and missiles for, if not to protect us from an enemy that is determined to acquire weaponry that it will use on Infidels, here and there and everywhere. Any assumptions made about rational behavior, the kind exhibited by the Soviet rulers, need to be re-examined in the light of observable Muslim behavior, including the willingness to engage in individual, and possibly collective, suicide bombing. The impulse remains the same.

I think some simply feel they cannot quite believe that Iraq has been such a gigantic mistake (after the initial search-and-destroy mission for weapons), cannot quite face it or admit it. So they continue to believe that it has led to a brilliantly effective pre-positioning of troops to invade Iran. Nonsense.

And even more nonsensical is the unwillingness to recognize that the sectarian and ethnic fissures within Iraq are not to be healed, but to be helped along, so that they flourish into still-greater hostility and, one hopes, hostilities.

Divide et impera, divide and conquer, is the oldest rule of warfare. Why do we not merely ignore it, but try to do everything we can to prevent it? Sentimentalism about how everyone in the end, or most everyone, must really want the same things, has no place. It is killing us. It is wasting lives and money. Stop it.

"The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must appear to Iran as Iranian troops in Canada and Mexico would appear to us."
-- from one posting above

In other words, entirely laughable as a potential threat.

"Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a noose around the neck of the 'Arian [sic] Nation.'"
-- from a second posting above

That's quite a loose noose.

"Rmember the Korean war? When we supposedly crossed the famous Parallel, China came in and changed the outcome of history.

Should Iranian Troops enter Iraq to stike our forces, there may be another regime change afoot. With a block of Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and Pakistan (and we are not talking the game "Risk") the door is open to us for the traditional invasion route to the middle east. Our presence in Iraq, is actually a threat to the Mullahs in Iran and must cause them more than a little concern."
-- from a third posting above

The Korean War showed that human-wave tactics by the Chinese worked. Who would be practicing the human-wave tactics here? 130,000 American troops, stretched all over Iraq, possibly one-third of them combat troops, with supply lines hazardous (Americans can't drive from Point A to Point B without worrying about improvised explosive devices and a hostile population, everywhere but in Kurdistan) would not be able to do so. The human-wave tactics would come from the Iranians, who practiced such tactics during the eight-year long Iraq-Iran War, in which the Basiji, despite Iraq receiving tens of billions from Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia, and tanks and other American weapons from the Saudis (I know a Franco-Armenian who saw the tanks being painted over in Saudi Arabia before being shipped to Saddam Hussein), despite the intelligence about Iran supplied to Iraq by the Americans, the fanatical willingness of Iranians to die for Islam, their Islam, prevented Iraq from winning. It was Iraq, not Iran, that sued for peace.

As for this business of a "traditional invasion route to the middle east" --what are you talking about? Afghanistan and Pakistan, two of the three countries in which you note there are (a handful) of American troops, with plenty on their hands, are nowhere near the Middle East. Iran is on its periphery. What "traditional invasion route" are you thinking of? That of Alexander the Great, from Macedonia to Afghanistan - that "traditional invasion route"?

Iraq is a tarbaby and a waste of money, a snare and a diversion at this point. It prevents focussing on Iran, planning sensibly for dealing with Iran, thinking about how sensible it would be to support an independent Kurdistan (and making Turkey accept the logic of that decision, and promising in return to prevent Kurdish territorial demands to be made on Turkey, but not those to be made on Syria and Iran).

There is no reason to stay there, except the inability of Bush and others in the Administration to start viewing Islam as the threat, and instead of relyiing on making Iraq a Model of Democracy and Other Good Things (to be brought by the Little Engine That Could) for all those Muslm Nations (how the hell Sunni Arab countries would ever be inspired by Shi'a-run "democratic" Iraq is a fascinating question -- ask Bernard Lewis, and perhaps he can supply a plausible-sounding, if essentially pointless, explanation).

"I have offered all kinds of suggestions, in great detail, over the last 3 years and thousands of postings."

-- from a posting above.

All kinds of suggestions -- none of them, sad to say, realistic. Unrealistic suggestions, no matter how rational and sane, won't get us anywhere.

Hugh-

I see what you are driving at. I will have to think more about what you have written.

I think it was Disraeli who said, "Nations don't have friends, they have interests." I am not sure we will draw the same conclusions on the matter of Iraq, but I think we will both be asking the same question: what is in America's interest?

In any case, I don't think it is in the interests of Russia, China, the U.S., Israel, Turkey, nor many others in the region, that Iran have nuclear weapons. (Even France put their hand to the gun-holster on this matter.) At least there is a strong convergence of mutual interests on this.

I think Zbigniew Brzezinski was correct when he called the region the "Eurasian Balkans." It is a power vacuum, unstable, an ethnic and religious cauldron, and no place for nukes. One way or other, the regime in Terhan will be prevented from getting nukes.

"All kinds of suggestions -- none of them, sad to say, realistic. Unrealistic suggestions, no matter how rational and sane, won't get us anywhere."
-- from a posting above

Give us your "realistic" suggestions. About exploiting fissures, sectarian and ethnic in Iraq. About taking control of Darfur and the southern Sudan and holding a referendum on independnece. About understanding what the Biafra War was all about and extending aid, should the Christians in the south attempt to try for independence again,to support them. About Egypt's bullying of Ethiopa over the headwaters of the Nile, and why supporting Ethiopia to the hilt could signal to sub-Saharan Africa, as could an American presence in the southern Sudan and Darfur, and American support for Christians in Nigeria, that black African Christians should take heart, and be emboldened, and no longer feel they are on the run. About India, and cutting aid to meretriciuos Pakistan, and siding clearly with India, and recognizing the great damage done to Indian civilization by the Muslim invaders. About publicly rephrasing the nature of the conflict so as to at least synecdochically involve Islam instead of "extremist" or "radical" Islam. About the Jizyah of foreign aid. About dealing with the islamization of Western Europe. About preparing the mental ground for necessary action by noting, and noting again, how often certain measures have been undertaken by tolerant and advanced democracies (i.e. the Benes Decrees). About countering Da'wa in Western prisons. About mocking the Spiritual Searchers and making Islam a choice to be avoided. About tearing down the exaggerated claims made for the "convivencia" of Islamic Spain. About analyzing the massacres of the Armenians in 1894-96 and then the genocidal campaign of 1915-1920 not as Turks against Armenians, but Muslim Turks against Christian Armenians. About ceasing to demonize Serbia, and coming to understand, sympathetically, the worries that the sinister Izetbegovic set off with his stated plan to impose the Shari'a, and the historic fears that that evoked. About prersenting the case, world-wide, for Islam being the cause of the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim peoples and states, a theme so often repeated that entire sentences or turns of phrase are now posted, almost verbatim, by dozens of others here, and ideas I recognize as having been posted a year or two or more ago now have entered circulation, and not only at Jihad Watch.

These are all dismissed, because they have yet to be accepted by the Administration, as "unrealistic." But it is the Administration that so far has been "unrealistic." I have been perfectly realistic. It is they who live in a fantasy world, not I.

But again I ask: give us a list of your "realistic" suggestions, so "realistic" that they will be adopted on the spot and have an immediate and salutrary effect on policy.

Ideas such as "we must change the entire world-view that has infected the Western world over the past half-century or more" does not strike me as meeting the criteria set out.

So something else is called for.

Let's hear all about it. Supply us with that bracing dose of realism we've all been waiting for.

to poster "Frank":

I agree with you that it's strange to somehow adduce that troops in Iraq are a liability in dealing with Iran. What is always missing from this "abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-Iraq-but-Iran,-now-that's-a-different-story!" tale is how impossible contending with Iran would be if we hadn't first

1. Eliminated Iraq and Afghanistan as major threats...

and

2. We didn't hem Iran in on both sides with our formidable military installations...

Without first toppling the worst loose cannons of the region, and then establishing our adjacency with Iran, there would be no way to project the full might of US forces against those terror Mullahs in Tehran. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that without the Iraq action, we would have been limited to a far weaker stand-off posture in dealing with Iran... But now, with our presence in Iraq lasting several more years, and perhaps longer in Afghanistan, we hold major trump cards against the Mullocracy.

Even accepting Mr. Fitzgerald's conceit of "Iraq the tarbaby" (which I don't -- not yet!) I also would like to see him descant (just once) on the possible and probable BENEFITS which will and have accrued to us from our actions in Iraq. Can he honestly state that there have been none? that there will be none?

I would find such a position incredible.

At least he might admit that the US is required to prove or disprove the theory of "Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations" before it can righteously embark on "Iraq the Cauldron of Foment Unto the Muslim World"? (but I doubt he will...)

"Even accepting Mr. Fitzgerald's conceit of "Iraq the tarbaby" (which I don't -- not yet!) I also would like to see him descant (just once) on the possible and probable BENEFITS which will and have accrued to us from our actions in Iraq. Can he honestly state that there have been none? that there will be none?

I would find such a position incredible."
-- from a posting above

On more than one hundred occasions I have stated the benefits to Infidels brought on by the invasion of Iraq.

To wit:

1) Removal of an aggressive Muslim ruler who had King-of-the-Arabs fantasies, with a more recent admixtgure of new-found piety (commissioning the largest mosque in the world, a Qur'an calligraphed using his, Saddam Hussein's, blood, etc.)

2) Searching for evidence of, and distrupting all plans and personnel connected to, weapons of mass destruction.

3) By destroying the Sunni despotism, making inevitable the transfer of power to the Shi'a who make up 60% of the population, whether they choose to remain in Iraq, and control it from Baghdad, or separate, and control a Shi'a state that will inherit the only port, and more importantly, all the oil outside the Kurdish regions. Once Saddam Hussein's regime was removed, the result was foregone -- Iraq would inevitably be controlled by the Shi'a who would never again yield to the Sunnis. And just as inevitable, and foreseeable, was the Sunni reaction to loss of power, which was to insist that such a loss not be permitted. Whether one's resistence took the al-Zarqawi form of denying the "Muslimness" of Shi'a, and calling them Rafidite dogs, or a milder version, in which they were not treated as Infidels but merely as inferior Muslims who had no right to rule (that should remain a Sunni prerogative) the Sunni-Shi'a conflict became inevitable. It has not been encouraged, in the slightest, by the Americans, who have made every effort to diminish it. That has been not the only, but the most egregious, of their errors.

4) By destroyiing the Sunni despotism, making much more likely the creation, out of the already autonomous Kurdish region in the north, an independent Kurdistan. That independent Kurdistan would be a permanent threat to Syria and to Iran, where the local Kurds would find the example appealing. It would also raise the consciousness, and possibly increse the clamor for autonomy or more, by other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers in the Kabyle. And any Berber-Arab hostility would have salutary effects. Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia who have been starting to notice how little they have in common with the Gulf Arabs, and how Islam appears to be a vehicle of Arab cultural and lingustic (and other kinds) of imperialism, would also be heartened by the example of an independent Kurdistan. 80% of the world's Muslims are not Arabs; if their resentments of Arab attitudes, the requirement of taking an Arab name, of reading the Qur'an ideally in Arabic, of looking to 7th century Arabs as models for all time, outside of all conceivable context, can be encouraged and harnessed, that would be a good thing for Infidels.

1, 2, 3, and 4 were all accomplished back in 2003. There was no need to stay later. But the Americans have stayed, at a cost of some $200 billion more. That might have gone a long way toward promoting nuclear, solar, and wind energy, and conservation.

No real gains have been made for the Infidels since late 2003. It has become a tarbaby. We are stuck to it because we don't know how to get out, how to phrase it, how to explain to ourselves and others that remaining no longer makes sense, makes the very opposite of sense, and what is more, gets in the way of other, much three much more important matters: Iran's nuclear prooject; the islamization of Western Europe through Da'wa and demography; diminishing Muslim oil and gas revenues which constitute the "wealth" weapon of the world-wide Jihad.

Iraq is not and will not be a model of anything for the Sunni Arab states. If we want victory, or the fruits of the victory we achieved, but did not recognize, more than two years ago, we need to leave Iraq, and allow Iraqis to be Iraqis, which is to say, to immediately descend into internecine strife, that will come whenever we leave in any case. Allow Sunni and Shi'a to fight for power, and attract outside aid on both sides. While the Arabs are battling, let the Kurds, with some Western military and dilomatic aid, make their move -- for them it is now or never.

There. I have now descanted, as you requested, on the "possible and probable BENEFITS which will and have accrued to us from our actions in Iraq. " and to that query -- "Can he honestly state that there have been none?"-- I have answered, possibly a hundred times, and will again here, that the main benefit so far has been that of assuring ourselves about weaponry and getting rid of the dictator, because of what he might have done. That was accomplished long ago, more than two years ago.

All the other "BENEFITS" (I'll stick to your majuscular, just for the fun of it) are now in posse, not in esse. They will accrue only if we leave. We will not obtain them as long as we stay. We cannot afford to stay. Not for the army's sake. Not for the budget's sake. Not for the sake of civilian morale, for almost everyone has seen that Iraq has become a farce except for trhe Adminstration and its diehard supporters who prefer not to analyze, but to stick by their man.

Has Iraq been worth the close to $400 billion, and possibly much more (once one factors in continuing costs in replacing degraded equipment, and in supporting wounded veterans, and in rebuilding the civilian army to its prevous size and quality)? No. It hasn't. But if it descends into real internecine warfare, and if that warfare does attract men, money, materiel from both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran (distracting both for a time) then it may have been worth it.

Just.

Thanks for the response to my little request... It's much appreciated.

A couple observations:

"No real gains have been made for the Infidels since late 2003."

You don't think we've made massive intelligence inroads we otherwise would not have if we'd withdrawn as you propose in 2003?

You don't think we've used this span of time to perfect our military approach to insurgency, and perfected as never before our tactics of counterinsurgency, especially as it pertains to the future of warfare -- that is, urban insurgency!?? I can think of many splendid examples... Here's a great one... Fallujah... And the last time I checked, we roundly crushed the Sunni's asses after honing our urban techniques for 2 years in lesser battles --When was Fallujah? I never thought you'd ask! Why, it was in November 2004 ! That offensive will be the textbook example for a century at least. It was a superlative success, and there have been many others -- none of them possible without the experience and real-time trial of war.

"Has Iraq been worth the close to $400 billion... No. It hasn't."

Yes, it has.

The costs are staggering, most of all in terms of lost lives. These are, of course, irreplaceable and I mourn them greatly.

However, the experience in Iraq is truly priceless for the US military. Thousands of Iraq war-wise veterans will form the core of our mighty corps for the next quarter century at least. I hope they read this site ! They are the future of America's war against fascist Islam... and their lessons in Iraq (good or ill) will be essential to defeating our vile enemies. Also, this action permits the US to jettison old equipment, technologies,and tactics which are unsuited for anticipated conflicts. There has never been a greater opportunity to develop new equipment technologies and tactics to fight this exact enemy. And we continue to utilize the alembic of Iraq to develop superior tactics and techniques for at least the next 50 years. It couldn't be done otherwise -- not in Afghanistan -- not Iran -- nowhere else... Iraq encompasses the whole enchilada...

"But if it descends into real internecine warfare, and if that warfare does attract men, money, materiel from both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran (distracting both for a time) then it may have been worth it."

According to your thinking, isn't this internecine warfare inevitable? If so, then why worry? Be happy.

If it's not inevitable, if somehow a system can be cobbled together which alters the deranged trajectory the Arab world and aims it on a better path -- even slightly better which avoids armageddon, then it would all be well worth it.

The lessons learned from Iraq will be priceless either way. Either Islam, Arabdom, and the rest of the world can coexist, or they cannot. I think we both agree that our possible futures may be that stark. But I would argue that before we can embark on the complete and unprecedented horrors of "they cannot coexist", we must expend great treasure and even great amounts of blood to try to prove they can. It is the only way for America to arrive at whatever is next. And none of us knows what that will be. Not yet...

Lastly:

"On more than one hundred occasions I have stated the benefits to Infidels brought on by the invasion of Iraq." Really!?

THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER OF OCCASIONS... (majuscule off)

Hugh, tar baby indeed; beached whale might be a better metaphor, just kind of smiling and flopping away on the beach, while the moisture is going, going, going. And who are all those guys with the harpoons walking slowly towards our whale?

Time to get up, get out, if UAE wants to kick us out of UAE--will kick 'em out of USA. The whole port issue is being refered to by some as an economic issue; it's not, it's security. I thought 39 % popularity was the limit from W, since the left are blessed with an overabundance of stooges(Al Franken types), but I'm not so sure. Seeing W in action latelely is almost like his pre-911 'caught in the head lights look.' To the poster on another thread on Jihad Watch who compared W to the Presses treatment of Reagan misses the point; the press hated and mocked the gipper--the public new better, and the press hates and mocks W--the public is increasingly agreeing. W is no Gipper.

I am worried. This is the gang addressing the national security issues. I remember Condi replying to the increadibly unpleasant Richard Ben-Venista at the 911 commision--she wouldn't just read the freaken PDB entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in America.' Obviously he was trying to nail here, perhaps unfairly, but her performance that day made me realized(despite the adoration of her) she ain't ready for prime time, maybe she'd be ok in the cold war or running the NFL, but, like Karen Huges, the other trusted woman in W's "brain trust" it's scary and pathetic. I think as history judges and studies W, the issue where he will come most lacking is flexibility--his refusal to change views, advisors, or anything. Islam is a religion of peace, It is a great religion, As Iraq stands up, we'll stand down and more useless patter . . . meanwhile the threat grows, and our country needs solid leadership. Cheney and Rumsfeld inspire a 'bit' of confidence--but why not say it's 2006 . . . I've two years left . . . bring in a topnotch new team. Every other President has--including the Gipper and Papa bush--but W's reluctance to 'go beyond his circle' speaks to his loyalty(a good quality in a person)but also an inflexibility, an inability to change courses, to tack and weave when the time is right. Remember it was the great, tough, quintisential American Reagan who said, the hell with Lebanon(they're all nuts)and we're out of here. He didn't say it that way, but his actions were what counts.

Hugh:
You are right, we should surrender now and convert to islam before they nuke us into the stone age... talk about turning strength into weakness. Yikes.

I dont follow this thread.

Is there going to be a war with Iran ?

Are people afraid of being over extended ?

Is Hugh advocating a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq or a partial withdrawal ?

Either way, the war will not be over until it is over.

Grimreaperxx writes:
"Hugh:
You are right, we should surrender now and convert to islam before they nuke us into the stone age... talk about turning strength into weakness. Yikes. "

What a stupid thing to say! Even if you disagree
with Hugh's line of reasoning, that's a pretty
pathetic attempt at a slam.

Since it appears that you can't be bothered to
follow a simple argument, here it is. We pull
out of Iraq. Shiite Muslims kill Sunni Muslims.
Sunni Muslims kill Shiites. Iran supports
Shiites. Surrounding Arabs support Sunnis. Lots
of dead muslims. That's good.

We leave enough troops in Kurdistan to help
protect their independence. That causes trouble
for Syria and Iran, and, even though Hugh thinks
it could/should be smoothed over, Turkey.

The problem for our troops is that if Iran
decides to take on our troops, and the Iraqis
help, we'll be in trouble.

How is that like surrender?

USA is in no postion to invade Iran not even England will spport us in this. First the two main dision of Islam get along petty well it only afew hot head that fight, it isnot the 30 year war in Europe which lead to 400 years of not talking to each other. All the factions of Islam talk to each other and many time agree on many religish issues together. Encoughing cival war is alway than bad long term move as it can backfire on you.

Than airstrike on Iran will do nothing at all as we donot have good intelligence on Iran. May-be Iran have 400 nuclear weapon already up to 500 kilotonne of tnt. Or Russian troop help Iran with Russian nuclear weapon ready to be use. Iran might have develp nuclear weapon during they war with Iraq and devide not to use then as they where winning so the rest of the world doesnot know they have them.

JSLA sez:

"...However, the experience in Iraq is truly priceless for the US military. Thousands of Iraq war-wise veterans will form the core of our mighty corps for the next quarter century at least. I hope they read this site ! They are the future of America's war against fascist Islam... and their lessons in Iraq (good or ill) will be essential to defeating our vile enemies..."

God willing!

But even that will not happen if they don't learn from what we learn here every day on JW/DW and LGF and all those who contribute to expose the Islamic perversion.

So far the Mohammedans have shown more expertise at PR, and thats ironic because the US invented it.

The only country in the world that is worse at PR than the US is Israel...

You are all intellectual and I admire JW and the points made here. However, looming off the coast of Iran is the silent service, with the capabilities of destroying Iran in 10 minutes, or at it's choosing the Iranians infrastructure through a plethora of technologies like EMPs, limited nuclear bunker busting technologies and a neighbor called Israel who is armed to the teeth and has plenty of agents in Iran with a bulls eye on our man Stan the green clouded anointed one. Israel, who for the most part, the majority of the world hates, has nothing to loose to take the blame for taking out the nuke facilities in Iran. The US flying with them insures the safety of Israel.

Overhead Iran are space based technologies, satellites, jamming technologies, laser anti ICBM technologies, stealth bombers, drones that fly undetected, and anti missile systems of which the world has never seen. Undetectable aircraft, missiles, men and materials are propositioned to make them pay for all the death Iran has spread for decades. Ships patrol their borders with enough ordinance to remove the region from the earth. Iran is in a far deeper bag of pooh, than the leadership can possibly surmise. Iranian electronic gyroscopic accuracy is as good as a mop handle if the opposing force shocks the circuit board. Iran’s lust for death will come true unto them just like the Nazi's. They are wishing it upon themselves, and the chaos that ensued will be their making!

American planners knew this was coming for 40 years. Iran has planned its response for lesser time. It is true agents are propositioned to try to create havoc on the West, but regardless of the outcome it will be a temporary level of fear and concern. The public has no clue what will happen to the Middle East if a dirty bomb or a nuclear weapon goes off in the US, or for that matter any WMD takes hold on our soil, or our allies. Even the fatheaded French have finally come around and told Stan the man that a nuke he will eat for breakfast if one radiological event ever happens in Paris! It was nice knowing the people of sands if that should ever happen. China and Russia know it. Be forewarned Iran!

The Iranians have a tiny advantage called uncertainty, and a major disadvantage called MISCALCULATION! THE COALITION HAS AN IMMENSE ADVANTAGE. In the end, cartoon demonstrations, Muslim self induced intolerance and mindless fanatical frenzy whipped up by uneducated radical idiots, fuels the state sponsored thugs in Iran to lust for B and C class weapons thinking they can intimidate us into their will! What a laugh, they threaten us with. Iran doesn’t even make much technology to guard their own country! Their “faith” won’t help them one bit in that matter either. Cut the snake’s head off and the world sleeps better, it’s that simple.

Islam’s continued historical stupidity for the sake of controlling power with fractionalized Mufti’s who don’t preach anything intellectual, but instead rally largely uneducated masses to focus on control of tribal power vacuums leads to a lot of death and violence that doesn’t help Islam join the club. Picking off US troops won’t win favors from Washington using faceless mercenaries on the payroll from Tehran. Iran which rules a clerical legacy connected to 256 tribal legacies is a testament to how stupid these people are thinking that a global guerilla war will win favor from the world for their cause. Islam cannot agree to anything in itself except to hate all outside of itself that doesn’t follow their thinking, and this will be another ingredient that will lead to Iran's, and the rest of the Middle East’s downfall.

A Trojan horse is in their midst and ours for sure. Iran thinks it has the “advantage” and so did Khadaffi at one time, need I say more. Iran’s Trojan horse is the size of a matchbox we can step on and ours is a behemoth so large that when the world sees what is coming to Iran, the stars and stripes will be respected more, even if we are hated more. Count on it. Sempri Fi! Onward Western soldiers.............dispose of them as they so wish. The administration is no dummy, despite my distastes for their policies and approach, but time will show the real outcome shortly. Have faith Americans, have faith. The Iranians have no clue what is coming...........not a hope. We’ve got them pegged, and the rest of these evildoers who can’t imagine what is coming in the near term. God Bless America…………grab the popcorn and watch, but be prepared it won’t be pretty for us, but especially for them. We will prevail

defender
No contingency plan for dealing with Iran would be without the assumption that Iran already has more than 1 nuclear weapon. Don't worry my muslim friend, the pentagon are not completely stupid. Incidentally, Iran can be "dealt with" without invading.
PS defendingislam? You must be very busy these days.

"Give us your "realistic" suggestions."

The only realistic, effective strategy (given the extent of the PC disease in Western culture) will be one of an ideological war of attrition, whereby the critical condemnation of Islam slowly percolates throughout the West. This percolation will probably take several decades, perhaps over 100 years, to be effective, insofar as effective = reversing PC domination, such that PC becomes a relatively impotent fringe minority view (much like what Jihad-Watching is now).

Paradoxically, part of this percolation process involves front-line intellectuals such as Hugh hammering away with their unrealistic proposals as though they had any chance of being realized in today's PC climate. Part of this percolation process also involves the general intellectual/emotional agitation of typified by Jihad Watchers whereby they vent their frustration declaring, and calling for, unrealistic things given today's PC climate -- oftentimes ludicrously unrealistic: "Islam is not a religion!" It may not be, but given today's PC climate, you might as well say that aliens are abducting Congressional leaders and implanting chips in them.

All these unrealistic suggestions, eructations and ejaculations will not operate on the level their proponents fervently intend for them: but they will do their small part in the general percolation process of slowly reversing the sociopolitical-cultural sea change of PC domination. Such a massive sea change cannot be reversed overnight. It may take a good century.

As one example of the formidable proportions of this process: The way it stands now, in February of 2006, it is a reasonable estimate that the simple collectively Western act of putting on the table for substantive official discussion the mere question -- "Is Islam itself a problem?" -- will have to wait at least decade or two to take place. Maddeningly, but all too really, it cannot take place now, given today's PC climate (nor could it have taken place in 1996, nor in 1986, nor in 1976, nor in 1966...).

Set your calendars: Western Conference on "Is Islam itself a Geopolitical Problem?" presided over by heads of state of all EU countries, the Americas, and Australia -- scheduled February of 2026.

That Conference will still not invite the Robert Spencers and Ibn Warraqs and Hirsi Alis of our day. We will have to wait another couple of decades for that degree of rationality to percolate:

Western Conference on "Is Islam itself a Geopolitical Problem?" Part II: presided over by heads of state of all EU countries, the Americas, and Australia, with special guests the octogenarians Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc. -- scheduled February of 2046.

Another key factor in affecting the pace of this percolation process will be Muslim behavior in the following decades. If Muslim terrorists perpetrate a certain number of attacks on a horrific scale (say, over 50,000 mass-murdered through some form of WMD), this could have the effect of speeding up the percolation process. (One such attack will probably not be enough to shake the West out of its PC indolence.)

It is, however, reasonable to expect that Muslim terrorists will continue to perpetrate attacks that continue to fall under a certain threshhold and which, thus, do not stimulate the rational response from us of speeding up the process of reversing our PC pathology. If the last few years are an indication of how it will be for the next few years and decades, we will continue to see relatively low-level attacks on the scale of Madrid and London, which will elicit the same configuration of irrational response from the West:

1) increased censorship of substantive criticism of Islam qua Islam
2) increased postures of "sensitivity" to Muslim concerns
3) increased solicitation of Muslim input and help (without distinguishing between Muslim reformers and Muslim taqiyyists) in "solving" the problem of Muslim-Western tension,
4) increased refusal to take rational measures of self-protection, including profiling of Muslims, infiltration and searches of mosques, etc.

Along with these irrational responses will be some fairly rational counter-measures on a purely tactical front (as we have seen over the past few years) of scouting out and breaking up terrorist cells, etc., but these are purely police type measures cut off from the head of a rational strategy which would require reversing the irrationality of #1-4 above.

RE: Iran has 70 million people. For eight years, despite internal disarray, Iran continued to fight Iraq

Iran doesn't have a military. They fought Iraq for 8 years by using CHILDREN in waves as canon fodder.

The Arabs have demonstrated repeatedly through
history that they are incompetent in warfare.

Just one example, Israel was always numerically
disadvantage and yet triumphed.

Then add both Gulf Wars to bolster my point.

I am illiterate in the art of war but it does seem to me that the moslems should be all be put back in their own barrel and allowed to fight it out for themselves....this includes the moslems at present residing in the West.
There is no way yet known to democratize tribal,religously bigoted people and no way that we should be allowing their needs and wants to over-ride the needs of the Western nations and the millions of innocents therein.

"On more than one hundred occasions I have stated the benefits to Infidels brought on by the invasion of Iraq." Really!?
-- from a posting above]

One easy way to see a subset of the number of times I have stated the benefits -- the two main ones being the removal of the regime and the search-and-destroying for weapons or weapons projects in the planning. These are always stated before I go into my analysis of the need to get out to allow those sectarian and ethnic fissures to widen.

Google "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" and "Light Unto the Muslim Nations." You will get 143 separate hits. Click on any of them. In almost every one, before criticizing the second part of the whoel business, the "democracy-is-on-the-march" project, considered hallucinatory, the invason itself is described as rational and justified..

You state that if I think the Sunni-Shi'a split is inevitable, then what's the rush? Why not stick around? But why stick around? It costs $10 billion a month to stick around. It uses up equipment. It steadily demoralizes troops. It distracts attention from much more important things -- Iran, the islamization of Western Europe. It makes no sense to try to prevent what should be welcomed and exploited.