Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the continuing disastrous consequences of letting sentiment and wishful thinking get in the way of serious analysis.
The sentimentalist in the White House contents himself with bromides about how people everywhere "love freedom" and that all we have to do is bring "freedom" to Iraq. And with that "freedom" (demonstrated by those purple-thumbed elections that drew tears from sentimentalists everywhere) all manner of things will be well. Islam's resurgence -- not return, because it never left -- in Iraq is nothing to worry about, because Islam is not the problem, only those "extremists" who "pervert" a "noble religion" are the problem. Nonsense on stilts.This kind of sentimentalism prevents the kind of colder calculation that is necessary. How best to husband, rather than squander, resources? How best to exploit fissures within the camp of Jihad? How best to compel the mujahedin to direct their energies not to fighting the Infidels, but to such activities as the Iran-Iraq War that tied the Islamic Republic of Iran up for eight of the first nine years of its hideous existence, and at the same time used up so much of the aggressive energy and wherewithal of Saddam Hussein? It also soaked up tens of billions in cash from Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia, who helped to fund him as the Sunni champion against Shi'a mad-dog (if not Rafidite dog) Iran.
As long as we keep talking about our "Muslim allies," we will not talk about the ways to use the ethnic, sectarian, and economic fissures within the camp of Jihad to divide, demoralize, and weaken that camp. And those fissures are so obvious, and presented to us on such an obvious platter in Iraq, that it would be remarkably stupid to ignore them, and even stupider to try to end those fissures, to patch them up, to make Iraq that Light Unto the Muslim Nations it isn't and never could be. Much the same kind of idiocy occurs elsewhere also – it is manifested by the officials who are hoping to make Indonesia another "model" of what can be done, rather than taking the occasion wherever it presents itself of forcing Muslims to make the connection between their own despotisms and economic paralysis with the nature of Islamic Sharia itself. For it is the encouragement by Islam of the habit of mental submission, and obedience to authority as long as the authority is Muslim, that explains the despotisms, ruthless or quasi-enlightened, that are to be found in all Muslim states save those few that have consciously constrained Islam as a political and social force -- such as Turkey, with its systematic series of measures against political Islam, measures known as "Kemalism."It is Muslims who, no longer rescued by the Jizyah of Western foreign aid, and with efforts made to limit their returns from oil and gas revenues (which are not economic development, but rather an accident of geology), will have to begin to comprehend that inshallah-fatalism, which comes from Islam (Allah knows best; no one can predict what will happen for it is all in Allah's hands, etc.), explains the economic stasis that is everywhere evident. Finally, the intellectual, social, and moral failures of Islamic societies is not a matter of genetic makeup but rather of various Islamic teachings. Infidels should cease to help Muslims and cease to pretend that there is nothing about Islam itself that explains their situation. Instead, they should allow the creation of those conditions which will force Muslims to confront the link between these aspects of Islam and the failures of their own societies. Whether they do something about this within Islam or take the route of Ataturk, so as to create a sufficient number of secularists within their societies, is unclear. But at least the Infidels will have seen things clearly and rescued themselves.
And that is the most important thing. We are not here to save the world, but to save ourselves. It is we who are threatened by those instruments of Jihad -- Da'wa and demographic conquest and the "money" weapon -- that we persist in ignoring, as we clump-clump-clump at great expense into places we did not study sufficiently. And we remain hideously stuck in those places through the sheer obstinacy of this administration that is incapable of admitting it was mistaken, and would rather continue to sacrifice men, money, materiel, on an unproven, sentimental, and by now self-evidently foolish theory about "victory" in Iraq that convinces no one, and in fact, has not even been coherently explained.
For in what would such a "victory" consist? Would it consist of some nation-state, with the Americans still there, keeping Kurds from exiting, defending from attack now the Shi'a, and now the Sunnis? Would it be shown by the presence of American soldiers, under attack but still working away at that ultimate symbol of madness and folly, that 21-building "Embassy Complex," costing $595 million? It will never be used as an American Embassy in a safe, grateful, friendly Iraq. That is certain -- certain to everyone but to those in the Administration who keep building the damn thing. But does anyone speak out about this folly, symbol of all that is crazy in tarbaby Iraq?
Not yet. But they will. And then, for those who continue to believe that the best way to deal with the Jihad is to build up this or that Muslim army or state, to find "friends" and create "models" in the Muslim world while ignoring the real nature of Islam and refusing to pay attention to the demographic problem in Western Europe, the silly cheerleaders for "transformative diplomacy" and the Democracy-Is-On-the-March movement, it will all be over
And that should be the end of sentimentality as state policy.
I respect President Bush for he is the leader of America. Some here might want to argue that, but, we know the buck stops there. He had to fight, indeed, initiate, a war against people he did not understand, an ideology beyond the belief of Civilization. He has a tough job. But, for all my respect for him, the speech he made "today as the people of iraq stand for their freedom, America stands with them" made me mad at him. It was one of the silliest things I have ever heard in my life. But later on I calmed down when I realized how little America knows about this, the enemy, this menace that confronts all Civilization. People like Mr. Robert Spencer are spreading awareness in the West about it now, and I know, I hope, that soon all West will see this menace for what it is and let the boys use both hands when fighting. I can only salute Mr. Spencer on the great job he is doing.
Based on what I'm reading at Iraqi blogs, those who were trying to build Iraq are leaving in droves. Sounds like it's reaching a critical mass.
Perhaps the best quote:
The embassy complex is truly the height of folly. It sends all the wrong messages to the average Iraqi while being a fool's errand in the first place.
One of my other favorite Iraqi bloggers is coming to attend journalism school in the United States. I hope they don't turn him into a jihadist while he's here.
President Bush was a 'C' grade student and is a 'C' grade President IMO.
When I saw President Bush elected I thought to myself...my GOD, just how low the mighty have fallen...the USA is doomed.
If the USA is a worthy example of a system of government worthy of a people respected by God, don't they have anything better to offer by way of leaders?
"If the USA is a worthy example of a system of government worthy of a people respected by God, don't they have anything better to offer by way of leaders?" --Mike_W
I think we do. The problem is that none of these potential leaders have the financial wherewithal, nor, perhaps, the desire to belong to either of the country's two major political parties.
Their names may appear on ballots, but so many voters feel they absolutely must vote for their party's candidate. I'm one of the fools who took a gamble on Ross Perot, handing the White House to Clinton!
Hugh nailed it, again.
It's become pretty evident that democracy is simply going to assist our enemies, the hardline fundamentalists/Jihadists by giving them an opportunity to vote in their candidates and run whatever countries that we "liberate" with Sharia Law.
Forget the tripe you hear about everyone desiring "freedom" from the Dhimmi Chief or his speech writers. As Robert and others have pointed out about Islam, their is no "freedom", but simply what is required of you in the Koran and their prophet's life example. If it isn't in their book, it doesn't deserve their attention.
For that matter, whatever the "decadent" West thinks is a good idea, you can count on the people in that part of the world totally detesting it.
Self determination in Iraq needs an opportunity to be realized. That means that partition into a Kurdish territory in the north, a Sunni territory in the middle, and a Shia territory in the south. Then let the three independent nations iron out their differences by exchanging diplomatic missions or by military action, their choice.
As for Kurdistan, let the border be defined on the south by the territory currently occupied by Kurdish forces and let the northern border be defined by the present Iraqi border. Then it will be up to the Kurds and the Turks to resolve the dispute over their mutual border on their own.
How can you bring "freedom" to a people whose core 1350 year old ideology is "submission" to Absolute, eternal unfreedom?
That no one mentioned this to Bush seems par for this [IED-mined] course.
And every day 5 or so America soldiers are blown away to keep a brave face on this folly.
That we allowed the defeated to write their own Constitution was the first mis-step.
Sharia creep began.
And, with that, the mission was aborted.
Time to slowly ease out of the Triangle of Death, waving and smiling and praising the "valiant Iraqi people", and re-deploy a percentage of the current coalition forces at the Iraq-Iran border- in a show of intent toward Mahmoud and the mad mullahs next door. The rest of the troops should then come home. Wiser, tougher, and less apt to believe the "dulce et decorum est pro 'Islamic democracy' mori" platitudes.
We'll need their smarts and cynicism when the next U.S. president/veep ticket is voted for.
(Tancredo and Weldon, I hope.)
Great stuff and right on Hugh - I particularly enjoyed 'we are not here to save the world but to save ourselves'.
Kudos.
We can win, but we have to look at ourselves first and our understanding of who is confronting us.
Note that the Muslim concept of freedom much resembles the Hegelian [thus Marxist] concept of freedom. That is, freedom is a set of laws or rules to be obeyed, not what Americans usually think of as freedom or liberty.
President Bush was a 'C' grade student and is a 'C' grade President IMO.
When I saw President Bush elected I thought to myself...my GOD, just how low the mighty have fallen...the USA is doomed.
Posted by: Mike_W at May 20, 2006 07:40 AM
Not only that, Mike_W, Dubya is 'A' in corruption. What with holding hands with the oppressive Saudi Prince and Pakistani Dictator? Oh.. and selling out USA to the Mighty "cheap-labor" dollar and the "illegal-Immigration" vote.
In short, Bush has written DISASTER, on the walls, which Bush should but won't build, for the above reasons.
I walked into a lounge in the Atlanta airport last Friday and the only available seat was beside an American soldier in fatiques, an MP, who was on leave from Iraq. He was chatting with a woman who is also in the military, but she was not in uniform.
During a lapse in their conversation, I asked the MP if we were winning in Iraq; I simply could not pass up the opportunity. When I asked the question, he did not reply with an emphatic "yes", but his eventual answer was a somewhat ambiguous affirmative. I found it less than convincing.
He said that the newly trained Iraqi army and police were doing most of the work, and coalition troops stayed behind the scenes, ready to assist if necessary. I asked him if he thought the Iraqi people appreciated our efforts on their behalf, and he sincerely believes that they do. He said all they want is peace and security and to resume living their very simple, uncomplicated lives. He said it was 116 degrees when he left Iraq.
I tried to broach the subject of Islam in a round-about way, without appearing openly hostile or "Islamophobic", so I mentioned the Iraqi Constitution and lamented that it contained all of the provisions of Islamic law, making Iraq a de facto theocracy, not a democracy. He was obviously confused and did not appear to understand what I was saying. He told me that elections were held, candidates were elected, etc. I asked him if he thought Islam might be part of the problem, since it certainly isn't a "peaceful" religion as Bush insists. The female soldier, who had been silent during our conversation, asserted that all religions are violent. He agreed. She then invoked the hackneyed, flawed, yet universal equivalency rationale---the Crusades.
This soldier is strongly committed to the mission in Iraq and believes we must stay there and "fight the terrorists" on their turf. He sounded like GWB's speechwriter. Despite some concerns and frustrations, he said it was imperative that we remain in Iraq until the insurgents are defeated. I asked him why he thought we would have more success than the British and the French in civilizing this volatile area and he only said: "We have to try."
So it would appear that even the seasoned troops who are fighting and dying over there don't realize that there is a jihad going on, and probably don't even know what a jihad is.