Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses various reasons the different Iraqi factions have for wanting American troops to stay in the country:
I have been asked: "Will not the Shi’a, once they feel empowered and secure, not ask us to leave and exact a bloody revenge on the Sunni?" The mere asking of such a question is telling: the part about will they not "ask us to leave" at a certain point.Of course they will. But not before having kept us around, if they can, as long as possible, for several reasons. The most important is to have the American soldiers do as much of the fighting and dying and getting wounded as possible on behalf of the "government of Iraq" -- i.e. the Shi'a who now control the "government of Iraq." The second is to make sure that as much money as possible is inveigled out of those Americans -- and how many Iraqis are now living high, including those who escaped abroad, with loot from the generous and freespending Infidels, winning hearts, winning minds, spending like there was no tomorrow. The more time the Americans spend there, the more money they are likely to hand out. The more time they spend in Iraq, the more likely it is that they, those Americans, will keep building that absurd $595 million dollar monument to a fantasy, that American Embassy complex in the Green Zone that will never, ever, serve the function, or be filled with the personnel, that were so blithely envisioned when that ridiculous project was begun three years ago.
The longer the Americans stick around, the more likely it is that they can be inveigled into handing over all kinds of military equipment, on the theory that "without it" the "Iraqis" can't function, can't protect themselves. The American generals, or some of them (not Abizaid, probably, but hearts-and-minds Chiarelli, and Casey, and some of the others) will find that plausible. The Administration will find that plausible. It isn't enough, after all, to train the "Iraqis" to be a real fighting force, and thus to create the best-trained Arab Muslim army in the Middle East. No, we must arm it better -- after all, aren't they going to be our permanent friends? Otherwise, why would we have spent all the money we already have spent? Why would we be building that $595 million dollar embassy complex? No, having spent so much, now's not the time to become suspicious -- let's give the Iraqis what they so desperately need. That is the Iraqi calculation.But the telling part of the question above is that business of when they "ask us to leave." When, in god's name, did the disposition of American soldiers become a matter of waiting around to be told when to stay or go by others, and especially by others who are innately, irreducibly, immutably hostile -- hostile every time they hear a Qur'anic recitiation, hostile when they read the Hadith, hostile when they leave Friday Prayers after a horrific anti-Infidel khutba is fierily delivered, hostile even if they never read the Qur'an and never attend a mosque because the atmospherics and attitudes of Islam suffuse every part of society, so only a few, the advanced, Westernized, few, can conceivably escape from this general attitude?
Why in god's name do we accept the very idea that American officers and men must stay until the "Iraqis" (the non-existent Iraqis) tell us that we can go, tell us that they have "stood up" sufficiently in their own minds, so that we can "stand down"? They want us there for other reasons, for as long as possible. And I haven't even gotten to why the Sunnis might want us to stay as well, for they may see us as their protectors from the full viciousness of Shi'a-trained police and army units. And then there is the Iranian side -- the Iranians want us to stay, bogged down, and also close to possible Iranian retaliation should any attack be made on their nuclear project. Thus it is entirely conceivable that the Americans may now be holding back the Israelis from doing what the Israelis can hardly be expected to refrain from doing at some point, if the United States continues to dither about it. For after all, Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction, and there is no doubt that he is willing to endure casualties in return for that destruction -- a small price to bring about the Mahdi's return, and everything wonderful. So the Iranians, too, have a stake in keeping the Americans there.
And even if one side were to decide that they wanted the Americans to leave, what would the other side then do? It would immediately scream that the Americans "ruined things" and "they must stay" and "protect us." In other words, the Tarbaby of Iraq will never ask us to unstick ourselves. The American government has to stop allowing its policies to be held hostage either by the behavior, or capacity, or express wishes of some "Iraqi" government. It should make up its own mind as to what is best for America.
And here is what the American government should do, after the failures of Maliki to complete a government, after his outrageous denunciation of putative American attacks -- a "common occurrence" in his view -- on civilians: announce a complete withdrawal, within a few months, to be completed within six months. And leave, and leave no equipment behind. Let them "stand up" then, or not, as they see fit or are able. And stop work on the damned embassy. And show that the hopelessness of creating an "Iraq" out of disparate and hostile groups has been recognized, and now a different, cooler and for some crueler strategy will be implemented. And it will now be up to the Muslims, in and out of Iraq, to make that situation work for them -- for otherwise it will work for us.
And while both Sunnis and Shi'a jockey and appeal to co-religionists outside of Iraq, other states in the area should be read the riot act, for we will no longer be needing them to preposition troops at bases -- and that should begin with Qatar, a state whose ruling family gives refuge to Al-Jazeera, tips off Al-Qaeda members, and financially supports Hamas. That can continue, but it can't continue with American bases, and implied American protection against Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (the three regional bullies). No, Qatar will be on its own.
Stop waiting to be asked, like an anxious guest who won't leave until the host starts to yawn and direct him toward the door. We don't have to wait for what the "Iraqis" want. And those various "Iraqis" may vary, over time, in whether they want us to stay or to go -- a decision they will make only on the basis of what's in it for them, never on the basis of what might further American interests.
Time to go. Long past time.
During the Bush and Blair press conference, Bush was asked on this issue of American troops leaving, and he answered--to my shock--they 'The Iraqis' do not yet have a defense secretary and what needs to occur is for our generals to see what are the thoughts of the defense secretary(once he's appointed). He said this process couldn' yet occur as they don't yet have a defense guru yet.
Oh, I think I've got it. Bush acts on behalf of 'whatever our generals want,' of course, in close consultation with the needs/aspirations of Iraq.
Never once does he even imply the slightest peep of pressure towards Iraq. No, get it together or else. Americans, unless we see progress in weeks, will pull out. No. No. No. Just, as they stand up, we stand down(or are murdered down by IED's). Or, we need to have consultations with our army chiefs and their defense secretary--but he felt the reporters question was stupid as Iraq hasn't yet appointed a defense chief to their embryonic 'government.' Or, 'should we stay or should we go' will be answered by the next government; as if staying the course in Iraq--no matter what the facts on the ground tells us-is the most immutable given.
W, is all Churchill's wagger, without the smarts of Winston. Winston wrote volumes of history--read everything in sight--but W's staying the course cause he's like Chruchil. Right?
Our only hope here--sadly--is for our current generals(not the guys who retired)to go public was the innane Iraqi operation. As I've said before, when the last American goes home from that Islamic hell hole, he will be hit with Iraqi spittle--no matter if the boys come home in a year or ten years.
Pound for pound, W is the worse President in history. His failure to understand/deal/plan against Jihad(War on 'terror'-Islam means peace--Islam is the religion of peace)will doom him. His complete lack of intellectual curiosity doomed him. Sad, but true.
Perhaps the few benifits here of W and Condi's fantastic Iraqi adventure are a. Polls show perceptions changing vis-a-vis Islam--from what we are told by our leaders to 'it is what it is.' and b. Eliminating Sadam is unleashing a civil war--if only we would not just get out of the way and let nature take it's course.
Biorabbi,
You say "Polls show perceptions changing vis-a-vis Islam." Where can we find these poll results?
Thanks,
I’m glad you re-posted your response form the comments section to the main page.
They are indeed playing helpless and needy just to have us sacrifice for their convenience. Both political parties assume we are to blame if we “lose Iraq.” The idea that they are a failed society, given their religion and culture, won’t be considered … yet.
Of course, it’s not just in Iraq. We are told that if we don’t give Mubarak $2 billion a year, “there will be consequences.” And if we (the West) didn’t support the Palestinian terrorists for 50 years either directly or through the UN, bad things would happen. Even now, Condi is looking for loopholes, i.e. humanitarian aid, to fund terrorist supporters in the West Bank. And look at the clamoring for our intervention in Darfur!
Our focus is truly altruistic: what do they need, what do they want, when do they want it? The façade of enlightened self-interest has fallen. We’ve become obsessed with serving their needs and demands—on their terms. We make few demands of our own. The problem is greater than our denial of Islam. It’s a self-denial and self-sacrifice. It’s a complete refusal to put our interests first, proudly proclaim our values, and demand respect. Indeed, our constant groveling has only earned contempt.
Beauiful Mr. Fitzgerald. I think the right and generals know this too but stubborn pride keeps them there. (can't let the lefties gloat, it's all poltics at this point paid for with spent blood of our fine young men) I could be wrong but I don't see how since no outcome of peace and "democracy" as we know it even remotly possible.
I have been thinking of a way to frame the "victory" speech and it should simply be: "Saddam and his sons are gone, we have put Iraq on the road to democracy, it's up to them to stand on thier feet or revert to fundementalism - Destiny in thier hands"
biorabbi - As a life long Republican I sadly agree with you. President Bush is too leftist/idealistic on both domestic and foriegn policy. I love his tax cuts that's about it. :(
The "war" in Iraq, the "war" in Afghanistan, and the "wars" going back for decades--something always eluded my full understanding. From Korea on, we have not fought to win. We never declare war. We never proclaim America's interests as our paramount concern, but we proclaim saving the other guy, spreading democracy, serving world peace, and so on. As Jason so eloquently put it, it has been altruism (other-ism at the expense of us).
Then a new journal came in, called The Objective Standard. In the first issue, authors Jaron Brook and Alex Epstein explained something that made that last integration fall into place. Their article, "Just War Theory" vs American Self-Defense, explained that a very bad idea called "just war theory" had been directing our country for decades. (The article provides an excellent discussion with references.)
The name is deceptive. We Americans love justice, so who could be against waging war justly? That is not what this concept means. What it means is what we are seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and have seen in American foreign policy through presidents back at least to LBJ. It is the mantra of the Left, and it is what Kerry spouted throughout the 2004 campaign. And, we all thought he meant something like, let's do things justly.
In the quickest phrase I can conceive, "just war theory" turns America into schmoos. Schmoos were those mythical creatures of L'il' Abner cartoons who loved to sacrifice themselves for others and had no desires for themselves. This is and has been being taught in our war colleges, and it is the dominant thinking of our military.
If we do not ablate this theory and establish fighting for America's interests with the blood and treasure of America, we will be bled dry by all the George Bushes, etc., to come.
George Mason - It's Wilsonian policy, a Democrat who started all this adveturist hand wringing. Subsided for a while after so much loss in WWI, but then Hitler (who the new Winsonian politicans never fail to compare out current enemies to, bastards) has tought us we can not stand idle while threats explode. Clinton got us in three wars, all lost as far as I'm conserned statgically. Bush will lose two. I guess the real problem is they need to scale back the "nation building" and separte real threats and then once found like Iran just bomb the hell out of them to submission. None of this nation building and huge treasure crap. In fact if we do bomb you we want 25% of your GDP for the next 5 years to repay us for the missles and bombs.
"Schmoos [sic] were those mythical creatures of L'il' Abner cartoons who loved to sacrifice themselves for others and had no desires for themselves."
-- from a posting above
The round, bottom-heavy, smiling "Shmoo," its initial "schm" sound obviously taken from the Yiddish dismissive reduplicative -- "Oedipus, Shmoedipus, so long as he loves his mother" -- is, I think, Al Capp's (Al Kaplan's) haunting and haunted oblique comment, circa 1950, on the murder of the Jews by the Nazis (with many willing collaborators in other countries).
There., Now I've just supplied a book for somone acute enough to realize what has just been suggested, and its meaning.
Take it, Intelligent Reader. It's yours. Just consider the book as written, and now all you have to do is fill out the footnotes to the text so laconically offered above, and make those footnotes the book.
Run with it. And then send me a copy when it's published, nicely autographed.
Hugh, don't know about you, but I watch Arab and Iranian News daily (then log on and check out Jihad Watch). You can too if you have Dishnetwork or DirectTV and tune out the MSM and tune in Link TV (DW Journal and Mosaic-News from the mid east).
What I hear from the Iraqi pol's, clerics, is the same I hear from the Iranians, they claim that they want the U.S. out now (of course they lie, if we left the country would erupt and the Wahabbi financed Sunni's would probably win the subsequent outright civil war..(yes there is a low level civil war in progress).
They really don't want us out, but they stir the flames and inflame the masses by preaching crap over the airways and in mosques, about the infidel occupiers.
Here is what Robert Fisk said in an interview
Once you become an occupying power you take upon the responsibilities for the civilians which we have not done but you also have a responsibility to yourself. You have to keep justifying over and over and over again to your own populations. You were right to do it: ok, there were no weapons of mass destruction but we got rid of Saddam; ok, we haven't gotten the electricity yet..
I don't care how much of Iraq's sand is turned into blood, so long as it is not American.
Basically Fisk has it correct above, including the bit about an occupying power taking responsibility for civilians.. and that is Bush's mistake..invading the country under false pretenses (no, no, not failed intelligence, but intelligence cooked to justify the invasion, and some of it cooked by, of all parties, Iran).
I take issue on these complaints about the failure to restore services like electricity, how can anything be accomplished when the mad Muslims are exploding IED's, kidnapping and assassinating workers and officials and beheading contractors (and now Iraqis')
If you keep shooting at the firemen, don't bitch if your house burns down.
"Basically Fisk has it correct above, including the bit about an occupying power taking responsibility for civilians."
After removing a regime of a monster, a regime that had lasted for 35 years and might well have lasted another 35, in which 180,000 Kurds were murdered and another 180,000 Shi'a were murdered, after we killed his sons and captured him, after we built thousands of schoolrooms, fixed a hundred hospitals and equipped many of them, built roads and power stations, repaired and re-repaired oilfields every time they were attacked -- by Iraqis, after spending on the whole thing, with sunk costs and future estimated costs, even if everyone is out within the year, of $400 billion, we owe the Iraqis nothing. Nothing.
I cannot imagine why you would wirte that "[b]asically [Robert] Fisk has it correct above, including the bit about an occupying power taking responsibility for civilians.."
We are not an "occupying power" at this point. There have been a series of elections and a referendum on a Constitution. The first election was on January 15, 2005. The second election was held on Deceber 15, 2005. Between the two was a referendum on a Constitution. It is now June 2005. If the various parties in Iraq cannot establish a government based on the spirit of sensible compromise, after all we have done, that is their problem. We cannot possibly "take responsibility for civilians" at this point. No doubt Robert Fisk, whose parti pris on behalf of the Arabs, and not just "the Arabs" but also the worst of the Arabs -- he had a special fondness for Arafat, and of course his views of Israel and the United States are exactly as you would expect, is not "basically...correct" about this. He wants the Americans to be stuck in Iraq. He wants to attribute to them duties they do not have. He wants to see us stuck to Tarbaby Iraq.
I don't.
Well said yet again. Unfortunatly all my hopes are shattered after reading your post and putting two and two together...wondering why Bush, ad nauseum, is'nt/has'nt been making your case about all we have done. Unless of course, he does'nt promote these facts because we never plan to leave!!! That's what's going on here. Perpetual welfare for an islamic state! Forget about Iran.:(