Pakistan's "peace agreement" with the Taliban is quickly yielding predictable results. From AP:
KABUL, Afghanistan - American troops on Afghanistan's eastern frontier have seen a tripling of attacks since a truce between the Pakistani army and pro-Taliban tribesmen that was supposed to stop cross-border raids by militants, a U.S. military officer said Wednesday.
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry rejected the U.S. claim and said home-based insurgents were behind the violence in Afghanistan, where at least 25 militants were reported killed in fighting Wednesday.
Raising further questions about the cease-fire, a Pakistani political leader maintained Taliban leader Mullah Omar approved the deal. A government official denied that.
The developments could add to the feuding between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who were having dinner Wednesday night with President Bush at the White House to try to patch up their dispute over how to quell Islamic extremists.
The U.S. officer said the cease-fire that began June 25, cemented by the signing of a peace accord Sept. 5, contributed to the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan. He said ethnic Pashtun insurgents are no longer fighting Pakistani troops and are using Pakistan's North Waziristan border area as a command-and-control hub for attacks in Afghanistan.
Pakistani tribal elders brokered the truce between Musharraf's government and militants, which ended years of unrest in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
But the agreement appears to have bolstered Taliban infiltrators, with the number of attacks in eastern Afghan provinces rising threefold since July 31, said the U.S. officer, who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name due to the sensitivity of the issue.
"That's why they had the chance to rest and refit, because they were in a sanctuary," he said, referring to a surge in Taliban attacks over the last several months without giving specific numbers for incidents before or after the truce.
[...]
Meanwhile, Latif Afridi, a top official in Pakistan's Awami National Party, said he received a letter containing Taliban leader Mullah Omar's approval of the North Waziristan peace deal.
He said the letter also claimed Pakistani militants who back the Taliban in North Waziristan would fall under the command of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a front-line Taliban commander.
[...]
The U.S. officer said the Taliban's connections with Pakistan run so deep that wounded fighters seek treatment on the Pakistani side of the border and even carry their dead to Pakistan for burial.
Some of the suicide bombers in Afghanistan have been recruited in Pakistan, including a 17-year-old boy who blew himself up in front of a U.S. military convoy in Kabul this month, killing a bystander and wounding three American soldiers, Afghan police say.
The Great Hallucinator will not leave Iraq, nor Afghanistan, for he is convinced that he is right and, we are now told, he is telling others "I will stay in Iraq even if only Laura and Barney [his dog] support me." We are supposed to be impressed. Are you? Does this soothe you? Do you think he has some conception of this as more than merely a "war on terror" as he so idiotically has named it? Do you think his energy policy demonstrates the recognition of the need to diminish the wealth weapon of the Arabs and Muslims? Do you think he is secretly worrying about the islamization of Europe, secretly communicating to others that plans must be drawn up to prevent this from happening, and to protect the armories of fellow NATO members? Does he give the impression of being mentally well-prepared, highly intelligent, ruthless, good at articulating the problem through language that may at times be aesopian, or calculated to prevent Muslims from being able to openly object, determined to reunite the Western alliance as an alliance of threatened Infidels, but not by succumbing to the temptation that they present, of greater appeasement. Do you think Bush has any notion of working to create the conditions which will force Muslims, and allow all Infidels, to make the connection between Islam's political, economic, social, moral and intellectual failures, and Islam itself? What do you think?
Instead we get a misunderstanding of democracy, inicluding the nature of American democracy and of the Framers (the idiotic comparisons made between the primitive "Iraqis" and the men who attended the Constitutional Convention, for example), and a mad and messianic polypragmonic belief that "democracy" can be transplanted --"democracy" interpreted merely as head-counting -- into the stony and unyielding -- because Muslim -- soil of Iraq. No understanding of how political legitimacy in Islam is located in the will of Allah, not in the expressed will of mere mortals, and no understanding, either, that the habit of compromise with one's rivals, so essential to the functioning of Western democracy, is discouraged by all the attitudes of victor and vanquished that fill the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the "exemplary" life of Muhammad.
Meanwhile, The Great Hallucinator ignores what "democracy" should mean in this country. What does it mean when he proudly insists that even if everyone in the country except his wife and dog are with him, he will "stay in Iraq" (well, not he, he's not there, but all those hapless American soldiers being kept on a fool's errand to bring all kinds of wonderful and often imopssible things to people who, by and large, support attacks on those same Americans: 91% of the Sunni Arabs, 74% of the Shi'a Arabs. Would you wish your husband, father, brother, son or daughter, to risk his, or her life, in order to help such people? Why? Because otherwise you would be cutting-and-running, and we just can't do that? Because in the chaos and civil war of Iraq, which would alarm Muslims outside Iraq and cause all kinds of dangerous problems for them (for them, but not for us, the Infidels), none of our political leaders has the wit to see how this is not an outcome to be deplored (and in any case, can only be delayed, cannot be prevented) but to be welcomed and exploited.
Two-thirds of the people in this country want the United States out of Iraq. Given that, it is not democratic, or "democratic," for any hallucinator to overlook the desires, the will, of the people, and above all he has no right to keep overlooking all those who want the soldiers out of Iraq not because they are appeasers, but precisely because they are not. Dismissed by Bush as "cut-and-runners," they include those who wish to weaken the Camp of Islam intelligently, wish to direct attention to matters much more important than whether or not Sunnis finally acquiesce in the transferral of power to Shi'a, above all to the problem of islamization, through demographic changes and Da'wa, in Western Europe. Not a peep about this, not a peep about what could happen to the armaments in Germany, for example, were there to be not 3.2 million Muslims, but 10 or 20 million. Not a peep about the already observable constraints on the foreign policies of many Western countries. Nothing -- nothing but the goddam "war on terror."
How dare he continue to damage the American military? How dare he continue to think he can endlessly prate about bringing "victory" (an irrelevant and stupid word, in the context of the without-end war of self-defense against the Jihad -- there is no "victory" but only the possible attainment of reducing the scope of the threat)? How dare he call those who want a much more ruthless policy enforced, those who wish to "cut and run"? And his claque, those who at certain web-sites are automatically cheered for the supposed "brilliance" of their analyses, analyses that consist entirely of sticking by their man, The Great Hallucinator, no matter what folly he persists in, deserve not continued praise but blame, for encouraging Bush in his own obstinacy, stupidity, timidity, and wilful waste of lives, money, materiel, and morale.
There is apparently no hope that Bush will change. He is proud of his refusal to change, proud of his inflexibility. Those who keep cheering him on or defending this, often not because they have thought about the waste his policy engenders, but because they are infused with hatred for those who attack Bush most violently, and for all sorts of things where he does not deserve attack (as in his arguments for surveillance), might begin to consider that if American soldiers are still in Iraq in a year, there will almost certainly be a strengthening of those who are urging withdrawal for all the wrong reasons, as part of what one might call a comprehensive policy of appeasement. Bush has no sense of this, no sense about how to ensure, once he is out of office, that appeasement does not take place -- but the unhappy experience with tarbaby Iraq, if not quickly ended, will make that appeasement more likely, perhaps even certain.
His incessant and essentially stupid talk about that "war on terror" diverts attention from, never quite gets to, all the other instruments of Jihad -- Da'wa and demographic conquest and the money weapon, which are the main problems that need somehow to be addressed by the nations of the Infidel West, and that cannot be addressed if war is regarded, as it now seems to be regarded in Washington, as a matter of soldiers conducting raids to round up those whose ranks are endlessly replenishable, and Humvees avoiding explosives - in other words, "war" understood merely as a military matter when it is, or should be, much more.
He has been hallucinating for a long time. Too many have been too willing to overlook the timidity and stupidity reflected in the dreamy, colossaly expensive $500 Billion Misunderstanding that constitutes what has so far been undertaken in Iraq, and have overlooked the opportunity costs of that mad focus on that hopeless three-vilayet concoction. For some, their inability to reconsider has to do with wounded amour-propre; they don't quite know how to gracefully distance themselves from their own previous enthusiasm, their own participation in a claque's campaign that may have temporarily confirmed Bush in the rightness of his own certitude, kept the ship of state on its sickeningly naufragous path, but did nothing to help force him to study Islam, or to have others study it and to come up with something other than an example of American messianism at its naive and clumsy worst, and to instead fashion quite a different policy, one that ceased to focus on a "war on terror" and on "Iraq as the center of the 'war on terror'" and instead, would focus on attempts to educate and arouse rulers and ruled among the threatened Infidels of the world. This would require someone capable of seeing everything at once, able to construct a coherent, articulate, resolute, and cunning policy, which would be determined to exploit every pre-existing division, sectarian, ethnic, and economic, within the Camp of Islam, and to create, in Iraq and elsewhere, not Lights Unto the Muslim Nation, but rather spectacles of disorder and instability that would tell the Infidels much about the natural tendencies of Muslim peoples when despots are removed, would cause Muslim states, instead of the United States, to expend money, war materiel, and lives, as co-religionists of both Sunnis and Shi'a made Iraq a proxy war, and the struggle for power between them in Iraq, in turn, caused internecine difficulties wherever Sunnis and Shi'a elsewhere might conceivably clash -- in Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon, in Kuwait, in Bahrain, in Pakistan.
Bush is "tough-minded"? Really? If so, he is merely a tough-minded sentimentalist. He has mistated, and misrepresented to himself and to those whom he has a duty to protect and instruct, the nature of the conflict. He must be endured for another two years. His policies need not be.
And Britain slowly falls to islam.
"Blair dismisses claims of Pakistan aid to Taliban"
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/71059.html
Tony Blair is floating the Big Lie. But all it takes is a "Taliban Pakistan" Internet search. The Taliban is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pakistan, from the beginning. Throw in "ISI" or "madrassas" for details.
A nation is born.
The assisted birth of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan represents by far the biggest defeat of the "War on Terror" and a strategic debacle that stands as final proof that the Pakis are not now, and have never been, allies. They are a vestige of a stupidity from the Cold War.
The Paki Army and ISI have had Musharaff by the balls since the day he took power. But they keep him around as a foil for this God forsaken nation to be able to continue receiving free money, arms, training, and intelligence from America.
But the Moslem activists in the Paki Army and ISI finally had to force Musharaff into negotiating with al Qaeda and the Taliban into a one-sided deal whereby these Jihad terror groups are given the following:
1) The second openly Jihadist republic since the Islamic Republic of Iran.
2) A truce whereby Paki guarantees the territorial integrity of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan; Paki promises not even look over the border into the new Jihadi nation, much less cross it.
3) Paki will hand over of American weapons to the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.
4) Paki will hand over of American money to the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.
5) Paki will hand over of some 2,500 mujahadin from Paki prisons to the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, in order to fight Americans and other NATO soldiers.
Musharaff (aka the Paki Army and the ISI) are negotiating similar deals with several other remote Paki provinces; the idea being that the Islamic Emirates of Waziristan will eventually expand into the United Islamic Emirates of AfPak, a free zone for heroin trade, terror training, weapons manufacturing, and a safe haven for Moslem activists from the world over.
All under the acknowledged management of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
After 25 years of Jihad in the area, Osama bin Laden finally has his own country. Funded and protected by America. And this historical defeat happened while Musharaff was on a victory tour on USA soil.
The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, in my view, is also the newest member of the Nuclear Club, if only SS20 warheads purchased in the Ukraine.
Hugh,
I'm sure if I memorized enough articles I could argue with you. But just look. You're not happy, and you're not getting anywhere. So why don't you just shut up?
I mean really...the long-winded speech isn't about Bush. It's about you. You want attention, and you've bothered so many people with your Bush rants that you aren't getting any.
Just look at yourself. You said...
"Bush is "tough-minded"?
...but you're the first poster on the page. You're having a conversation with yourself. How narcissistic is that? A little girl got molested then killed by a gunman yesterday AT SCHOOL, and you're running your big mouth about BUSH.
If you don't like Bush, I love Bush. If you love Bush, I hate Bush. Either way, SHUT UP ABOUT BUSH.
Sorry. No can do.
Sorry. No can do.
Hear hear. For reduction of the argment to Pop Psychology, which Kyranjaxipun attempts, is surely the path to perfidy.
Bush is indeed "tough minded" although it may be a moronic tough mind, so why should you self-censor based on the complexity around his failings?
Are you to be held responsible for Dubya's synaptic and moral deficiencies?
Assalamau Laikum all,
The problems here stem from a lack of deep understanding and misunderstandings.
you see, Islam recognises no borders, and all of that region belongs to Islam. Man has seeked to impose artifical borders on Afgan, Pak etc to these regions...and the Amerekie recognises (and to an extent) so does Pak.
Pak has had thousands of our soldiers killed by in that region by the Taliban and local warlords for little return.
We recognise that these are the peoples who teach their sons and daughters to handle grenades at the age of 5, Kalashnikofs at 9 and RPGs at 12.
So as not to lose our soldiers unnecessarily...we sign as agreement with Mullar Omar (Bin Laden by Proxy) so as not to kill fellow muslims in return for turning the odd blind eye...or not posting guards where they should be some.
So for the Taliban ,...all of a sudden the pressure is off...too much heat or injury....just step into PAK without the Amerekie following..OR getting shot by the Pak.... get fit, reload and back into Afgan to face the Amerekie and the Nato forces.
It is a win win situation for the Taliban and Pak, in the meanwhile the Amerekie baulk at the thought of trying to win against a cunning foe they clearly cannot ..given the current circumstances.
All that can happen is containment...unless ofcourse the Amerekie stop recognising the borders just like the Taliban.
You see they KNOW that they are fighting a religious war...their umma is exacting revenge for the 8 crusader follies in the holy land 1000 years ago.
The Amerekie has (foolishly in their mind) moved on from that ....they have no faith...and therefore no strength...they are kafur in the real sense...and cannot be allowed to remain on Afghani soil.
The Amerekie has put faith in democracy...ANY half brained ideas from the Kafur must be rejected in their entirity...they are an affront to Allah T'alah holy edicts.
At least the Pak understand that...hence the agreement...well they better ....if they too want to survive...as for the Amerekie in Afghan....like the Russ his fate is sealed...it is not a case of if...but when!
Kyranjaxipun said
And after SHUTTING UP ABOUT BUSH, or rather SHUTTING UP ABOUT THE DANGEROUSLY UNPRODUCTIVE POLICIES OF BUSH WITH REGARD TO ISLAM, would you all mind SHUTTING UP ABOUT ISLAM? I mean, it's jihad this and jihad that. There is just one long winded rant after another about Muslims beheading, exploding, shooting, rioting, stabbing, etc. If you like Muslims, I hate Muslims. If you hate Muslims, I like Muslims. If you feel ambivalent about Muslims, I slightly edge towards a mild disliking of Muslims.
Anyways.
I've learned a new word: naufragous: "causing a shipwreck". It's good but will not be as easy to slip into conversation as "zumbooruk" was.
It is a very sad state of affairs that we are in. On the one hand we have an inarticulate Pres. Bush who is fighting an amorphous 'war on terrorism' without realizing (or unwilling to realize) that it is Islam that we should be actually fighting against. In this amorphous war on terrorism Bush has corralled some very dubious allies which include Pres. Musharraf of Pakistan who is clearly not interested in helping the USA in any way (heck he actually was contemplating attacking the USA as he himself says in the various interviews he's had out here, see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5385918.stm ) and Pres. Hamid Karzai who is interested in milking as much of money he can from the USA than in fixing Afghanistan. From Mush's point of view 9-11 was a godsend, preventing his country from going into complete bankruptcy, which is where it was headed before it was cajoled into joining Bush's 'war on terrorism'. In his stubborness to 'stay the course' Bush is unwilling to wake up to the reality around him; of an Iraq that is fast sinking into total chaos and an Afghanistan which is following sway. And, on the other hand, you have an opposition party who criticizes Bush for all the wrong reasons and who are even more wishy-washy when it comes to naming the enemy. The attitude of the Democrats (aka Dhimmicrats) is that of appeasement of muslims and Islam.
It figures that once these devils make a truce amongst themselves it's time to fight the infidels again. This really is tiresome. And predictable.
Seeing the comments above I'd have to conclude that the best thing for the West to do to combat the Islamaniac menace to is to get into bed with China and let them lead the fight. Just like that criminal monster Stalin helped us defeat Hitler we sure could use the PLA (with their lack of moral agonizing) to wipe out these crazies. Obviously, there is very little Western leadership out there willing to call a spade a spade and do whatever it takes to win. Where have you gone FDR and Churchill?
Razdan, "Bush is unwilling to wake up to the reality around him; of an Iraq that is fast sinking into total chaos and an Afghanistan which is following sway"
Bush is doing exactly the right thing, maximizing his use of available resources to defeat the enemy. He has NATO troops in the fight in Afghanistan, he has Afghan troops in the fight in Afghanistan, he has Pakistani troops in the fight in Pakistan (maybe not fighting as much as we would like, but better than nothing), he has Iraqi troops in the fight in Iraq, and he has other international troops in the fight in Iraq. You couldn't have asked for a sweeter deal. He's roped in as many others into this fight as possible, all without doing a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and getting the locals upset.
He's turned two enemy governments (Afghanistan and Iraq) into friendly governments. And not only that, but they're democracies, which makes them self-sustaining. He is demonstrating a new doctrine - a war of liberation instead of a war of conquest, setting up the future of the military. He has also cleverly avoided making Islam the enemy (at least for now), avoiding a conflict with 1.2 billion people, and instead arranged for "moderate" Muslims to kill "radicals". He has also opened up freedom of speech in Afghanistan and Iraq so that we can begin to infiltrate those countries with new ideas.
The democratic governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq are secure. The insurgents have no chance at all of toppling the government. The government security forces get stronger every day, and the result is an unstoppable train. It just takes time. Be patient.
I'd really like to believe what poster Paul Edwards noted above. My concern is what happens when the infidel troops finally leave those two countries? Neither country has a long history of democracy and given the kinds of neighbors they have it would appear to me that only a strongman would be able to keep these nations stable against
the interference of such neighbors. If strongmen do take power hopefully they'd be pro-Western at least but even that might be hoping for too much.
Expecting democracy to take permanent root in these place seems like a pipe dream given the fact that Iran and those Saudi produced Wahabbis are still out there causing trouble.
Naseem
The crusades were not a folly. They were the result of Europeans being invaded, nagged and taunted by Muslims since Muslims entered Europe in 711.
The only way to deal with Islam is by the sword. It doesn't understand any other language. It is frustrating for Westerners to see Muslims so puffed up thinking their decadent and false religion is the best thing on earth.
Our countries are not opium-cultivating mediaeval dungholes with loose borders and religious brainwashing instead of education.
Let's start from scratch. We'll quit harping on all of Islam's depravities (even 9/11) if they quit whining about the Crusades and vow to let us live the way we like in peace. OK? Is that too hard to do?
ISLAMSFORLOSERS, "My concern is what happens when the infidel troops finally leave those two countries?"
Keep a small number of troops and air support for as long as there is a danger of a military coup or external invasion. Iraq has said it wants to join NATO.
"Neither country has a long history of democracy"
Iraq's democracy was interrupted by a military coup.
"given the kinds of neighbors they have it would appear to me that only a strongman would be able to keep these nations stable against
the interference of such neighbors."
Anything you want a strongman to do, you can get Karzai and Maliki to do. Another thing you can do is topple the neighbours!
"Expecting democracy to take permanent root in these place seems like a pipe dream given the fact that Iran and those Saudi produced Wahabbis are still out there causing trouble."
They are completely outnumbered and outgunned by the government security forces. They have no chance at all of toppling the government, which is what counts. They will only be able to annoy the government, and how long they keep that up is really up to them. All we can do is set things up so that their efforts amount to nothing, because there's a limitless supply of new recruits to the government forces.
ISLAMSFORLOSERS, "We'll quit harping on all of Islam's depravities (even 9/11) if they quit whining about the Crusades and vow to let us live the way we like in peace. OK? Is that too hard to do?"
It's the wrong thing to do. The correct thing to do is recognize that we are in an ideological war, just like communism, and fight it worldwide. The trick is to work out exactly what the ideological clash is. It is not Christianity vs Islam, because there are atheists and Muslims on the side of the good guys. It is deeper than that. The ideological clash is as follows:
1. dogma (Islam) vs rationalism (separation of church and state).
2. non-humanist (including religious bigotry) vs humanist.
3. subjugation vs anti-subjugation.
I spent a lot of time figuring this out.
You can find a complete solution to the world's problems at www.moatazilla.org
They are completely outnumbered and outgunned by the government security forces. They have no chance at all of toppling the government, which is what counts. They will only be able to annoy the government, and how long they keep that up is really up to them. All we can do is set things up so that their efforts amount to nothing, because there's a limitless supply of new recruits to the government forces.
Posted by: Paul Edwards at September 29, 2006 09:17 AM
I guess I'm still not convinced. Iran was once a stable, prosperous country. If someone told the Shah in 1975 that in 5 years he'd be in exile, over 2500 years of monarchy would be gone and Iran
would be sent back to the year 1100 under the ayatollahs he'd probably commit that person to the nearest asylum. It seems a lot easier for crackpots to overthrow stable countries than it is to build a stable country out of a basket case.
It's the wrong thing to do. The correct thing to do is recognize that we are in an ideological war, just like communism, and fight it worldwide. The trick is to work out exactly what the ideological clash is. It is not Christianity vs Islam, because there are atheists and Muslims on the side of the good guys. It is deeper than that. The ideological clash is as follows:
1. dogma (Islam) vs rationalism (separation of church and state).
2. non-humanist (including religious bigotry) vs humanist.
3. subjugation vs anti-subjugation.
I spent a lot of time figuring this out.
You can find a complete solution to the world's problems at www.moatazilla.org
Posted by: Paul Edwards at September 29, 2006 09:23 AM
I agree-this is a war of ideologies and our side does have plenty of non-Christians. My comment was merely rhetorical. I know that to expect these
people to merely let us live in peace would be the same as expecting the earth to stop spinning on its axis. Just as the Nazis and Communists would not let us live in peace and had to be stopped so it is with this bunch.
"Iraq has said it wants to join NATO."["Iraq" has said this? Or at some point some idle dreamer proposed this as he whispered sweet nothings in an American official's ear?]
"Iraq's democracy was interrupted by a military coup." [when was this? Is this a reference to the coup of Qassem in 1958, by which the despotism run by Nuri es-Said (the "strongman" as he was always called in TIME Magazine) was overthrown? Was it the later military coup in which Qassem was killed? When was there "democracy" in Iraq -- ever?]
"Anything you want a strongman to do, you can get Karzai and Maliki to do. Another thing you can do is topple the neighbours!" [Karzai is a "strongman"? Helplessly dependent on the United States, unable to control even Kabul, how is he a "strongman"? And Maliki, afraid to even begin to hint at dismantling the Shi'a militia, a ditherer who hasn't any idea what to do -- a "strongman"? And my, that phrase about how, in a pinch, you can simply "topple the neighbours"? Really? Which ones? Iran? Just "topple it" just like that? My.]
"All we can do is set things up so that their [unidentified possessive pronoun, referring to Sunni "insurgents" or Shi'a militias or god knows what] efforts amount to nothing, because there's a limitless supply of new recruits to the government forces."[Actually, what is endlessly replenishable is the supply of people in Iraq who hate the Infidels, and want them out, or at least -- see the latest opinion polls taken in Iraq -- support attacks on Americans even if some of them supporting attacks also, incredibly, may want the Americans to remain a bit longer in order to protect them against their sectarian and ethnic enemies. Yes, stay to protect us, but we also have the right and even the duty to keep killing you.]
-- all from the same posting above, with replies in brackets
Hallucinatory.
ISLAMSFORLOSERS, two things about the Shah:
1. He didn't have popular support.
2. He wasn't prepared to use automatic weapons to mow down the demonstrators.
A democracy has popular support by definition, and the security forces will not allow a minority to overthrow a democratically-elected government.
Hugh,
PE:"Iraq has said it wants to join NATO."
""Iraq" has said this? Or at some point some idle dreamer proposed this as he whispered sweet nothings in an American official's ear?"
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/02/iraq-wants-to-join-nato.html
PE:"Iraq's democracy was interrupted by a military coup."
"Is this a reference to the coup of Qassem in 1958, by which the despotism run by Nuri es-Said (the "strongman" as he was always called in TIME Magazine) was overthrown?"
Yes, that is correct. Iraq's democracy may have been imperfect, but it was never given a chance to correct itself.
PE:"Anything you want a strongman to do, you can get Karzai and Maliki to do. Another thing you can do is topple the neighbours!"
"Karzai is a "strongman"?"
No. What would you like a strongman to actually do? You can get Karzai to do that.
"Helplessly dependent on the United States, unable to control even Kabul, how is he a "strongman"?"
He is controlling Kabul, and the ANA vastly outnumbers and outguns that Taliban, so my money is on him winning even if the US were to pull out for some strange reason.
"And Maliki, afraid to even begin to hint at dismantling the Shi'a militia"
They're not challenging the government so there's no hurry to dismantle them.
"a ditherer who hasn't any idea what to do -- a "strongman"?"
He does know what to do. Stay on the current course. The Iraqi security forces get stronger every day. They can't be stopped.
"And my, that phrase about how, in a pinch, you can simply "topple the neighbours"? Really? Which ones? Iran? Just "topple it" just like that? My."
Correct. It'll take 3 weeks and cost 100 allied lives, judging from the success in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, there is no need to disband the old security forces, so you can install reformers and then leave.
PE:"All we can do is set things up so that their [unidentified possessive pronoun, referring to Sunni "insurgents" or Shi'a militias or god knows what] efforts amount to nothing, because there's a limitless supply of new recruits to the government forces."
Any insurgents trying to challenge the government.
"Actually, what is endlessly replenishable is the supply of people in Iraq who hate the Infidels"
The vast majority support their new security forces, which is all that matters. And the queues to join the new security forces are limitless.
ISLAMSFORLOSERS, two things about the Shah:
1. He didn't have popular support.
2. He wasn't prepared to use automatic weapons to mow down the demonstrators.
A democracy has popular support by definition, and the security forces will not allow a minority to overthrow a democratically-elected government.
Posted by: Paul Edwards at September 29, 2006 09:39 AM
Your points about the Shah are well taken.
As for democracy having popular support I just wonder how much does it have in Iraq given its history of dictators going back to 1958 and in Afghanistan
where fighting has been constant since at least the 1970's? They might have democracy now but how can we be sure that these places don't slip back into their old ways? After all, democracy requires hard work. If we have to keep any troops there to ensure democracy that would hardly be different than creating a couple of puppet states.
If we do that then there will always be a Bin Laden type harping on that theme and offering to "free" these place from an "infidel occupation".
Paul, I appreciate your well thought out and cogent arguments in support of Bush's policies. In response, here are some further thoughts on my part. I've interspersed my response within yours. Hopefully, it doesn't get too confusing.
Bush is doing exactly the right thing, maximizing his use of available resources to defeat the enemy. He has NATO troops in the fight in Afghanistan, he has Afghan troops in the fight in Afghanistan, he has Pakistani troops in the fight in Pakistan (maybe not fighting as much as we would like, but better than nothing), he has Iraqi troops in the fight in Iraq, and he has other international troops in the fight in Iraq. You couldn't have asked for a sweeter deal. He's roped in as many others into this fight as possible, all without doing a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and getting the locals upset.
Posted by: Paul Edwards on September 29, 2006 08:31 AM
I think Bush was perfectly right to invade Afghanistan and to topple the Al Quaeda government there. IMHO, where Bush went terribly wrong was in his choice of Pakistan (& Musharraf) as an ally in this war. Far from helping the US forces, I believe that Pakistan forces have actually greatly hindered the US forces from hunting Bin Laden down and have, possibly, even alerted him to imminent attacks. Mush has played to perfection a double-crossing game (see http://www.observerindia.com/analysis/A057.htm for more details) in which he acts as if he is trying to help, when in reality he is doing everything in his means to thwart the US forces.
With regard to Iraq, I think it is quite clear that a 'democratic' government amidst the chaos there means hardly anything if it is likely to be toppled the moment our troops leave. In any case, what kind of 'democracy' is it which has sharia laws as part of the Constitution? Yes, Bush may have gotten some NATO allies to join him in the War in Iraq... but at what price? Not only has the war in Iraq served to polarize half of our own domestic population against him (i.e. Bush), it has also served to antagonize most of our European allies against him. Additionally, the war in Iraq has served as an excellent tool for the jehadi propaganda machine (though, in all fairness, the jehadists would have always found some other cause to rally behind if Iraq were not an issue). The Bush administration has done a terrible job in explaining how the Iraq war was linked with the 'war on terror'. Additionally, Saddam Hussain, no matter how autocratic he may have been, at least served as a stabilizing force within the region. With him gone, nut cases like Ahmedinijad and the Iranian forces have emerged out of the woodworks and pose an even greater threat to us all.
He's turned two enemy governments (Afghanistan and Iraq) into friendly governments. And not only that, but they're democracies, which makes them self-sustaining. He is demonstrating a new doctrine - a war of liberation instead of a war of conquest, setting up the future of the military. He has also cleverly avoided making Islam the enemy (at least for now), avoiding a conflict with 1.2 billion people, and instead arranged for "moderate" Muslims to kill "radicals". He has also opened up freedom of speech in Afghanistan and Iraq so that we can begin to infiltrate those countries with new ideas.
Whilst the goal of introducing democracy in Islamic worlds is a noble and lofty idea, it means very little unless the population there is first weaned out of its antiquated Islamic laws. Both the fledgling Afghanistani and the Iraqi governments have enshrined the sharia laws within their Constitutions... so what kind of democracy are we talking about? Certainly not the type of democracy we mean within the Western (or for that matter any other non-Islamic) World.
The democratic governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq are secure. The insurgents have no chance at all of toppling the government. The government security forces get stronger every day, and the result is an unstoppable train. It just takes time. Be patient.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you. Unfortunately, IMHO neither the Afghani, nor the Iraqi governments seem at all secure. It seems to me that it is only the presense of the US forces there that prevents them from being toppled over.
ISLAMSFORLOSERS, two things about the Shah:
1. He didn't have popular support.
2. He wasn't prepared to use automatic weapons to mow down the demonstrators.
Posted by: Paul Edwards
A request of all infidels. If you are studying history, especially one that involves islam vs. infidels (Jews, Zoroastrians, Persians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), do kindly note what the result was, for the infidel populations, by not using the weapons/solutions mentioned by Paul in his point no. 2. As an afterthought, think of the shak, and how he died.
Since the "Great Hallucinator" has pointedly refused to hear what the American people demand, impeachment will (justifiably?) be Item Number One on a Democrat congressional agenda.
Posted by: Spiny Norman on September 29, 2006 01:36 PM
Spiny, IMHO if there is anything worse than Bush's policies it is the ludicrous left-wing demand by the Democrats for impeachment of Bush. If only the Democrats would spend even half as much time on seriously trying to tackle the Islamic menace as they do on trying to de-seat Bush we would be in a much better situation.
"Maybe he [Bush] need not be "endured" any longer, Hugh, as there is a very simple, and legal, remedy for this problem: vote Democrat. Since the "Great Hallucinator" has pointedly refused to hear what the American people demand, impeachment will (justifiably?) be Item Number One on a Democrat congressional agenda."
-- from a posting above
No, Bush should not be impeached. Many of his policies -- such as those on the need for wiretapping, and the refusal to endow non-citizens with the same constitutional rights as citizens -- deserve support. Almost everything he, or his administration, has asked for when it comes to Congressional approval of surveillance methods, and methods of interrogation, deserve support.
It is his sentimentalism, his inarticulateness, his confusion about Islam, his singleminded belief that "terrorism" is the problem and not Islam itself, his fantastic squandering of resources in Iraq which is the result of his blind belief that "freedom" or "prosperity" or "freedom and prosperity" can and should be brought to Muslim lands by Infidels, and somehow, in some unspecified way, this will necessarily lead to a permanent reduction in the menace presented by the permanent and various instruments of Jihad. That's what's wrong with him, and remaining in Iraq may ensure the triumph not of the merely stupid (like Bush) but of the deliberately appeasement-minded.
It is true, however, that if American troops are withdrawn from Iraq, and there is no falling for the nonsense that "we created it so we have to stay and make things right" or, a variant, "we have to provide large amounts of aid to make up for all the chaos and confusion we brought to Iraq," then the mere act of leaving will allow, once again, the sectarian and ethnic divisions uncovered when Saddam Hussein's murderously heavy lid was removed from the Iraqi pot, to bubble over, a cheerful sight for watching Infidels, not so wonderful if you are a member of the Muslim kaffeeklatsch.
Meanwhile, get out those Diogenes lanterns and go in search of, or help to locate, create, and support, candidates who are in the mold of Henry Jackson, in either party or in a party of one. "A Good Man Is Hard To Find (You know you always get the other kind)" is a book by O'Connor. And it's a song by Bessie Smith. And it's the motto of the past several decades of presidential politics. Nonetheless, that hard-to-find good man (he can be a she, weather permitting) has to be found.
As for the suggestion in the posting above that the answer is to "vote Democrat," the question is why? Have the Democrats shown themselves capable of offering a coherent and intelligent criticism of the war in Iraq, one based on the notion that it is ineffectual, and instead sounded the alarm about the islamization of Europe? No, they haven't. Vote for those who see things correctly, of either party. That's the banal, obvious, only conclusion to be drawn. Why should anyone wish for such dangerous Democrats as James McDermott or Dingell to be re-elected, or Ellison to be elected? On the other hand, why should anyone wish to have Chafee re-elected?
When you suggest that the Democrats are just fine, I can only fall back on a quote:
"That's not what I meant at all. That's not it, at all."
Yes, despite his creator (the unpleasant son of a St. Louis furrier), Prufrock himself has his points. Especially when he can be enrolled in the same effort as one of my favorite authors, who was also no fan of his creator, the composer of "The Sweeniad," Miss Myra Buttle.
During the Raj, the British dealt with the NW Frontier Province in a way not dissimilar from the position taken by Pakistan today. The British frequently turned a blind eye to goings on, and just as frequently they controlled only the roads they had built and 100 yards of land on either side of those roads. Small unit warfare was constant with occasional brigade strength forays supported by artillery (and later RAF planes) into Afghan territory. If we elect to stay, we too may need to ignore the border and reverse the process making incursions from Afganistan into thw NW Frontier.
Hugh,
I've spent the last hour deciphering the meaning of your last paragraph of your last post. I was not familiar with any of those names. Viva homeschooling with Hugh!
Re: Your first post-I've emailed it to all my friends--fine piece
of putting it all together or more precisely of throwing a dead cat at a sitting president.
Hugh,
Why not? (Not that there's any chance of it succeeding) If The Great Hallucinator's policies are so detrimental to the country, and he has made abundantly clear he's not going to change them, the only option is to change leadership . And with the political landscape we have to work with, that means a Democrat Congress.Except our "heroic" Senate Republicans have killed them. Not the Dems, the GOP, so I don't see much chance they'll ever be revived, at least not in any meaningful way.In all your high-minded rhetoric, you failed to identify the real danger of immediate, or even rapid withdrawal from the field: handing the Islamists a "glorious victory", one even greater than what Olmert handed Hizbollah. If you want another "Clinton and Mogadishu" embarrassment, the blunder that truly emboldened Osama, you will get no support from me. Was attacking Saddam ill-advised adventurism? Maybe. Is attempting to set up a democratic government in Iraq a fool's errand? If so, then so was Afghanistan. Would it have been better to leave Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to their own devices, free to plot again, but confined to the Hindu Kush where they could be "monitored"? A few cruise missiles lobbed their way, just so they know we noticed (more Clintonesque puffery)? Should we just go in, smash things up and bug out? What would that accomplish? Name me one. In either party. (Or, more precisely, one with political clout of any kind.) You can fantasize about some "perfect" leader all you want, but he ain't there. All we have is blandness, because the vast majority of the voting public prefers that (at least on Election Day). Again, if Bush's policies are so terrible that they need not be endured, what available alternative is there? There are only two real options, a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrat - the lesson of Ross Perot. Will the Democrats actually develop a plan of there own? I doubt it. Can they implement one on their own if they did? I doubt that even more. The only thing worse than George W. Bush would be the current Democrat leadership running the show. Political gridlock is what we'd have, as they would be focused on Impeachment and little else (placating our spineless leftist European allies...), at least for 2007 when they're not up for re-election... but ending Bush's naïve, pollyannish and costly policies is first and foremost, right? A "practical" solution to deal with Islamic terror will evolve, because it will have to. Will it be ideal? Not likely. Will it be an improvement over what we see now? That depends on how bad you think it is now.One more thing,
Show me where I suggested that, or retract that statement, sir.ISLAMSFORLOSERS, "As for democracy having popular support I just wonder how much does it have in Iraq given its history of dictators going back to 1958 and in Afghanistan where fighting has been constant since at least the 1970's?"
It has lots of support. The turnout at the Iraqi elections was much higher than that of the US. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq have been doing everything you could expect of them.
"They might have democracy now but how can we be sure that these places don't slip back into their old ways?"
That would require a military coup. That's what normally topples a democracy. The solution to military coups is twofold.
1. Teach the military to be loyal to the constitution.
2. Keep US air support available to support those elements of the military that stay loyal to the constitution.
"If we have to keep any troops there to ensure democracy that would hardly be different than creating a couple of puppet states."
There are US troops in Australia too. There's no country in the world that is a puppet of the US. It was not the US's choice for Afghanistan and Iraq to declare themselves Islamic states in their constitutions. The US would have chosen strict separation of church and state. I don't see anything wrong with making sure that there's no military coup.
"If we do that then there will always be a Bin Laden type harping on that theme and offering to "free" these place from an "infidel occupation"."
Then let them harp. And explain to them that while US troops are sort of OCCUPYING various countries around the world, they are not SUBJUGATING the people. And that you should fight subjugation, not fight occupation. This is the solution to our problems.
Razdan, "IMHO, where Bush went terribly wrong was in his choice of Pakistan (& Musharraf) as an ally in this war. Far from helping the US forces, I believe that Pakistan forces have actually greatly hindered the US forces from hunting Bin Laden down and have, possibly, even alerted him to imminent attacks."
Musharraf has rounded up lots of Al Qaeda and handed them over to the US. Pakistani troops have been dying in forays into the tribal areas. He may not be doing as much as we would like, but he is still doing something. The geostrategic thing to do is to get what we can out of Musharraf while we topple hostile governments. There is nothing stopping us from toppling Pakistan at a later date, which is what I think should be done. I think Pakistan should be eliminated as a state. The tribal areas should be given back to Afghanistan and the rest of Pakistan should be given to India. Pakistan should never have been created. People can practice their religion freely in India.
"Mush has played to perfection a double-crossing game (see http://www.observerindia.com/analysis/A057.htm for more details) in which he acts as if he is trying to help, when in reality he is doing everything in his means to thwart the US forces."
I believe that is overstated. There have been multiple assassination attempts on Musharraf. It is because he is unfriendly to Al Qaeda.
"With regard to Iraq, I think it is quite clear that a 'democratic' government amidst the chaos there means hardly anything if it is likely to be toppled the moment our troops leave."
I don't believe the government would fall if the US troops left, it would just change the battle. The government has far more troops than there are insurgents, and the government has all the heavy weaponry. However, I equally don't see anything wrong with leaving US troops in the country. There were US troops in the Philippines up until recently, and they helped put down a military coup.
"In any case, what kind of 'democracy' is it which has sharia laws as part of the Constitution?"
One that is not a sophisticated as US and Europe, where separation of church and state is implemented. Turning Iraq and Afghanistan into clones of Switzerland is a step too far at this point in history.
"Yes, Bush may have gotten some NATO allies to join him in the War in Iraq... but at what price? Not only has the war in Iraq served to polarize half of our own domestic population against him (i.e. Bush), it has also served to antagonize most of our European allies against him."
The Europeans are not really against the US. They all chose between HELPING the US or remaining NEUTRAL. None of them even considered the possibility of helping Saddam. That's pretty good. There was a time when the US needed to actually fight Europeans, and it wasn't pretty. Our ancestors have done all the hard work. It is our generation's job to complete their work, ushering in worldwide freedom.
"Additionally, the war in Iraq has served as an excellent tool for the jehadi propaganda machine (though, in all fairness, the jehadists would have always found some other cause to rally behind if Iraq were not an issue)."
And I don't think that the Iraqi people should have been left in chains just because the jihadists don't don't like you freeing them. Since when did we allow jihadists to determine US foreign policy?
"The Bush administration has done a terrible job in explaining how the Iraq war was linked with the 'war on terror'."
That's because he is constrained in what he can say. He can't just say he's going to take out all the enemy governments - it is better to have strategic ambiguity. He can't say that he's planning on toppling all dictators - as for now it is strategic to make use of some of those dictators. He can't say that he's liberating Iraq so that he can get a better understanding of Arab Muslims so that he can figure out what to do with them (including potential genocide). He can't say that he invaded Iraq to stop the constant and pointless drain on resources. But you and I are free to say all these things, and that's what we should be doing. I have spelt it all out here:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/06/anglophone-geostrategy.html
"Additionally, Saddam Hussain, no matter how autocratic he may have been, at least served as a stabilizing force within the region. With him gone, nut cases like Ahmedinijad and the Iranian forces have emerged out of the woodworks and pose an even greater threat to us all."
I believe Iran would have emerged like that regardless. And I am so happy that Iran has a nutcase in charge, as it will hopefully goad the US into liberating Iran rather than just striking the nuclear facilities. I want to see 70 million Iranians living in freedom, with their human rights protected.
"Whilst the goal of introducing democracy in Islamic worlds is a noble and lofty idea, it means very little unless the population there is first weaned out of its antiquated Islamic laws."
There are three things that the Anglophones fight:
1. dogma.
2. non-humanist behaviour.
3. subjugation.
The Islamic laws are a case of dogma, the same as communism. We do need to defeat this menace, but in Afghanistan and Iraq, that is a bridge too far. It is better if we just make them self-sustaining with basic protection of human rights, including freedom of speech. Neither government supports terrorism, which is a great start. However, when the next countries (Iran and Syria) are toppled, I think we should insist on separation of church and state, or more broadly, "rational government". Iraq, using its freedom of speech, can then "catch up" to its neighbours.
"Unfortunately, IMHO neither the Afghani, nor the Iraqi governments seem at all secure. It seems to me that it is only the presense of the US forces there that prevents them from being toppled over."
If the US troops pulled out, the nature of the war would change, it would really be a civil war, with frontlines. But my money is on the 260k government troops with all the heavy equipment rather than the 20k insurgents. But there's no reason to force Iraq to endure such an experiment.
Hugh, "It is his sentimentalism, his inarticulateness, his confusion about Islam"
Do you really think that in 5 years no-one has explained to Bush that the Quran endorses violence? He just can't spell it out, as that would instantly create a huge warfront with 1.2 billion people, when instead he can probably fix most of the problem with education (and if that doesn't work, genocide).
"his singleminded belief that "terrorism" is the problem and not Islam itself"
Well it's more complicated than that. The bible says to stone your own children to death if they are disobedient. But you won't find anyone in the world doing that. Why? Because Christians have been brought up with HUMANISM rather than dogmatically following the bible. The Iraq war revealed that there are Muslims JUST LIKE US. You can see them on their blogs, e.g. this one:
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
I asked Ali from that blog which sect of Islam he was in, and he said he most admired the Mu'tazilah. So I converted to this sect of Islam so that I could help reform it from within. You should too. Then we should go on a jihad against the non-Mu'tazilah sects of Islam.
"his fantastic squandering of resources in Iraq which is the result of his blind belief that "freedom" or "prosperity" or "freedom and prosperity" can and should be brought to Muslim lands by Infidels, and somehow, in some unspecified way, this will necessarily lead to a permanent reduction in the menace presented by the permanent and various instruments of Jihad."
Well, that was more an experiment to find out exactly how various people living under dictatorship would behave if given a free environment. The results of that experiment are now in. The problem is quite simple - Muslims are mostly religious bigots. They instead need to convert to a sect that teaches to be anti-religious-bigotry, ie the Mu'tazilah.
"That's what's wrong with him, and remaining in Iraq may ensure the triumph not of the merely stupid (like Bush) but of the deliberately appeasement-minded."
Bush is not stupid. Regardless of him calling Islam a "religion of peace", he has not actually done anything that will jeapordize the potential genocide of 1.2 billion Muslims. No options have been closed off. He has changed the education system in Afghanistan and Iraq to see what effect that has. This is exactly the right thing to do. Give the Muslims a chance to save their lives. And he has arranged for Sunni supremacists to be killed by anti-Sunni-supremacists in Iraq.
"Vote for those who see things correctly, of either party."
Vote for the party who is hopefully going to geostrategically take out all of America's enemies - the Republicans. Eliminating enemy governments is even more important than wiping out the enemy ideology.