Sunni Arab Jihadists come in various kinds. There are those who have received the most attention in the American press: the volunteers who arrive from outside Iraq, and who are considered to be part of the local succursale of Al Qaeda. There are the supporters of Saddam Hussein and his regime (often called Ba'athists). There are those Sunnis who are Iraqis, who were never treated well by the regime, but who nonetheless do not wish to see a transfer of power (and thus of money) to the Shi'a.
Many, in all three groups, are convinced that if only the Americans leave, they will be able to inherit Iraq. But they are wrong. And it is wrong to simply assume that they know what they are talking about, and that an American withdrawal would lead to a "victory for Jihadists" (i.e., for Sunni Arabs -- we'll get to the Shi'a in a minute).
Why? Why should we all be fearful of withdrawing, or fearful of voting for candidates who support such a withdrawal, if such a withdrawal will not lead to a "victory for Jihadists" but rather to such constant warfare, of all sides against all sides, that in the ensuing chaos there will be no chance for some "Jihadist victory"?
Those who blackmail us into supporting the continued American presence in Iraq keep referring to the "victory of the Jihadists." They appear, that is, to share the convictions and predictions of the Sunni Arabs who are now fighting against the Americans as the symbol and support of the current Shi'a-dominated regime. But if the Americans leave, what will happen? Will the Shi'a Arabs be readier to compromise? Or will they be able to unleash their own forces without the staying hand of the American soldiers, who carefully observe all the rules of warfare and try to get the hopeless Muslim soldiers to do the same?
Will the Shi'a, who outnumber the Sunni Arabs by more than 3 to 1, suddenly cease to outnumber them? Will the weaponry they have acquired, from Saddam Hussein's armories, from the Americans, and from the Iranians, suddenly cease to exist? Will the training they have received as "Iraqi" soldiers and "Iraqi" police over the past few years simply be forgotten? Will they not know how to defend themselves, or to go on the offensive? And what country shares the longest and most important border with Iraq, the one most easily reached and most easily crossed, the one that is not reached by a long trek through the desert? Is it Sunni-populated Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Syria, or is it rather Shi'a-populated Iran?
Many simply do not think beyond the horizon of whatever phrase is repeated to them often enough. Told again and again that "if we pull out, the Jihadists will win," they then proceed to believe, or to think, or to think they think, "yes, that's right, if we pull out the Jihadists will win, won't they, and we musn't let that happen." How many will ask: what does this phrase "the Jihadists will win" mean? Who are these "Jihadists"? Is it the Sunnis? Is it the Shi'a? Is it various kinds of Sunnis and various kinds of Shi'a? What does it mean when the word "Jihadist" is used to apply to some Muslims, but not others, in Iraq or elsewhere? And if the "Jihadists" are, say, Sunni Arabs, and if the Sunni Arabs constitute only 19% of the population while the Shi'a Arabs constitute 60-65%, with almost all the rest being non-Arab Kurds who have their own need to supplant the Sunni Arabs in Kirkuk and Mosul, then just how easy will it be for those "Jihadists" to prevail? And with Shi'a Iran next door, will they be able to prevail? Or will they instead have to rely on aid -- money, volunteers, and weaponry -- from such Sunni states as Egypt, Jordan, and above all, Saudi Arabia? And if that is to happen, won't Iran supply the same to its co-religionists? And then what?
Does it matter "then what?" Does it matter if the Muslim states are forced to use up their men, their money, their war materiel, their attention, and to worry about Shi'a revolts in eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and worry about Hizballah volunteers arriving? And wouldn’t the Maronites, and the Druse, and the Sunnis of Lebanon, breathe a sigh of relief as those Hizballah volunteers marched off to Iraq?
Impossible, you say? Not at all.
Bad, you say, because Turki al-Faisal and King Abdullah and Mubarak and all their friends and sympathizers -- James Baker, Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton (no, he's more in the 'two-state-solution' line, the line being promoted everywhere behind the scenes by the very active Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group) e tutti quanti -- say it would be bad?
"Instability" is bad in the Muslim countries, is it?
Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing or a bad thing? Tell me.
I mean, of course, good for Infidels, not good for the Camp of Islam. Please don't confuse the two. Not now. And not ever again.
Leaving Iraq does not mean a jihadist victory. Saddam was toppled and lots of jihadists are dead when they could have come here and committed atrocities. Now it's up to the Iraqi people to do what they will with their country. We didn't go to Iraq to occupy it and if we went in with a crazy idea of building a nation for them, well that foolishness MUST be given up. Any way you look at it this is NOT a win for the enemy. No doubt they will claim victory but then again who cares what they say-they've been claiming victory for 1400 years anyway despite what history tells us. Screw them.
Hugh,
Reposted from another thread:
Great post. But, since you are asking...
"Was the Iran-Iraq war a good thing or bad thing?"
Now, I assume you are talking about the war between Iraq and Iran during the 1980's, in which Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran. Well, I'd say that was a bad thing...
Now, as for your analysis that seems to support a pullout of Iraq and just walking away from the whole mess. I don't think you have completely thought through the consequences.
Sure, the Shia and Sunni factions would battle it out, and one would emerge a winner, however, we then are confronted with a lot of pissed off losers who will blame the United States for pulling out and leaving them to the dogs. Not to mention that both Iran and Syria (who have publicly declared their hate for America) would have a major hand in the destruction and remodelling of the Iraqi political landscape.
Besides being a political disaster for America, it would be seen as another Vietnam and Mogadishu for our enemies. America would be seen as a paper tiger. Which, would only serve to embolden the Islamonazis further, and increase their attacks on the United States.
I believe Colin Powell said at the beginning of the Iraq war - You break it, you own it...
Besides, when you are in a war, one doesn't sit there and debate whether to pull out or not, like the Democrats and Republicans are doing. You either WIN the war, or you LOSE the war. It's just that simple.
Anyway, that's just my humble opinion...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
What would be good for us in Iraq is to seize their oil fields, and then use the profits from oil sales (exclusively) to fund the global anti-jihad. The Muslims need to start paying the costs of their own self-declared holy war against the rest of humanity.
there are too many armchair generals, and not enough wise men.
Hugh,
I need some behind-the-scenes information. A certain Jefferson McMahan will be delivering the 2006 George F. Hourani Lectures in Moral Philosophy at my school these coming two weeks. Tonight is his first lecture titled "The Just War". George F. Hourani is said to be someone who introduced Islamic Studies in this country. Was just wondering if you knew about these characters and whether it would be a good idea to attend McMahan's lectures. They're sponsored by our Department of Philosphy (SUNY Buffalo),
Thanks
-- oh yes --
"genius in reverse"
I don't think that pulling out is the idea solution but at this point we simply aren't doing any good. Perhaps partition is the answer but in any event losing 100 soldiers per month is an expensive waste.
George L. Hourani?
Possibly Albert Hourani, who a year after its founding became the head of the Middle Eastern wing of St. Antony's (founded with money left by Antoine Besse, a Jewish trader in Aden), and headed it for many years until his death.
Doctor Bulldog, what is your real name? Rush Limpballs? Karl Rove? How apt you should post on the day after the night of the living dead. We have here another zombie it seems...
Which, would only serve to embolden the Islamonazis further…
The President has made this point too. But why would boldness on their part be bad? If you assume that we are headed to a clash of civilizations, the sooner the better. As we provide stability and keep the Islamonazis’ heads down, the centrifuges turn and the immigrants settle, hundreds per day. Our resources are slowly depleted.
A bold enemy will be more visible, and more likely to make Fast Jihad moves that will galvanize the electorate. This is in our interest if we resign ourselves to the fact that the Democracy project is doomed.
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061102-013325-8562r
Report: Iraqi insurgents using children
BAGHDAD, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- Insurgents in Iraq have recruited Iraqi children to fight U.S.-led forces in that country, reports the Integrated Regional Information Networks.
Quoting the Iraq Aid Association in Baghdad, IRIN said most child insurgents harbor motives for revenge. The Iraq Aid Association works with children suffering psychological trauma as a result of violence.
"We have heard of cases of children helping insurgents and this should have been prevented. Insurgents should be careful in putting children in such dangerous situations," an IAA spokesperson said.
The agency said at least 15 children have been used by insurgents and five are in therapy for psychological problems.
IAA told IRIN there are many more cases of children participating in the insurgency, especially in the western Anbar province.
One 10-year-old child was quoted as blaming U.S. troops for the death of his parents in May 2004 as they fled a battle in Fallujah. He said he celebrated with his friends after he took part in an attack three weeks ago that caused the deaths of three U.S. Marines outside Ramadi.
An Iraqi defense ministry spokesman told IRIN he is not aware of children being used in suicide attacks.
hey Nariz you should be names nazi, you leftist pig.
From a poster above:
1.
"since you are asking...
"Was the Iran-Iraq war a good thing or bad thing?"
Now, I assume you are talking about the war between Iraq and Iran during the 1980's, in which Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran. Well, I'd say that was a bad thing..."
and from the same poster:
2.
"I believe Colin Powell said at the beginning of the Iraq war - You break it, you own it..."
and finally:
3.
"Besides, when you are in a war, one doesn't sit there and debate whether to pull out or not, like the Democrats and Republicans are doing. You either WIN the war, or you LOSE the war. It's just that simple."
As to #1, the Iran-Iraq War kept the most aggressive Arab regime, that of Saddam Hussein, occupied for eight years, using up everything it had, and not only what it had, but $60 billion lent to the Sunni regime disguised as Ba'athism by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E.
Similarly, the Islamic Republic of Iran had, during those eight years, to devote its malevolent energies to fighting Iraq. And that were eight years it did not have to make mischief -- or nearly as much mischief as it might have -- elsewhere.
See the articles section (HF section) and find, for more, the article "Was the Iran-Iraw War a Good Thing?"
As to #2, who cares what Colin Powell says. Who cares if the phrase was first used by him, or by, as I think, silly Tom Frieman. Who cares if this was then mentioned here as the "Pottery Barn" notion, and then that phrase in turn was picked up by others, some to agree and some to take issue?
The question is: does it fit reality? Was Iraq a wonderful humming splendid little place, until the bad Americans came along and "broke it"? What did we "break"? The Sunni despotism that ruled over Iraq, and whose main ruler had attacked two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), had threatened all the others circumjacent and not (such as Israel), had murdered 182,000 Kurds and several hundred thousand Shi'a from 1991 on (and many before as well), and who had run his economy into the ground. Is that the Iraq that "we broke" and now "we have to fix"? Oh, and just how do Infidels "fix" the Shi'a resentment and hatred of the Sunnis, that goes back to the first century of Islam, or force the Sunnis, many of whom regard the Shi'a as imerfect or perhaps not even Muslims, to acquiesce in the loss of power and money and status that the end of the old order necessarily means? And how will Americans from outside "fix" the Kurdish fear and hatred of so many of the Arabs, or the Arab contempt for all non-Arab Muslims, shown not only with the mistreatment of the Kurds (which went unlamented everywhere in the Arab countries) but also of others, such as the Berbers (suffering linguistic and cultural imperialism) and the black Muslims of Darfur (suffering mass-murder).
What did we "break"? And how could we conceivably "fix" it? This is a stupid phrase, a stupid idea.
As to #3, what if the "war" is not the right war, but a "war" that was pursued out of an initial haste and ignorance of Islam, and a refusal to comprehend the world-wide scope of Jihad, and the varied instruments of Jihad -- that go far beyond the terror that Bush keeps talking about when he talks so misleandingly about a "war on terror." It was not irrational to scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but the rest of it was silly -- or rather, the goals that are being pursued, based on a misunderstanding both of Islam and Iraq (and the ethnic and sectarian divisions which were inevitably let loose when Saddam Hussein was removed).
If one had the slighest hint of a belief that the Administration knew that this would happen, and knew that the inevitable would follow, and then would be eager to exploit those fissures, one would feel better.
As it is, it didn't and doesn't and keeps pursuing exactly the wrong goals in Iraq.
The "victory" in Iraq was obtained by the beginning of 2004. The country had been scoured for weapons, and weapons projects disrupted. Saddam Hussein had been captured. His two sons had been killed. The regime's main figures had been captured or killed. From that point on, it was not a question of how many troops were sent or not sent, or what was done by Bremer or by Garner before him, or who trusted Chalabi, or who wanted Allawi, or who liked Al-Jabari, or who wants to work with Al-Maliki. The sectarian and ethnic fissures are there and cannot be suppressed. The very idea that the spirit of compromise could arise in a society suffused with the violence and aggression and victor/vanquished mentality that naturally arise from the canonical texts of Islam, merely amazes and flabbergasts.
As for this statement -- that's all it is, a statement and not an argument -- that "you either WIN the war or you LOSE the war. It's just that simple." -- I don't know what you are trying to express, what that is supposed to mean.
Winning the war against Islam? Winning the war against the "terrorists" (who have been mainly Sunni, but also now, more and more, as they become surer of themselves and less inclined to do American bidding because they think they no longer need the Americans quite as much -- and besides, Bush has shown he is desperate to stay, afraid to go because he fears it would show up his policies, which he clings to desperately, as does his loyal claque).
Define, please, here what "WIN the war" means to you.
To me it is a silly phrase. It means nothing. There is no winning of the wer against the Jihad and the texts from which that duty or impulse comes. There is a long campaign to limit the power of Islam, beginning with the most attention being paid to stopping Muslim immigration and reversing the Muslim presence in the Infidel lands. It is not Iraq that matters most, or even the Middle East, but Western Europe at this point (if left alone, if not subject to constant harasssment and pressure, if given the weapons of self-defense and the diplomatic support it needs and deserves, the Israelis will defend themselves) that requires American attention, comprehension, and assistance.
The "war" here is akin to the Cold War. One buys time, one works in every possible way to check the instruments employed by the other side. That means diminishing OPEC revenues. That means stopping campaigns of Da'wa in prisons and elsewhere, or counteracting with campaigns designed to promote Christianity or other faiths. That means doing everything to make the West less welcoming, and more hostile, to the deliberate spread of Islam, to Islam pretending to be domesticated, to Islam beiing allowed to take root as if it were just one among many creeds, all of them equally inoffensive. It isn't. It isn't an alien creed. It is an alien and a hostile creed.
That's the "war" that needs, not "winning," but like the Cold War, needs every day to be fought while, at the same time, everything is done to create conditions which will divide and demoralize and weaken the camp of Islam. And that means, in the first place, getting out of Iraq. And taking care of Iran -- not making it a better place, not changing the regime, not hoping or waiting for the regime to change, but through military means destroying or severely damaging the nuclear project and plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And better to do that while Sunni Arabs will be in a struggle with Shi'a, and less inclinced to howl in feigned protest at such an attack.
To a poster above: I just googled and discovered that there is a George F. Hourani. I don't know a thing about him. When did he live? I would have thought that Islamic studies in this country had no one founder, but certainly Arthur Jeffery would be a contender for the title, even if there were others before him. And Philip K. Hitti at Princeton is often mentioned.
As for the lecture, why not go? How can one know if the lecturer will give the actual texts and tenets of Islam their proper attention, or whether it will be an exercise in "all religions do this" rather than an exercise in making careful distinctions, based on detailed knowledge? Go and find out.
(Unless you have to be home in time to see "The Office" in which case I completely understand).
Breathtaking
After Iraq overran Kleenex-sized Kuwait in 1990, part of a white house staff meeting was videotaped and aired on the major networks here in the US, in which George Bush Sr. clearly said "We can't have Sad'm(sic) Hussein in control of a quarter of the world's oil supply." I remember it like it was yesterday.
Soon afterward, economic sanctions were placed on Iraq, a UN coalition assembled, and hostilities began. There was all the claptrap about "liberating" hapless little Kuwait, but everyone knew it came down to GB's original assertion: the oil has to be controlled.
After Kerry's near-fatal foot insertion about "getting stuck in Iraq," a serviceman made a blog entry over at LGF to the effect that he was proud to put his boots on every day in order that we "back home could sleep better at night." God bless him and all the other troops. I proudly have the shot of our soldiers holding the "halp me jon carry" banner on my laptop as wallpaper right now, but the fact is that there's probably someone else sleeping better because of our willingness to draw fire: the Saud family.
At a glad-handing session before the Foreign Policy Association and US-Saudi Business Council in 2004, prince Faisal says: "The ideology espoused by al Qaeda can be summarized by its belief in the negation of the legitimacy of all the governments of the Islamic countries, and especially Saudi Arabia, for the purpose of reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate with al Qaeda as its vanguard."
In other words, the Saud family know that there will be an Islamic “domino effect” if we simply pull out and let the various factions in Iraq battle for the “most pious” award, and the eventual winner, whether al Qaeda or some other such barbaric faction, will eventually turn its eyes southward.
The backchannel agreement between FDR and king Saud in 1945 stills holds today -- we provide a security force for the Saudis, they run sufficient interference within the Islamic world to keep the oil flowing.
I don't think the US administration has any nonsensical notions about democratizing this hellish region, nor believes the anti-jihadist struggle is focused in Iraq. Whatever incidental comfort we or the Saudis get from engaging the enemy "over there," my belief is that our continued military forays into the middle east can still be traced back to a meeting aboard a ship in the Suez Canal, sixty-one years ago.
Hugh, your always point this out, from your post above "There is a long campaign to limit the power of Islam, beginning with the most attention being paid to stopping Muslim immigration and reversing the Muslim presence in the Infidel lands.
with the way "Western government laws, policy" have
been created, how can you legally prevent muslims from immigrating into "Infidel" lands? at this time l see now way of doing this. we can only keep making it hard for muslims to be confortable in "Infidel lands". you can cause them to go unglued, which is not hard, print more cartoons.. but the biggest spring board, is having a military pressence, which creates a magnate for islamic terrorist to be drawn to. the more muslims show us (West) who they are, the more repulsive they become to the sleepy "Westerner". to do this very fast, you keep military pressence in the middle east. otherwise its a snooze time, muslim infilitrate.
Hugh,
I thank you for your comments.
As to my comment about the Iran-Iraq war being a bad thing - Am I wrong for thinking it a bad thing that innocent men, women, and children are killed by fanatical Islamonazis, even if they are Muslim?
As to what exactly do I consider a, "win" to be, I consider a win to be the establishment of a self sustaining Democratic society in Iraq. In my opinion, from all indications, we are not far away from that goal. It would be a shame to just walk away from it all. I've never thought it to be an easy process of Democratization in Iraq. But, neither was it an easy task when our forefathers first declared independance from Britain.
Also, I still think "cut and run" is a detrimental policy to the U.S. and its allies. It would be a terrible crime for the U.S. to leave an unstable situation without first stabilizing it, as many innocent men, women, and children will die in the ensuing violence - I submit Vietnam as a reference point in this line of reasoning. I am in no way suggesting that they aren't already dying in Iraq, I am just of the opinion that a "cut and run" policy will escalate the loss of life in Iraq, and is ultimately unethical.
So far, besides Democratization of Iraq, I don't see any other viable options on the table, but I am willing to consider any sane, workable proposal.
That's just my humble thoughts on the situation.
Also, Hugh, I see your points on this one, I really do. But, ater re-evaluation, I still am not swayed from my original stance.
Nothing personal, as I do enjoy reading your opinions and posts. We just have a difference of opinion on this one, and that's not a bad thing in a Democratic society. I still like and respect you. And, more than once, you have forced me to re-examine myself and my opinions. For that, I thank you. Never stop being you.
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Phximan,
That was already tried post World War One. It didn't work... Osama Bin Laden refers to that one all the time when he talks about suffering under the crusaders and such...
But, who knows, maybe we can try it again...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
I have a few problems with the USA pulling out, not the least of which is the costs involved. Let’s skip that for a second. Once the USA announces some sort of “peace with honor” line and gives a date, several things will happen:
-Jihadis and all Sunni tribes/governments will all declare victory.
-Islamic radicalization will skyrocket with our leaving being touted as proof the mahdi is almost here.
-Democrats, American Haters, Bush Bashers will all makes us out to be baby killers and losers, all for political gain.
-We lose even more international respect.
-Our existing allies wonder if we are worth having as friends, bottom line we loose their trust.
-Military morale crashes and enlistment would drop to zero. It is currently high, no thanks to our press.
- The US would be forced to start a draft
-More governments will make demands on our resources and us.
-More nations would build WMD’s (they can no longer trust us to save them)
-Oil prices will shoot up.
-The stock market will go way down.
-Jobs will be lost as more governments will push away from US and towards everyone else.
Note some of those will happen anyway.
So we stay and then what?
-American lives are lost.
-Iraqi lives are lost.
-Foreign fighter’s lives are lost.
-American, Saudi, Iranian and Pakistani money is thrown at Iraq (different groups but at Iraq)
-Jihadis are recruited, sent to the jihad and we kill large numbers of them.
-In short nothing much changes.
Advantages to leaving:
Hugh pointed out most of them.
Advantages to staying:
-islam will eventually run out of kids stupid enough to get chopped to ribbons for old imams to cowardly to go themselves.
-Radical muslims will face increased pressure to stop recruiting for the jihad and go dormant until islam grows more stupid kids.
-The economy will improve war is good business.
-Our military technological edge will continuously improve.
-Radical islam will slow down world wide, especially if we kill enough to force them into going dormant.
The more money collected to fight the jihad in iraq the less to build mosques in other countries.
You think islam grows fast now? Watch it when we leave.
A few final comments, I don’t like disagreeing with Hugh, I think he is a national treasure. That said, I do disagree, I think we have to stay. I have family members and close personal friends who are still in Iraq and a few in Afghanistan still fighting this war. I realize they may not return and even if they do, they have paid a heavy price and will care that burden as long as they live. When I weigh the options, killing as many radical muslims as we can while we have them close seems to be the only answer. Muslims will have to learn we will not quit, back down or ever convert. If we leave before they beg us to let them go dormant we will slowly watch creeping sharia swallow one nation at a time. This is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan. At the end of this, isalm will rule the world or it will no longer exist in its current form, if at all. This really is a choice between good and evil. There is no win or lose in this, it is a battle of will and we are betting our entire future on this one hand.
"And that means, in the first place, getting out of Iraq. And taking care of Iran -- not making it a better place, not changing the regime, not hoping or waiting for the regime to change, but through military means destroying or severely damaging the nuclear project and plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
With military forces on the ground in Iraq and Afganistan, it seems we're well positioned to do exactly that. And simply moving west, rather than a wholesale pullout from the region, wouldn't make the Saudis feel they were being deserted.
Hugh
Thanx for your input, I've just returned from Jefferson's lecture titled "The Just War". He was very articulate and thought-provoking. It was mostly a lecture concerning the morality of war and not about socio-political dynamic. Even though he said that he empathized with the way the palestinians have been treated, he asserted that terrorism was self-defeating for them and they seem to like to remain the uber-victims in people's eyes without doing anything to better themselves.
I had a brief chat with Mr. Macmahan after the lecture, and everything he said confirmed my view of him as a rational, articulate and well-informed individual. The only thing he mightve floundered on with respect to his views was the case of the "palestinians", which we can almost certainly attribute to the success of the gargantuan propaganda effort on part of the muslim oil money in the West.
When asked about the liability of civilians in a military attack, he used the example of hezbollah firing rockets from lebanese villages to assert that in such cases the civilians indeed are culpable, or at least their claim to innocence has been severely diminished.
(this was in the private chat after lecture)I used your advice and injected the words jihad and asked him how he felt about what was happening in Britain as he had lived there for a number of years, and he wondered aloud why the British muslim population was so much more hostile than the American one. Therein I lunged and elaborated on the significance of the number of muslims in america and how many are part of the Nation of Islam and hence relatively syncretistic and how the numbers seem to mean everything. He then surprised me and affirmed my point by pointing to Holland and how the camels back was broken there after Van Gogh's murder.
All in all a pleasant experience.
We'd be moving east, actually (see above). Sorry for the temporary lapse of geography.
Clive,
Yeah, I seem to recall one of my Commanders telling me, "Wars are fought so that we all can learn geography."
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
It is true, US leaving Iraq, would intiate a hurricane of violence, soon engulfing the middle east, but it would be equally disastrous to Oil Corporations, those in the US government and benefit directly or indirectly from oil corporations as well as other secondary corporations dependent on oil, Ameriacan public, which has been systematically made addicted to oil and it would definitely hurt world economy too. Overall, I think it would be good, world would start to learn that it can survive without oil and may be some global warming could be slowed.
global warming could be slowed. " oh please pagan global warming has been going on since the begining of time. did you know that ice caps on mars are melting, how many SUV's are there on Mars? dont let junk science get in the way of facts. one fact of global warming,, its the sun...among other things beyond our control. we can control muslims though, you can blame global stupidity for islam l guess.
We need to get away from oil.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/
Remember what happened in Yugoslavia when Tito died? The ethnic and religious factions that he held in check through terror and torture fell to taking revenge and killing each other as fast as they could surpassing even Tito’s greatest crimes. The former Yugoslavia is still a mess and will be for centuries to come. The parallels to Iraq are there for everyone to study. Except for one basic difference, OIL. Any Sunni vs Shi’a pogrom would very quickly be taken advantage of by the most ruthless power that cares not about their international image. Several come to mind. The need for oil and the temptation to manipulate the conflict is too great to ignore. If Saddam, a Sunni, through his ruthless techniques kept the majority Shi’a in check what’s to say someone just as ruthless couldn’t come in to fill his shoes with outside support of course. Look at what is happening in the Horn of Africa.
"It would be a terrible crime for the U.S. to leave an unstable situation without first stabilizing it..."
-- from a posting above
No it wouldn't. The situation is and always will be unstable, unless a despot on the order of Saddam Hussein is put back. The Shi'a will not give up power; they will not compromise. The Sunis will not acquiesce in losing power; they will not compromise. Both some Shi'a and some Sunnis want the Americans to leave now (so what?); both some Shi'a and some Sunnis want the Americans to stay because each things the Americans are most likely to help, in some unintended or intended fashion, its own side (and so what?). It is wrong for you to describe the Americans who have tried so hard, sacrificed so many lives and had nearly 20,000 wounded, spent so much money trying to do as much reconstruction work as they can (and stopping only when the security situation required it) as being guilty of a "terrible crime" if they leave. No. The Americans have done everything they could, and far more (I wish they had done none of it, but had left in early 2004, as soon as the country had been scoured for weaponry). Do not blame America. Do not call American withdrawal a "terrible crime." Americans have been inveigled and used by both sides in Iraq, and it is their refusal to compromise, their refusal to think in terms larger than that of self, family, tribe, and sometimes, sectarian or ethnic group, that ensures what will happen in Iraq. The Sunni mistreatment of Shi'a was not the fault of the Americans. They have done everything they can to prevent it. The Arab mistreatment of the Kurds is not the fault of the Americans. They have done everything they can to help the Kurds, and yet at the same time, have constantly counselled the Kurds not to break away, not to try for independence.
America is guilty of nothing but naivete and a failure to understand how the atmospherics and attitudes of Islam naturally engender violence, aggression, and a refusal to compromise with one's rivals for power. This is the fault of Islam, not of America.
Thank you, Hugh, for your well-written post and comments.
Borg is absolutely right. We need to get away from oil.
Unfortunately, our (US) politicians and gov't have spouted some rhetoric to that effect, but apparently not followed up with effective action.
Which congressmen or senators might be in a position to move US forward toward energy independence, or at least a reduction in oil payments to the jihadi enablers? Anybody know?
Would state or local initiatives help? In NY, Gov. Pataki, I believe, pushed the 10% ethanol requirement in gasoline. That was done for air pollution reasons, and to replace MTBE, as the additive, since MTBE was associated with groundwater pollution from leaks. The 10% ethanol requirement also reduces, by a little less than 10%, admittedly and presumably, gasoline use. How about nationwide action by governors and state legislatures? Biodiesel was in the news a couple of months ago. What can state and local governments do to encourage that? How about school buses and public transportation buses? If the federal gov't wants to subsidize mass transportation, how about also reducing fossil fuel use by encouraging that? How about local and state gov't making that happen if the feds are only interested in lip service?
As for the comments on what would or would not happen to the oilfields of Iraq and to the price of oil, who knows? During the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, the availability of oil rose, and the price sank steadily. And that was a war between two sovereign states, with whole armies at their disposal.
No one knows. In a pinch, we can seize oilfields -- easieset to seize would be those in the smaller sheikdoms of the U.A.E., and Kuwait, and in eastern Saudi Arabia. It would take -- what? A week? And those oilfields, and the gas to which Qatar lays claim, are right on the Gulf, for easy loading onto tankers.
It would depend on judgements, not as to morality (these are enemy countries, funding and supporting the world-wide Jihad, and we are entitled to seize the wealth of the enemy if it is regarded as necessary), but as to the need. Promising to keep revenues in escrow, for the use of "the people" of these countries, rather than the Al-Saud, the Al-Thani, the Al-Sabah, and all the others, and also promising preferential rates for those countries primly described as underdeveloped, should dampen opposition at once.
But posters above suggest that disrupting the oil market in such a manner, were it to occur, might be the best way to wake up the govenments of the United States and other oil-consuming countries to the need, to do everything they possibly can do to diminish without delay reliance on oil. For two distinct reasons: to save the Infidel world from the Jihad funded by oil revenues, and to save the world from irreversible environmental damage.
As for the doubter of global warming above, who informs us that "oh please pagan global warming has been going on since the begining of time. did you know that ice caps on mars are melting, how many SUV's are there on Mars? dont let junk science get in the way of facts" -- let's be charitable and not say anything about that nonsense, so dangerous if widely believed, shall we?
Apophasis. Paraleipsis.
The names of the game.
Global warming is still not fully understood, humans may not be the true and only cause. I am open to hearing science proofs about this, just as I am about Mars, and the growing heat of the sun as it ages.
That WarriorPrincess has a thought, and is supported by many, Just as Al Gore says we humans are the trouble. Some even say we will have to quit heating our homes, stop burning fires.
Anyone ready to vote for that?
Dear Hugh,
Your article on whether to pull out of Iraq and let the factions fight it out has a compelling logic when considering short-term political interests in the US.
However, the implications globally of a US withdrawal and with it the humiliation of a failed military intervention will have to be seriously studied and evaluated.
As a non-American living in an Islamic country we see such a policy of tactical retreat or humiliation will have a number of serious and dangerous consequences for Christians around the world.
Firstly, it will embolden jihadists that the creation of chaos (eg in Iraq) has destroyed the US political will so much that no US President in the next few decades would be willing to stand up to them in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Indonesia, Pakistan etc. No other international leader likewise would do so. This would leave the world at the mercy of jihadists as there would be no political or military machinery willing to stand against them. Christians in these Islamic dominated countries will face increased persecution with no-one willing to come to their aid.
Secondly, such a withdrawal will encourage global jihadists that Allah is truly on their side and that not even the greatest military power in the West can stand up to them. This will inspire memories of Muhammad's great victories against overwhelming odds that led to the establishment of Islam on the Arabian peninsula.
Thirdly, it will be a natural step in the path of establishing caliphates in different parts of the world where military power can be centralized to threaten other countries with jihad if they fail to respond to dakwah and jizyah in the expansion of Islam in the fulfillment of their eschatology.
Fourthly, it will leave Israel dangerously exposed and greatly increase the risk of a full scale invasion of Israel, perhaps in the Biblical style Battle of Armaggeddon!
These are dangerous days and I do not believe the solution is as simple as letting the factions in Iraq use all their resources by just letting them fight it out among themselves.
Ronin,
Dr. Jeff Hammond,
Whew!!! Thanks for the comments! Before you two chimed in, I kept thinking, "Bay of Pigs" all over again!!! LOL
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Dr. Jeff has some solid points. I wish Hugh will respond with his valuable opinion. I too feel after giving some thoughts, that civil war or violence amongst the faction is likely to be stopped by a single call by their clerics to first fight against Israel. We should not project the manner in which things move in democratic societies on them. I too have a feeling that, once US leaves, all shia sunni, may unite first to tackle Israel. After all we know that they trust fellow muslims more than infidels. Situation seems to be trickier.