Keith Ellison, the new Muslim Congressman from Minnesota, "advocated quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq," according to this article.
My view exactly. Yet I am not a Muslim, and do not wish Islam and its Jihad well. Does this mean that I am dead wrong in my views, because I appear to agree with Keith Ellison, or he with me? Or is it something else? Is it what one might understand better if we stand back and think what, objectively, would happen if the Americans withdrew?
I think as soon as the Americans withdraw, there will be all kinds of shrill cries in Iraq, coming from both some Sunnis and some Shi'a, for the Americans not to go. The Sunnis will realize that it is the Americans who are protecting them from the Shi'a militia. Other Sunnis, possibly a majority, will be delighted, for they are convinced that somehow, though outnumbered three-to-one by the Shi'a, they possess the necessary training, the organization, the ruthlessness, and the ability to count on Sunni volunteers coming from Syria (70% Sunni, though Shi'a missionaries from Iran have been given free rein by Bashir al-Assad), Egypt, Jordan, and of course the Gulf. And they are relying, too, on equipment and money coming from the Saudis, who similarly supplied Saddam Hussein during his war against Shi'a Iran (why, I even know someone who painted over the markings on the American-supplied Saudi tanks then shipped to Iraq), not to mention the tens of billions that the U.A.E. and Kuwait "loaned" Saddam Hussein for his Sunni Arab crusade against "the Persians."
And some of the Shi'a, too, will suddenly be eager to have the Americans stay, for they calculate that they need the American soldiers to stay and fight and die just a little longer -- as long as they stick to killing Sunnis. And of course the training those Shi'a volunteers are receiving for what the Americans call the "Iraqi" army and the "Iraqi" police is also valuable. And finally, the longer the Americans stay, the more stuff -- money, projects, and above all military equipment -- is likely to be given to, or fall into the hands of, the Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government. Others, such as Moqtada al-Sadr, never cared for the Americans, and still others, including those disinclined to disarm the militias ("those Americans can't be serious, can they?"), may now feel it is time for those heretofore amazingly pliant and gullible Americans (well, no longer the officers and men, but the civilians in Washington whom those officers and men have been taught to unquestioningly obey) to leave.
And what will happen in the Muslim world? Oh, crowing, of all kinds. Crowing from somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes, we won, we won, the Americans have had to leave. And that apparently is what some in the Administration are so scared of.
But they need not be. For if they leave, and when they leave, the natural centrifugal forces, whirring away, will cause Sunnis and Shi'a to be unable to compromise. Or if they do enter into any kind of compromise, it will immediately be broken by one side or the other or both, for it will be impossible for the Sunnis to accept their new status, and impossible for the Shi'a Arabs to share power and money in the way that the Sunnis demand. And if the Americans think that enlarging the pie by giving potentially-rich Iraq even more American -- i.e., Infidel -- money will bring about that spirit of compromise that is so foreign to, and so inimical to, Islam, they are only proving that their ignorance of Islam and the psychology of Muslims is nearly total. And being unable to compromise, they will fight.
And Muslims being Muslims, and Sunni Arabs regarding the land of the most glorious Abbasid Caliphate as important to their own history and their own identity, will never permit the Shi'a, those quasi-Persians, to win Iraq, and will offer their co-religionists every aid. And so will the Shi'a in Iran, which is not the same thing as saying that the Shi'a Arabs will necessarily wish their own state to be incorporated into a larger Shi'a state ruled from Tehran, just because they accept such aid -- money, men, materiel.
And as the American squandering of resources -- men, money, materiel -- is replaced almost overnight by a situation in which the squandering of resources is that of Muslim states and peoples whose money, men, and materiel are now being used up, the shrill voices expressing delight over "the defeat of America" will grow fainter. And as the conflict reverberates, as for example when the Shi'a in Bahrain, or Kuwait, or Al-Hasa become inspired by the conflict in Iraq to act up, and then to bring down the Sunni Arabs behaving as those Sunni Arabs will, and as the Sunnis in Pakistan attack, as they will, the Shi'a in Pakistan, and as Hizballah volunteers possibly march off to help fellow Shi'a in Iraq (and seen off at the station -- the one existing in their imaginations -- by deliriously happy Christians and Druse and even Sunni Muslims), and as the unstated American goal becomes, it is clear, no longer that messianic foolishness about making Muslim states happy and prosperous, but rather working to exploit the natural fissures -- ethnic and sectarian that are most obvious in, though hardly limited to, Iraq -- all sense of triumph over America, of having defeated America, will fade.
And then there is the matter of an independent Kurdistan. That too, spells trouble for the Arabs and for the unity of Islam. For Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab imperialism. Anwar Shaikh rightly titled one of his analyses of Islam "The Arab National Religion." An independent Kurdistan (with arrangements made for an enclave for Iraqi Christians, their safety to be guaranteed, on pain of loss of all American support, by the people and government of Kurdistan) will not only unsettle the Kurdish regions of Iran and Syria (causing migraines in both regimes) but ideally would raise, for non-Arab Muslims everywhere, the promise that they too might throw off Arab domination. Think only of the Berbers in North Africa, and think too of the Berbers in France, who might be turned against the Arabs in the same immigrant population, with useful results not least for the French security services.
The spectacle of internecine warfare not only promises to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam. No, it will also serve as a Demonstration Project to Infidels. Let them see how, without well-meaning Infidels to bring aid of all kinds and to keep the peace and to prevent one side or the other from behaving with their wonted barbarity (just read the reports of the corpses found murdered by Shi'a or Sunni militias or insurgents or irregulars or, for that matter, by members of regular army and police units), Muslims treat each other.
For time now needs to be bought, and Infidels tutored in the ways of Islam. There is no better way than to remove the controversial American presence in Iraq that so gets in the way of a clear-sighted view from a distance, a pisgah-sight of Islam, that many Infidels need.
Oh, there'll be much mafficking among Muslims when the Americans leave. It will last a week, maybe a month, maybe two.
But not longer. And if the Administration has any sense, it will turn its attention to Western Europe, just as soon as the more-in-sorrow withdrawal is first announced and then quickly put into effect (with possibly just a very small force left in Kurdistan to help protect the Christians or oversee their exodus to Lebanon or possibly the "West Bank," but only as part of a population exchange with local Muslim Arabs). It will turn its attention to checking or disrupting in Europe the campaigns of Da'wa, and to changing immigration policies and supporting those in Europe who wish to do the same, and to engaging in propaganda to demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad. (Hint: Karen Hughes is not the right person for this job; Ali Sina, and Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq should be consulted at every step on the staffing, and on the lines of information and argument to be disseminated; no more "life in America for Muslims is great" and no more rock music and other wonderful examples of Western decadence that do nothing to win or at least unsettle minds.)
So yes, I agree with Keith Ellison that the American forces should leave Iraq forthwith. But not for the same reasons.
Who do you think is right? Do you think an American withdrawal will be a victory for Islam, or do you think an American withdrawal will not only conserve our reserves, preserve or halt the degradation in the quality of our armed forces just in time, and help to divide and demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad?
There are those who are indifferent to Islam, but not indifferent to the environment. Such people may have no interest in, or be completely unaware of, both the menace of Jihad and how important it is to reduce the OPEC oil revenues which supply the "money weapon" that is one of the main instruments of Jihad, without which the building and maintaining of mosques and madrasas all over the West, and the vast campaigns of Da'wa, and the employment of armies of Western hirelings to promote or defend Islam and the agenda of Islam, in government, in business, in the media, in the universities, would not be possible. But objectively, in their desire to rescue the world from environmental degradation, they are the allies of all those who are most concerned about the worldwide Jihad, or its local components.
And those who worry about the Jihad, and have concluded that the most important task is to reduce the use of oil and gas, may have little in common with members of some environmental groups, but objectively they will work for the very same goal -- a goal which will be pursued by some to save the natural world, and pursued by others to save, in a sense, the manmade world, or at least the world made somewhat better, somewhat more interesting, by all those names to be found in, say, the Index to Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence."
In similar fashion, some of those who want the Americans out of Iraq do so for reasons I deplore and abhor. One such person is Keith Ellison. But the policy in Iraq that he desires is exactly what I desire. For I know what will follow, and I welcome it. He does not know. He, just like many Sunnis in Iraq now convinced they will win, or like those people in the West who are convinced that "of course Iran will just take over" -- doesn't know what societies suffused with Islam are like. No compromise. Victor and vanquished. Until another despot comes along, to rule over this or that segment of what was once, but is unlikely to ever be again, Iraq.
And may both sides win.
Brilliant article! Let's go and let that cesspool really churn. As for Islamic cries of victory I say who the hell cares? In their feeble minds they think they always win anyway. Besides, we know what they say is ALWAYS BS. Screw them all.
"So yes, I agree with Keith Ellison that the American forces should leave Iraq forthwith. But not for the same reasons. "
Hugh, I agree, and I think this whole election has shown that Americans are sick of Iraq, yes, but not *why* they are sick of it. Is it really because of those poor Iraqis? Or just because they don't want to waste more American lives and resources on Iraq?
Pres Bush could see this as a good opportunity: stand back with 'my hands are tied', let the Dems hastily retreat (for the wrong reasons), and then have them to blame for the ensuing civil war. They will withdraw, pump millions into Iraq (feed the crocodile, feed the crocodile) and still be unable to stop the muslim vs muslim violence.
And how do you think the next US election will go? When the muslim world continues with violent attacks, and it dawns on the public that feeding the crocodile hasn't worked? Especially if meanwhile the Dems get in some of the legislation they really want, so their voters have less motivation.
Then, voters will want a strong defence against islamist attacks, not more appeasement.
"The next time we have to do anything in that region, it will be by way of ICBM and we won’t put foot one on the ground."
Don't you think plenty of 'aid' will be sent, with easy-target kidnappable Americans for the locals to grab and convert or behead?
Sorry for the cross-post. It makes more sense here than in the other Ellison thread because I'm specifically addressing Hugh's comments.
"And then there is the matter of an independent Kurdistan" from above.
Hugh, how do you know there will be an independent Kurdistan if we withdraw? The only thing that would sure such a country would be a continued American presence.
What guarantee is there that when America withdraws from Iraq, we’ll stay in Kurdistan? I truly wish we would, and that we’d support and defend an independent Kurdistan with a semi- or fully autonomous enclave for Assyrians. But I have a sinking feeling that the anti-Iraq-war Democrats will insist on a full withdrawal from all of Iraq and will throw the Kurds and Assyrians to the wolves, as has always seemed to happen in history. If they understood Islam the way us JW readers do, there would be a chance, but not with the lack of knowledge our politicos, both sides of the aisle have. The desire to have a Kurdistani and/or Assyrian enclave is good, but may not happen. What are the ramifications of a complete withdrawal from Iraq, including Kurdistan? Would this be good or bad for infidels?
They will withdraw, pump millions into Iraq (feed the crocodile, feed the crocodile) and still be unable to stop the muslim vs muslim violence.
Posted by: Lili
We CANNOT pump in any more of our money!! We have a HUGE debt and a budget deficit!! There is no affordable health care at home and teh infrastructure is crumbling. What about rebuilding the American Railway Systems and taking the load off our overtaxed airway system? Not to mention that trains can be powered by other means than Mideast oil.
We need to spend our money at home - ON OURSELVES for a change! Let the ungrateful bastards ROT!!
And no more mufti immigration to the USA.. all they do is eat us out of house and home.
hey.. islamos.. time to get a J.O.B.!!
Nothing goin' on but the rent is DUE!
And what about Kurdistan?
I would like to see coalition forces relocate to Kurdistan for a brief period, anyway. Let the Arabs kill each other, if that's what they wish.
But what about Turkey? It has been on the road to radicalization. What will happen to Kurdistan if the Turks take offense?
I supported going in to Iraq and I support leaving now for the same reason: Shia. They're not worth one more ounce of American blood.
We keep hearing that if we leave now, it will embolden our enemies and then they'll attack us here. Newsflash: THEY'VE ALREADY ATTACKED US HERE!! MORE THAN ONCE!!
Why was even one Muslim of any nationality let into the country after 9/11? It looks like political correctness is suicidal behavior.
I take your points about how the psychology Islam cultivates in its followers precludes the possibility of the Sunnis and Shiites working together should we leave. Much as reason would dictate that they unite and overcome their differences to fight a common enemy, the very minset that makes us their enemy (denial of reason) will prevent them from following the standards of interaction necessary for them to work with each other.
In your 2005 clippings, which I still haven't finished reading (short on time), you have a great deal more backing up this point, and I thank you for digging those out.
I think there are two issues which will cause many "WoT" supporters to disagree with your overall conclusions, despite the solid and detailed substance underneath. The first has some weight in my opinion, the second is basically suicidal utopianism:
(1) Concern that our pulling out will have negative long-term effects on our ability to work with any resistance group anywhere else in the globe, for many many decades, at least.
This is less about ME concerns specificaly and more about international concerns in general. If the Islamofascists and their sympathizers can spin a withdrawl to make it appear as if working with Americans is a foolish task--spin it to make it appear as if we habitually chicken out when the going gets tough, drawing upon Vietnam to make it look like a pattern--they will have foisted upon us a reputation that hinders our pursuit of our interests globally.
This of course has nothing to do with the facts: the facts are that we won, and it is at our discression how much recovery assistance we want to give a hostile, threatening, near-nuclear nation after we have addressed the threat it posed to us.
Still, the facts on the one hand, and manner in which a propaganda war may affect our interests on the other, are not identical things. So, there is some valid concern that needs to be addressed here.
This isn't to say that this concern utterly nixes the important points you make, but rather, it is to say that it is something which has to be taken into account; something which we either have to have some plan to neutralize, or else something against which the advantages of withdrawl must be weighed.
(2) Insistance that we must not even consider the possibility that perhaps we cannot convert Iraq and other hostile Islamic nations to friendly, productive democracies, because that would mean "giving up" on the many millions of people in those nations.
This is utoptian and suicidal because it (a) fails to address the fact that these many millions of people are dedicated to an ideology that calls for the forcible and utter destruction of our core values, and of ourselves to the extent that we refuse to abandon our core values, and (b) fails to address, beyond unrealistically simplistic platitudes like "religion is what its adherants make it to be", the extreme technical difficulties involved in changing that ideology from either the inside or outside.
Given the actual situation, as opposed to the fantasy one, it is in the basic interest of our very survival as Americans to preserve our resources for our own use, and to turn those of our enemies which prove themselves intractible against themselves. This is called "war". Sorry it ain't pretty; neither was what we had to do to Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.
I mention this second issue not because I think it has value, but because I think it is important to recognize the mindset of the conservative utopians bound by it. The more it is recognized, the better we can better call people on it, and develop our arguments against it.
Brilliant Mr. Fitzgerald. Yours is the best explanation of what will likely happen if the USA does leave -though totally counter to the prevailing politically-correct pro-islamists reasons.
As for "all kinds of shrill cries in Iraq, ... " - these will not be heard as the same people who called for and got "defeat of the USA" and victory for communist Southeast Asia (4-8 million dead, "killing fields" forced labor, massive refugee problems, decades of economic ruin, etc) - will quickly turn a deaf ear to them. And Iraq will become history repeated and another "inconvenient truth" never to be discussed in "pc" circles.
I pray for the safety, increase, and prosperity of the ancient Armenian, Assyrian, Georgian, and other Christian peoples of the Middle East--and may they soon be outnumbered in their own countries by fellow Christians of Arabian, Turk, Persian, and Kurdish stock (i.e., may the Islamic world, as well as the West, wake up to the lie that is Islam)).
JeffS: "Hugh, how do you know there will be an independent Kurdistan if we withdraw? The only thing that would sure such a country would be a continued American presence."
Good question.
Hugh, *do* you mean by withdrawing from Iraq, that we should withdraw from the Kurdish areas as well? I don't support this, but by saying "the policy in Iraq that [Keith Ellison] desires is exactly what I desire" you suggest that this may be the case. Although.. it does appear as if that depends upon whether of not you are thinking of Kurdistan as part of Iraq. If not, your desires may only overlap with Ellison's so far as the non-Kurdish areas are concerned. Clarify?
Also, there are two issues invovled in JeffS' comments.
Issue I:
What would be best.
My position:
(1) Keep the troops in the region, but withdraw them out of certain portions of "Iraq". Use them to help build Kurdistan and train the Kurds, with the promise of protection of the Assyrians.
(2) Keep the intensive interrogations, finance tracking, foreign phone tapping, etc., that the Republicans have proven they will do, and that the Democrats have strongly suggested that they won't.
Issue II:
How to politically do what would be best.
My position:
The Dems won't do either of the above two in full. Though they do have the will to do part of (1), that part alone (withdrawing troops from Iraq, w/o also moving them to help the Kurds) might be more harmful than none of (1) at all.
So, we should do our best to ensure Republicans stay in office and get into office in 2008, as we're likely to at least get (2) above. With Repubs in office, we can make the case for the full version of (1) above through discussion and argument with them, as they are generally relatively sane people, albeit stubborn (stubborn isn't the worst of traits).
-------
Also, to be quite clear, the reason I think working with the Kurds is promising despite their religious beliefs is that there are intervening ethnic and survival factors, producing genuine gratitude which militates significantly against the religious imperative to kill or convert all infidels.
Such factors are simply not present in most of the ME, which is why in an above post I stressed that ignoring the dictates of Islam is a suicidal utopianism: it generally is. But, in the relatively rare cases where there are such militating factors, we should recognize them.
Lets withdraw now and give them what they want. Anarchy.
Also, while we are at it, withdraw from Afghanistan, cut all aid to pakistan, deport and and all muslims who do not accept rights of other faiths to exist, ban teaching of quaran, restore diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba, and lastly, extend the hand of friendship towards Latin Americans.
I think Ellison is lying when he calls for immediate withdrawal - he knows what the result would be. He also knows an immediate withdrawal is not likely to happen, so he is safe in making the demand.
I'd like to see his bluff called.
Why don't we just have them vote for us to leave or stay? Most data indicates that they would have us go as soon as possible. What if the administration educated the Iraqis on what they stand to gain/lose by our withdrawral and them have them vote. If they vote us to stay, we can honestly say were helping the Iraqis get new government and doing the will of the people. If they vote us to withdraw, again we can say we have brought democracy and they have spoken. We could even claim something of a victory.
Hugh, I sincerely thank you for showing me a possible silver lining to the very dark cloud that represents the Democratic victories of the mid-term elections.
Do I think American withdrawal from Iraq will be a defeat? Of course.
But last night's election results proves that America is not yet ready to confront Islam head on. 60 years of "Limited War" has only proven that "Limited War" = "Losing War." So until our society is willing and able to recognize the enemy for who he is, and willing to confront that enemy on a societal level, collateral damage be damned, then I will no longer support the War.
The simple fact is that the US Policy in Iraq no longer puts American interests first in priority, if it truly ever did. I initially opposed the Iraq invasion, but was convinced that putting our troops in the buckle of the Islamic World would be in our interest because from that foothold, we could begin cleaning up the mess. But we have only gotten half-measures and meaningless platitudes from our leaders. So I agree, let's withdraw - even if that means temporary defeat.
I was accused last night of being apocalyptic. I initially denied it. But I have reconsidered. The Democrats' victory signals the end of our presence in Iraq. That is not apocalyptic for us. But it is apocalyptic for Muslims, and possibly for Europe, Africa and parts of Asia. That is unfortunate for them, for we were their last best hope for a decent life.
Winston Churchill said, "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." So we are now in the process of exhausting all those possibilities. We will one day have to re-engage the Muslim enemy. But now, apparently, is not the time. I had hoped that we could forestall the evil to come. But, alas, that hope was in vain.
Ellison is the only house member calling for removal from Iraq. So his views are not to be taken seriously. No other Democrat is calling for the same. So it is safe for him to sound that trumpet knowing that the troops will not respond.
What this means is that the troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely, even under a democratic whitehouse, the troops will stay. The muslims want them to stay, the oil money wants them to stay, Saudi Arabia wants them to stay.
The only thing we have with Ellison, is not an ally in this cause, but merely another muslim, and what's worse, the first muslim, the first of many to come, in the American political system in Washington.
This is the beginning of the end.
Naturally, he is a black convert. No surpise there. Blacks flock to Islam like flies to dog doo. As if we don't have enough arabs already from immigration, we have to turn indigenous Christians into muslims, now. Thank the black catholic community for ellison. And thank the perennial liberal state of Minnesota for electing him. In 1984, that was the only state that went for Mondale. Out of 50, the only one. More liberal than California or New York, or Rhode Island. What do they smoke in Minnesota, that they don't smoke in California?
You know, we talk about America waking up to the threat of islam. But is it? In this latest election, the balance of power has gone from the middle, to the Left. Nancy Pelosi, Obama bin laden, now America's first muslim, a pro-labor muslim, in the House. What does this tell you? It tells me that the America has not finished going to the Left yet. Indeed, it tells me that the only difference between Eurabia and the US, is time.
I'm sorry folks, but I just can't sit idly without commenting on this article.
Amidst all the congratulations for Hugh's keen insights from our commentators, might I ask that we examine a little closer some of his premises here?
The basic idea that internecine warfare between Sunni and Shia could benefit the West is certainly plausible. But it's the Kurdish question where Hugh's train runs off its tracks...
HUGH: "with possibly just a very small force left in Kurdistan to help protect the Christians or oversee their exodus to Lebanon or possibly the "West Bank," but only as part of a population exchange with local Muslim Arabs."
RESPONSE: Why would the Kurds be in any way eager to import "local Muslim Arabs"? Why would these Arabs want to leave their ancestral homeland for the hinterlands of Kurdistan?
The proposal is divorced from reality.
HUGH: "An independent Kurdistan (with arrangements made for an enclave for Iraqi Christians, their safety to be guaranteed, on pain of loss of all American support, by the people and government of Kurdistan)..."
RESPONSE: How valued will "American support" be to the Kurds after we demonstrate our resolve by walking away from our responsibilities in Iraq as advocated by Hugh?
HUGH: "....will not only unsettle the Kurdish regions of Iran and Syria (causing migraines in both regimes) but ideally would raise, for non-Arab Muslims everywhere, the promise that they too might throw off Arab domination."
RESPONSE: Hugh overlooks the country with the most to lose from the emergence of an independent Kurdish polity in the region: Turkey. Instead of being an inspiration for non-Arabs, the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan could instead become a cautionary tale about relying on an American ally prone to fickleness and betrayal.
Hugh wants us to disengage from Iraq, but at the same time to somehow maintain Kurdish territorial integrity. How does he propose to do this? We'll have no territorial contiguity with which to help them. The best we can do is air supply. Whose airspace will we violate to accomplish this? And how effective will a mere supply line be in the event of an existential threat to the Iraqi Kurds?
And if things blow up for the Kurds?...if Turkey intervenes into northern Iraq, perhaps in conjunction with Iran, what is America to do? If the American public no longer has any stomach to fight the fanatical Al Qaeda in Iraq, how is it they can be sold into going up against our Turkish allies?
It ain't going to happen. If we walk away and the country descends into civil war, we will become as allergic to Iraq as we were to Vietnam for a full two decades after the fall of Saigon.
Iraq may indeed become the battleground for the Sunni-Shia schism, to the detriment of Muslim unity worldwide. Then again, as is not atypical in the Arab-Muslim world, enmity might overnight be transformed into tactical alliance. Jihad notwithstanding, the Muslim-tribal culture is notorious for its pragmatism and open-ness to bribery, particularly as it relates to fellow Muslims.
In other words, there is no guarantee that after a US withdrawal, Iraq will descend into interminable civil war. The period of violence may be extreme but relatively brief, followed by significant internal and regional re-alighnment.
But one thing is certain: Walking away from Iraq will effectively end any ability on our part to help determine the fate of Iraq's Kurds. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I haven't read a more reasonable analysis in a very long time. Let us devote our resources to winable causes and in intelligent ways. The job needs to be finished in Afghanistan, to think of just one.
As far as the resignation of Rumsfeld, let me state what many of us can who have relatives in Iraq, and in a way that our troops cannot:
YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED.
Although the responsibility for this ultimately lies with the commander in chief, it will not hurt to get someone who is in touch with the human side of war and intelligence. Let the arrogant, condescending millionaire ride off into the sunset. In the meantime our troops will hopefully get more support in dealing and surviving the "dead-enders."
"You know, we talk about America waking up to the threat of islam. But is it? In this latest election, the balance of power has gone from the middle, to the Left. Nancy Pelosi, Obama bin laden, now America's first muslim, a pro-labor muslim, in the House. What does this tell you?"
Um, I'm not there, but judging by New Zealand politicians, it tells me that people want crocodile-feeders in power, in the hope of being eaten last.
Hugh,
So much you say makes so much sense. Yet, Cornelius' point on the Kurds seems valid--why would any Arab muslims cooperate with a new Kurdistan in any way?
So much we Americans did not understand till the days of jihad Watch..... pondering all this makes you long (forgive me) for the glorious years of the Iraq-Iran war--were not those the good ole days my friend, eh?
The truly sad and heart breaking aspect of vacating this situation is that I have heard from the families of many of our soldiers there that they truly believed in this mission that we could get the job done. They feared and lamented about what would happen whenever we might leave. The problem is not the lack of committed military. Many have re-enlisted and would stay indefinitely for a presence there like we did/do in Europe after WW2 amd in Korea and elsewhere we have maintained some deployed troops.
Why success (leaving with a peaceful nation in tact)seems impossible:---
The problem (which this web site serves to show daily) is that those nations saturated and infected with the islamic curse--in all its various toxic strains--Shia, Sunni, etc--cannot be made into western style democracies. It won't work--exhibit A--the world.
Wild Card--I think we all wonder about the wild card of Iran getting the bomb in its arsenal. Don't you think that either Iran or Iraq would have used the bomb, if they had possessed it, on the other side during their war in the 80's? I heard of huge casualty numbers back then. We all felt good that Iran was gettting its comeuppance after the hostage crisis.
Sorry Fitz, just a real bad strategy to rely on the hopes that inter-sectarian faiths will cause a giant calamity and draw lot's of other countries and jihadis into the mess. And what exactly will that get us? The point of the Iraq war was to put a dagger in the heart of the Arab tyrannical beast. By plunging the knife in here, it has completely disrupted the the balance of stability i.e. tyranny in the Middle East. No, don't withdraw, kill jihadi leaders, Al Sadr and all of them. Issue a command to kill or capture Nasrallah and all other jihadi leaders who have put into motion conspiracies to destroy Israel or the Western World. It's on right now-this is it, we kill them.....or they get us.
I don't wanna hear Shiite and Sunni again. I don't want to hear it ever again.
--- Opinion celebrity Bill O'Reilly to Islamic scholar Geraldo on Bill's show Nov 7 '06
I just had a Merlin Olsen Mutual of Omaha moment; I just witnessed the transvaal safari leader Bill upbraid his alligator rassler Geraldo, telling to shut up about the Shiite vs. Sunni dynamic.
Bill is sick and tired of hearing about such crap, he's just looking out for the folks (not his ratings, nor his personal net worth).
610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
A beleagured ostritch calling for his head-hole to be left unmolested by reality, perhaps?
Such is the spectacle of modern "conservative" opinion celebrity.
Cornelius :
Here is what I don't understand:
1. Why you think it wouldn't be possible for US troops to secure a Kurdish area without staying in the rest of Iraq.
You mention Turkish and Iranian interests, but do you think they would get involved if we had a great deal of troops in Kurdish territory, for the purpose of assisting the Kurds?
2. Why the Kurds would no longer value our support if we left the rest of Iraq, but maintained troop levels near their area sufficient to protect them.
Related to 1; you do not believe it possible to help the Kurds without staying in *all* of Iraq, as opposed to just their area? Why?
3. Why a withdrawl would signal American military fickleness.
I think it might signal simply that we don't do nation-building for hostile nations. I don't see how it would signal that we won't fight when either a) our own defence is on the line, or b) we're backing up genuine allies (like the Kurds).
4. Why you think a Sunni-Shiite coalition is a serious possibility as opposed to long-term civil war, as opposed to mearly a very unlikely possibility.
You mention the Arabs' ability to bargain with each other and form strategic alliances, while Hugh mentions deep historical hatreds, and a philosophy hostile to holding up one's end of an alliance. And, we can see recent mutual attacks. These factors seem likely to keep the two groups ate each others' throats for a long time to come.
So far as I can see, developing an accurate picture of the probibilities depends to some extent on empirical historical questions. I find Hugh's case much more convincing, because of what he has written about Islamic psychology and the history of the tensions between the Sunni and Shiia. However, if you could give me specific cases in which Muslims have worked together to fight infidels, despite fissures as deep as those currently between Shiia and Sunni in Iraq, I would like to hear it.
tigertail1 :
You say "No, don't withdraw, kill jihadi leaders, Al Sadr and all of them."
I think this is missing the main point. The point is that this conflict is basically not about the jihadi leaders, it is about the jihadi ideology which ensures that the populace remains hostile toward us, and produces new jihadi leaders should old ones fall.
This point is the reason Hugh's position is worth consideration, if nothing more. We cannot bring Democracy to these people, the ideology to which they are beholden is not compatible with it. Whatever governments they form of their own will are likely to be deeply hostile to us, given their ideology. Their ideology and the governments they favor because of it are their choice; we can't change that. Our problem is how to pursue our security in light of the fact that they make the choices they clearly make.
Hugh is outlining a plan that will possibly cause our enemies to waste their resources fighting each other. Other plans involve forcing an unstable semi-Democratic state on Iraqis, essentially (so far as I can see it) part out of utopian concerns, part excuse to keep our troops in the region, and part a method of ensuring that a government hostile to us doesn't form.
If you believe that taking out the current jihadi leaders will do something much different from this second plan, despite the fact that the popularity of jihad ideology means that new leaders are likely to perpetually crop up to take the place of any leaders cut down, could you explain why? Perhaps you think that the resources spent perpetually cutting down jihadi leaders will eventually, after very many years, create some incentive against jihadi ideology, despite the fact that the ideology is held on religious grounds? Whatever your reasons, please explain.
...Next morning where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole the pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
The Duel
(The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat)
by Eugene Field
The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat?
See on the same theme, with the same kind of result, "Millions of Cats" by Wanda Ga'g. [Pardon the Hungarian]
Hugh, I understand your point that if the Muslim factions fight each other (with Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia supporting the respective sides). But suppose that happens and, as a result, one of the rump states that remains eventually becomes an authoritarian regime that terrorists can use as a base. Aren't we back to square one?
"it's the Kurdish question where Hugh's train runs off its tracks...
#1.
HUGH: "with possibly just a very small force left in Kurdistan to help protect the Christians or oversee their exodus to Lebanon or possibly the "West Bank," but only as part of a population exchange with local Muslim Arabs."
RESPONSE: Why would the Kurds be in any way eager to import "local Muslim Arabs"? Why would these Arabs want to leave their ancestral homeland for the hinterlands of Kurdistan?
The proposal is divorced from reality.
#2.
HUGH: "An independent Kurdistan (with arrangements made for an enclave for Iraqi Christians, their safety to be guaranteed, on pain of loss of all American support, by the people and government of Kurdistan)..."
RESPONSE: How valued will "American support" be to the Kurds after we demonstrate our resolve by walking away from our responsibilities in Iraq as advocated by Hugh?
#3.
HUGH: "....will not only unsettle the Kurdish regions of Iran and Syria (causing migraines in both regimes) but ideally would raise, for non-Arab Muslims everywhere, the promise that they too might throw off Arab domination."
RESPONSE: Hugh overlooks the country with the most to lose from the emergence of an independent Kurdish polity in the region: Turkey. Instead of being an inspiration for non-Arabs, the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan could instead become a cautionary tale about relying on an American ally prone to fickleness and betrayal.
Hugh wants us to disengage from Iraq, but at the same time to somehow maintain Kurdish territorial integrity. How does he propose to do this? We'll have no territorial contiguity with which to help them. The best we can do is air supply. Whose airspace will we violate to accomplish this? And how effective will a mere supply line be in the event of an existential threat to the Iraqi Kurds?
And if things blow up for the Kurds?...if Turkey intervenes into northern Iraq, perhaps in conjunction with Iran, what is America to do? If the American public no longer has any stomach to fight the fanatical Al Qaeda in Iraq, how is it they can be sold into going up against our Turkish allies?
#5.
It ain't going to happen. If we walk away and the country descends into civil war, we will become as allergic to Iraq as we were to Vietnam for a full two decades after the fall of Saigon.
Iraq may indeed become the battleground for the Sunni-Shia schism, to the detriment of Muslim unity worldwide. Then again, as is not atypical in the Arab-Muslim world, enmity might overnight be transformed into tactical alliance. Jihad notwithstanding, the Muslim-tribal culture is notorious for its pragmatism and open-ness to bribery, particularly as it relates to fellow Muslims.
#6.
In other words, there is no guarantee that after a US withdrawal, Iraq will descend into interminable civil war. The period of violence may be extreme but relatively brief, followed by significant internal and regional re-alighnment.
But one thing is certain: Walking away from Iraq will effectively end any ability on our part to help determine the fate of Iraq's Kurds. Let's not pretend otherwise."
-- from a posting above finding unrealistic my suggestions as to why, beyond any moral considerations (for that see Peter Galbraith), support for an independent Kurdistan makes geopolitical sense.
Here are the answers to these objections:
#1. Here the poster simply misunderstands me, possibly wilfully. I did not mean that Muslims removed from the West Bank to make room for Christians (and Mandeans, and other smaller groups) from Iraq, would go to the northern segment under Kurdish control. That was nowhere said or implied. What makes you think it? After all, many of the Christians come from Baghdad, or to a much lesser extent Basra and other smaller cities. Any Muslim Arabs from the "West Bank" would be free to go there, and certainly none would be encouraged or helped to settle in territory deemd Kurdish, or Chaldo-Assyrian territory under Kurdish protection.
You simply misunderstood and misstated, not for the first time, what I said.
#2. What do you mean "how valued would American support be"? It doesn't matter whether conditions are put on such support. The Kurds never had, and do not have now, any place to turn other than the Americans. They have been grateful, and shown that gratitude and loyalty in ways that American soldiers all know, and indeed in the withdrawal from Iraq, the only forces that can be trusted to guard the Americans as they leave, and to help make it easier, are the Kurdish pesh merga. There is no Arab force -- Sunni or Shi'a -- that can be trusted.
Your remark misses the point. The Kurds need American support badly, and they can get it if they agree to two things: 1) to protect the Christians in a northern enclave and 2) to guarantee not to make territorial demands on Turkey. These are both possible, and plausible, but the Administration has been so dead-set on its initial idea of building Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, and so incurious about the opportunity that Iraq offers to help a non-Arab Muslim people obtain independence (they will be satisfied, in any case, with nothing less), that would simultaneously weaken Iran and Syria, and most important, raise in the consciousness of non-Arab Muslims everywhere the use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperiallsm. Unrealistic to think the Kurds, who will never have a better chance at independence, will not see it as the wonderful possibility it is -- why not?
#3 and #4. You write about Turkey. But you write as if I had not made the same proposal about fifty timies before, and every time I have discussed, at length, how to obtain Turkish cooperation. I have said that a Kurdish guarantee, backed by an American guarantee (for the Americans can cut off aid to Kurdistan -- as they could also cut off military cooperation with Turkey, by the way, now that that country is no longer needed for its Cold War bases, and is useful, as a member of NATO, only insofar as its military help to constrain Islam within Turkey, and to weaken the Camp of Islam -- that at least of Arabs and Iranians -- without.
You must know that in the last few years, there has been growing economic cooperation between Turkey and the Kurdish-ruled northern part of Iraq, and large Turkish investments have been made. Are you quite sure that it is simply impossible to get the government of Turkey to acquiesce? I'm quite sure it is possible, if there are people who are clever enough to see why what is proposed here is not crazy and makes good sense. Reality must include the reality of the Kurdish referendum of January 2005, in which 98% of the Kurds who voted expressed a wish for independence. Do you think desire can eaasily be overlooked, or opposed, by any Kurdish leader now that the fiasco of the Administration's grand plans for a happy, healthy, peaceable kingdom of a unified Iraq is seen by one and all as -- a fiasco?
No one is "overlooking Turkey." Again and again --many dozens of times (do the googling yourself, and you will soon see), exactly how the deal should be arranged, the pressures brought, the guarantees offered. You pretend that I haven't done this, or that I haven't discussed it adequately here. Why?
No one has urged an American war for the sake of Kurdish independence. But the Kurds can be supplied with some war materiel (which might be pre-positioned in Kurdistan in any case), and it could be resupplied in other ways as well, which need not be gone into here. Furthermore, the kind of air cover that was once given to the Kurds could be given again -- not that the Iraqis have planes and helicopters, thank god, and shouldn't be supplied with any, but that the Iranians might have some. How long would it take to destroy, in the air, or on the ground, the entire Iranian air force? One hour, or two?
If Turkey invades Kurdistan, the Americans do not have to fight them. They can be cut off from all war materiel, including parts for their planes and tanks. They will have to think very carefully if they wish to end forever any chance of recovering the one ally that they possess (the Arabs and Iranians, both so despised in Turkey, are not and never can be true allies of Turkey, a former overlord for the first, a historic enemy for the second). How could Sunnis in Turkey support the Turks? And would the millions of Kurds in Anatolia not react badly if the Turkish army were to suppress the first, and last, and best chance for an independent Kurdistan -- or would a Turkish be hellishly dangerous, in the end, for Turkey's own stability? Are you quite sure that, given a reasonable guarantee of no future claim ever being made on Turkey, that that will not be enough to satisfy Turkey? Why?
#5. You mention that there might not be a civil war in Iraq. So? While a civil war would be desirable, any low-level conflict that continues to simmer will do. You mention the "pragmatism" of the Arabs? Really? When their most important interests, as they see them, are touched? Can Sunni Arabs ever acquiesce in Shi'a Arabs, or Shi'a whom many of them call, as Saddam Hussein does, "Persians" -- ruling the land once ruled by the Abbasid Caliphate, by Haroun al-Raschid and all those others who, while many were non-Muslims or non-Arabs, have all been enrolled in a satisfying Arab narrative about Arab glory, Arab greatness? You think the Sunni Arabs can be bought off? Bought off by whom? Will they be given more than they think they would get if they still controlled all of Iraq and its oil wealth -- because that is what a bribe would have to amount to to begin to satisfy them. Or bribe the Shi'a? How? To do what -- to yield to their old overlords and tormentors, the Sunnis? You are confusing the individual crook -- such as the current ruler of Equatorial Guinea -- with entire peoples whose problem is not money, for Iraq sits on the second or possibly the largest oil reserves in the world. The problem is -- you know Russian -- kto kogo. Who's giving it, and who's on the receiving end. All this business of "being notorious for openness to bribery" by this or that ruler or tribe does not have much significance here.
#6. "Walking away from Iraq" will not hinder American efforts to effect events in Iraq. It will make them easier. The minute we announce our departure, we will see people on all sides begging us to stay. Those appeals should be resisted. We should leave, and make Iraq an object lesson. We are no longer interested in making things wonderful or offering up Iraq the Model or any other Model. We were wrong to think that the people of Iraq were "Iraqis" and interested in building an "Iraqi" nation. We were wrong to think that participation by the certain winners -- the Shi'a Arabs -- in a purple-thumbed election meant that democracy, in the Western sense, with the rule of law, and a genuinely free press, and a sharing of powers, and a Constitution based on someting other than the take-no-prisoners Shari'a, was or could come to Iraq. We forgot that in Islam legitimacy of any ruler or government is located in that ruler's, or that government's, adherence to the Holy Law of Islam, and is never to be located in the expressed will of the people, those mere mortals whose desires are as nothing if they do not conform to the desires, the commands and prohibitions, of Allah.
You don't like my notions. You won't have it. You are determined not to think carefully about them, to pretend that I have not detailed and answered, long ago, and many times, every single point you raise here. (Just google enough, and you'll find it). That has been a characteristic failing of your objections in the past, objections which I had assumed you no longer had. I see that I was wrong.
Mrsmomoto,
Thanks for your questions and comments.
QUESTION: "Why you think it wouldn't be possible for US troops to secure a Kurdish area without staying in the rest of Iraq?"
ANSWER: Unless Turkey cooperated with us, how would we re-supply such troops? How would we bring in armoured vehicles?
The Turks are on record as threatening military intervention to prevent the emergence of an independent Iraqi Kurdish polity; it's unlikely they will support us in our efforts. More likely, the course of events advocated by Hugh will result in a dramatic deterioration of US-Turkish relations.
We would then have to use hostile Iraqi territory to resupply our forces from Kuwait, which means continued involvement in Iraq. The American public would never sit for walking away from half the country, leaving it to the chaos of the fanatics, only to stay mired there for the sake of the Kurds.
As for Hugh's premise that Shia and Sunni will engage in endless bloodletting in Iraq, thus dividing the Muslim world and aiding the cause of our anti-Jihad, it's certainly possible. Other possibilities include
1) the triumph of one faction (likey Shia, with Iranian help) over the other
2) after a period of hostility, the two sides agree to a division of the country, creating a Sunni terrorist state and a Shia appendage of Iran
3) the rallying of the two sides around a unifying figure....possibly a fanatical Islamist
We walked away from Afghanistan after the Mujahadin triumph in 1992; the result was civil war, then the emergence of the Taliban, and finally 9-11. Hugh wants us to repeat the same paradigm in Iraq.
I admit, he might be correct that a Sunni-Shia fight over control of Iraq might distract the Muslim world and assist the anti-Jihad. All I'm saying is let's not pretend that we can allow Iraq to descend into chaos without losing our ability to determine the fate of the Iraqi Kurds.
"As for Hugh's premise that Shia and Sunni will engage in endless bloodletting in Iraq, thus dividing the Muslim world and aiding the cause of our anti-Jihad, it's certainly possible. Other possibilities include
1) the triumph of one faction (likey Shia, with Iranian help) over the other
2) after a period of hostility, the two sides agree to a division of the country, creating a Sunni terrorist state and a Shia appendage of Iran"
-- from a posting above
I didn't write "endless bloodletting." Why do you put words in my mouth? I did write that hostilities were going to occur whenever the Americans left -- today, tomorrow, in two years and a few months (that's the latest they can stay, and you know why, because in 2008 both candidates will have to promise to end the by-end absolutely nightmarish continued involvement in Iraq, by a prompt American withdrawal, and will have to deliver on that promise or all hell will break loose in this country). And they may be low-level, as now, or involve something like wholesale tit-for-tat assaults on Sunni and Shi'a villages or whole urban neighborhoods. There is no chance that they will sit down and each side give what the other side demands. It won't, it can't, happen. Where, inside any Arab or Muslim country, have you seen exhibited the spirit of compromise with one's political enemies, other than Turkey, which is a special case because of 80 years of Kemalism. Where else does the party in power ever relinguish it without a coup, or with subsequent hostilities leading at least to street fighting and sometimes more, until the stronger side wins and the other side succumbs?
"Agree to a division of the country"? Surely you jest, Mr. Feynman. The Sunnis would agree to give up their claim on the oil under the Kurdish lands and under southern Iraq? Agree to put all of southern Iraq and Baghdad (do you think the Shi'a would ever give up their hold on Baghdad? Why?) in Shi'a hands, and be satisfied with Anbar Province, with its desert and date palms? And do you think the Shi'a who make up 60-65% of the total population of Iraq, and 80% of its Arabs, would ever give up the power and the oil they now possess? Why would they do this? What is it that offers an example of such statesmanlike accommodation anywhere in the Muslim world.
Tell me.
A quick withdraw would be disastrous:
1. It shows capitulation to the world, especially to Muslims. They will regard this as a weakness on our part and a victory on theirs. It will embolden and legitimize more terrorist recruitment. Victory over America is possible.
2. It will create a power vacuum in the Middle East, which will make Iran step in and take over. Not a good thing so long as Iran has nukes.
3. It will increase hostile tension and focus towards Israel, whose only true ally is the US.
We should redeploy our troops in the region, away from the danger zones with a new mission: prevent Iran from becoming the predominant power in the Middle East.
Washington and Tehran are already talking, so long as the talks are limited to discussing Iraq and not Iran's nuclear issues. The fact that Pres. Bush appointed Robert Gates probably points to a new direction. Gates was a member of the ISG, which, as James Baker hinted, believes that the mission needs to be redefined.
In essence, we will remain in Iraq, but our focus and mission will alter.
Joseph D'Hippolito said
If, by getting off square one, it is required that Iraq be a freedom-loving secular democracy, then we will always be on square one, regardless of how much money or soldiers' lives are spent there.
Or, if getting off square one means that terrorists will not be given safe harbor, same answer. Just as we see in our "good friend", our "staunch ally", Pakistan, who even today makes truces with OBL and Al Qaeda and Taliban.
At some point, we have to accept the fact that this is going to be our relationship with Islamic nations. They will hate us, no matter how much we give them. So, why give them anything? Stop caring what they think of us, and instead take care of ourselves. Just think for a moment what we could have done with the 500 BILLION DOLLARS that we thought it was wise to spend in Iraq. If we instead had spent that money on ourselves, on our own security, I'd say we would not be on square one, I'd say we would be 500 BILLION squares down the correct path. Islamic nations will give safe harbor to terrorists. Islamic nations will attempt to build or steal WMD's to use against us. So, Islamic nations should be hit with disproportionate military force in those situations to remove those dangers, and then (and here's the key part) we WILL NOT REBUILD those Islamic nations afterwards. No more false friendships, no more jizya.
[I liked this thread alot. Except for some early posters' hopes that the Iraq disaster could be used to advantage against partisan political rivals, there are some thoughtful responses.
Hugh, have you ever studied Game Theory, one of the results of John Nash's (Beautiful Mind) work? And thought of how those strategies are currently being applied or misapplied to the jihad? Here is a summary of Prisoner's Dilemma, one particular example of a "game", and not necessarily the best model of jihad, but it is interesting in what it tells us about how to respond to offensive acts against us.]
I've always liked this idea. Like the poster, I also suspect it would be a majority vote for Americans to go. If so, it would be a most face-saving exit/victory strategy for the coalition forces. Let the last act of the Marines be to leave in response to the Iraqi democracy they fought so hard for. Let the Islamic warrior-culture see the superior might of a paper ballot over a metal bullet in driving out the "formidable occupiers". Let them witness how the greatest military machine in the world respects the will of ordinary people more than the bombs of an insurgency. The closest thing to capturing hearts-and-minds we'll ever have....a win-win for all.
And should the scenario Hugh paints break out, we can always shrug and say, "Well, the Iraqi people spoke."
Oh, there'll be much mafficking among Muslims when the Americans leave. It will last a week, maybe a month, maybe two.
Make that from E-Day (Evacuation-Day, on the Muslim calender) all the way to the day the President has been replaced by an Ayatollah. Because what a great inspiration and spur it will be to have forced the Great Satan from Arab lands. The spread of Islam has been a thing over a thousand years in the making. It's all written down how to do it with the injunction to believe, and do it, or roast in hell. Islam regards time as does a fungal infection - just give it the opportunity to spread.
In the climate in which there is a war against jihad, which is never ending, the latest set of crusaders, the Coalition of the Willing cannot leave until there is a consensus from the Iraqi leaders and its people. We cannot be seen to be forced out by a band of thugs.
But you know what? This venture was doomed from the start, because while our enemies knew exactly what was at stake, on our side we never agreed that we were at war, or what we were at war for. I think that a lot of it came down to the fact that a lot of people who thought that their president was too stupid to be president, and therefore must have rigged his election, were just against it because it was the idea of the stupid president. And then when we were at war, the defeatest sniping continued. Bring us down, bring down El Stupido.
When it comes down to it, the enemy is committed, and we are frightened and arrogant and prejudiced, some more than others. This equation equals they will win. And you know what, in a Sharia state, I am a law abiding citizen already. I won't miss the Guardian, or the Democrats, or the Gays, or the Marxists. And I won't be afraid to die when I don't renounce Jesus.
Hugh,
Examples of mortal enemies making nice in the Islamic world abound....
1) The Shah of Iran and the Bakra-Hussein clique agreeing on the division of the Shat-al-Arab waterway and the termination of the Shah's support for the Barzani clan in Iraqi kurdistan
2) The lasting cease-fire after 8 years of brutal warfare signed by hated antagonists Saddam and Khomeini in 1988.
3) The 7-year (1996-2003) cease-fire between the House of Saud and Bin Ladin after the Dahrain and Riyadh bombings
4) The overnight coalescence of the forces of Uzbek leader Rashid Dostum and his nemisis Gulbadin Hekmatyar in 1994, which resulted in the ouster of Rabbini-Massoud government in Afghanistan of which Dostum had previously served in
These are just 4 immediate examples that come to mind. I'm sure there are dozens of others.
I'm not suggesting that the Shia and Sunni of Iraq are DESTINED to reach an accommodation, only that it is plausible that they might.
Furthermore, my central point was ignored....that we can leave Iraq and yet stay on behalf of the Kurds. It won't work. The American public won't have it...and the logistics on the ground won't allow for it.
By golly, it seems that I agree with M. Phillips
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1382
Keep talking about surrendering, it will only expediate surrender. This is not going to go away after you and Ellison have waved your white flags. I thought you understood this?
yadayada:
In most of the many many accounts I have read, the Iraqi concensus is for the multi-natinional forces to leave -- when Iraq's domestic security is stabilized enough for Iraq to control the situation. They want westerners out for sure, but not right away. They like to blame the Coalition's ouster of Saddam for the misery they are enduring now, but the truth of the matter is that credit for the "insurgency" that has claimed so many lives since the March 2003 invasion belongs to a host of actors, from the scam artists on the UN Security Council who were party to Oil-for-Food while they opposed Saddam's removal and violated sanctions by supplying him with weapons (France, China and Russia, c'mon down) to the bankrollers and jihad recruiters of the warring Sunni and Shia factions (Saudi Arabia and Iran) to Syria, which has amazingly, managed to play I don't know how many different ends, including helping Saddam ship WMDs and money out of Iraq in advance of the invasion and sheltering Iraqi Baathists to helping Sunni jihaddists from all over the place enter Iraq, and, almost similtaneously helping the Shia cause through various means, including blowing Rafiq Hariri into the next life and helping Hezbollah attack Israel.
Without getting into the details of strategic planning, I think we can play an important part in redirecting the debate. Americans, on an individual basis, are reading about Islamic atrocities on a daily basis and wonder why we are helping these savages. I’ve talked to many people who don’t doubt the honorable nature of our intentions but have grave doubts about the character of those whom we are trying to help. This is where we need an honest examination of the culture and most importantly the religion that drives this culture.
We, however, have to distinguish between those who may accidentally agree on specific policies but whose underlying analysis puts the blame in the wrong place. There are critics and there are critics. It’s common in the MSM, where it is forbidden to criticize another culture, to turn inwards and vilify America. It’s not that they are unworthy but that we are vile, according to this line of thinking. Without coming to grips with the inherent limitations of Arab and Islamic cultures, self-blame will replace factual understanding.
After several years of war we still haven’t faced reality. A Marine Colonel who recently returned from Iraq said to me, without knowing my views, that he was shocked at the hatred in Iraq. Every group, divided by religious sect, tribal membership, language, location, etc., intensely hates the other groups. This educated forty-something fellow has little idea of the culture and history of the region. But he sees facts that demand an explanation.
Many Americans are realizing that we’ve been over generous to people who don’t deserve our help, who hate us no matter what we do, and who embrace a primitive irrational 7th century religious mindset of the worse kind. This begs for an explanation and exposition. This is where Jihad Watch has been a great help. Leadership in this area can change the situation considerably. At a time like this there will those who seek to exploit the situation to vilify our nation, there are those who need to step forward to explain that we may be honorable but we’re not prudent or wise to invest in those who are and will be our enemies.
"A quick withdraw would be disastrous:
1. It shows [sic] capitulation to the world, especially to Muslims. They will regard this as a weakness on our part and a victory on theirs. It will embolden and legitimize more terrorist recruitment. Victory over America is possible.
2. It will create a power vacuum in the Middle East, which will make Iran step in and take over. Not a good thing so long as Iran has nukes.
3. It will increase hostile tension and focus towards Israel, whose only true ally is the US>'
--- from a posting above
#1 is a series of statements, not an argument. The belief that an American withdrawal, demanded by people who are mostly fed up with the "Iraqis" and beginning to see that there is no "victory" conceivable, rightly defined, except the victory that comes from weakening the Camp of Islam, and the only way to weaken the Camp of Islam is not to attmemt, at great cost and vainly, the sectarian and ethnic divisions so obvious and so permanent in Iraq, but rather to leave in order that they may be exploited, without any deliberate effort on our part, in order to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam in and outside Iraq, and offer a Demonstration Project of the kind that is on view in Gaza.
You ignore what I wrote. I wrote that the Arabs and Muslims will claim this as a "great victory" but that soon enough, very soon, that claim will be seen as hollow. The Arabs have claimed "great victories" before. They did so just before and during the 1948 war. They did so as the Six-Day War was being fought -- Nasser declared it repeatedly. They do so all the time. So what? The rest of the world, and then the Arabs and other Muslims, will see that the Americans have lost their naivete, and the withdrawal (as I have written about since early 2004) should, to make that point, be accompanied by other measures such as the declaration of a new energy policy (and right now is the time for Bush to put on a large gas tax, as the price has gone down, in order to put still more pressure on demand, but he won't, he won't becuse he is, you see, only engaged in that idiotically-named "war on terror" and has done nothing to diminish OPEC revenues).
#2. "It will create a power vacuum..." What does this phrase, so easily used, actually mean? What makes you think that this "power vacuum," as you put it, will be filled only by one side, triumphantly -- Iran -- when we know perfectly well that while many Shi'a in Iraq will take Iranian aid, even Sistani, Persian by descent, dislikes and distrusts the Islamic Republic of Iran, that even Moqtada al-Sadr, monster that he is, considers himself an Iraqi "nationalist" (but one who wants rule for the Shi'a, or rather, wants rule for the Shi'a and for himself all kinds of power and respect).
Why do you simply foresee, without any evidence, the Sunnis capitulating and letting the Iranian agents and their local supporters take over? Or why would the Sunni rulers in the Gulf, right now counting on the Americans and especially the Baker Commission to insist that the Americans now stay, as the Saudi ambassador no doubt puts it, to prevent "instability" (i.e., help the Sunnis as we helped Kuwait during the Gulf War). We have to free ourselves of cliches about "power vacuums" and what people simply assert without thinking them through.
If there are any "vacuums" at all they will be two. In Anbar Province and among the Sunnis of Baghdad, there will be anger at the Shi'a, mingled with fear, and the intenses desire for aid from fellow Sunnis. Such aid will be forthcoming, in the form of volunteeers, money, military equipment. The Sunni rulers and peoples cannot conceivably allow the Shi'a, or what's worse, the Iranians, to take all of Iraq. Just as the Shi'a helped inveigle the Americans into Iraq in the first place (by exaggerating not the hideousness of Saddam Hussein, but the likelihoood of his possessing, or acquiring, major weaponry), so that we would remove him and help them come to power (and some of them are, like Chalabi, chagrinned to find they are not in the running for power), now it is the turn of the Sunnis to sucker the Americans into doing whate they want, and sticking around to keep the Shi'a under control. And the President, who discharged the wrong man (the right man to discharge was the Truest Believer in his policy, which is -- himself).
When you write so casually that "[i]t will create a power vacuum in the Middle East, which will make Iran step in and take over. Not a good thing so long as Iran has nukes." you not only ignore the power of the Sunnis in Iraq, and their readiness to fight back and the certainty that they will be aided by fellow Sunnis abroad. But you also assume, for some reason, that Iran already has, or will soon acquire, nuclear weapons. Why? Why are you a defeatist who doesn't think the Americans or Israelis or both together will stop this, and why do you not realize that sectarian violence and chaos in Iraq will help to stop that very acquisition.
How? Well, if Iran and Sunni Arab states are engaged in a proxy war, it is far more likely that any American administration, so eager as they are to prevent major damage to the oil fields, and so eager as well, at least in the past, to listen to Saudi rulers (James Baker does, or always has up to now), that it is more likely that the Americans will bomb, as they should, in order to set back for as long as they can (and then booster shots from the air can be given), the Iranian nuclear project.
Furthermore, the atmosphere will be generally more unfavorable in the Muslim world to Iran if it is seen as helping to smash the Sunnis of Iraq, and the Islamic Republic may have its attention diverted to Iraq, just as, alas, American attention over these past few years has been focussed far too much on Iraq, while the most important problem is the use of the "money weapon," campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest within the Lands of the Infidels.
#3. Why will fighitng among Muslims "increase hostile tension and focus toward Israel"? What nonsense. If Sunnis and Shi'a are at each other's throats in Iraq, that will "increase hostile tension and focus toward Israel"? Is that what happened during the Iran-Iraq War or were both countries too preoccupied with that war to act or agitate against Israel? Why do you write such things, such a series of such things, so unthinkingly?
"After several years of war we still haven’t faced reality. A Marine Colonel who recently returned from Iraq said to me, without knowing my views, that he was shocked at the hatred in Iraq. Every group, divided by religious sect, tribal membership, language, location, etc., intensely hates the other groups. This educated forty-something fellow has little idea of the culture and history of the region. But he sees facts that demand an explanation."
-- from a posting above
And he is not the only soldier or Marine who had to learn about the real Iraq, not the Iraq that Bush talks about, with "the Iraqis" who are building a "new and free Iraq," by being there. There are many such returning soldiers, and they need to spread the word, on what is real and what is nonsense, and then they owe themselves a short course in Islam. Tell them to start with this website.
I think the main argument in Hugh's favor is the war camp's inability to define "victory."
Does victory mean the perpetuation of a unitary state in Iraq, even one that subjugates women and religious minorities? How is that victory, excepting that the regime remain a client state of America (and an expensive one at that)?
I have grave misgivings about walking away and having Iraq become the Afghanistan of the 90s. But I wonder how much blood and treasure we're expected to expend trying to build something there (Democracy) that runs counter to the local culture.
I'm simply not sure how we should proceed.
But I am sure that should we opt to leave, political realities in America and logistical realities in the region will preclude us from being able to effect the fate of our Iraqi Kurdish allies. Pretending otherwise is myopic.
and then the Arabs and other Muslims, will see that the Americans have lost their naivete
Are you sure they are able to see it those terms? I think they only see it in terms of strength of weakness. The Coalition of the Willing cannot leave until there is endorsement from the Iraqi leadership/people. You seem to think that our enemy will get over their great victory in a matter of months, and I say that our enemy will never forget it, and it will spur them on.
I think that your position is schizophrenic, and your turn of phrase is not the only thing that is hard for me to understand (In the old days they called it sophistry. But then again, I am a bit stupid (i.e. not a Democrat)). I find it amusing how you label a proponent of the opposite view to yours as a defeatist. Yes, I find that mightily amusing, even in the face of the threat that real defeatism is aiding and abetting.
But then again, I guess that is the benefit of the sharing of that historical belief in my freedoms as an Englishman, which is what the Americans demanded at the war of independence, and which is what drove us to stand alone (Free French - HA! - you have a sense of humour too), and a faith (I suppose despised by the sophisticated) in Jesus.
Victory - when the Iraqi people, through the instrument of their duly elected government, ask us to leave.
Defeat - leaving any other way.
"And if the Administration has any sense, it will turn its attention to Western Europe, just as soon as the more-in-sorrow withdrawal is first announced and then quickly put into effect ... It will turn its attention to checking or disrupting in Europe the campaigns of Da'wa, and to changing immigration policies and supporting those in Europe who wish to do the same, and to engaging in propaganda to demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad.
Posted by Hugh
That assumes that Bush and his administration are capable of getting it, even now. But they have been as pathologically PC and naive about Islam as the Dhimmicrats. And what if a dhimmicrat - from either party (irony intended) is elected in '08?
On the other hand I'm glad to see the connection between Jihad and oil acknowledged. If we did more treehugging of our own, it would steal a large chunk of Islamic thunder based on specious claims about being "green" that makes Leftists swoon.
Hugh: "But you also assume, for some reason, that Iran already has, or will soon acquire, nuclear weapons. Why?"
"Why?" Haven't you been reading the news lately? Heard of North Korea? Heard of Russia?
"Victory - when the Iraqi people, through the instrument of their duly elected government, ask us to leave.
Defeat - leaving any other way."
-- from a posting above
So "victory" is when the non-existent "Iraqi" people -- id est, whoever happens to be running things -- "ask us to leave"? American soldiers are to be deployed, or re-deployed, on the basis of what Iraqis decide? We are to stay there until taht "duly elected government" of Muslims, by Muslims, for Muslims, or rather, of mostly-Shi'a Muslims, by mostly-Shi'a Muslims, for mostly-Shi'a Muslims, decide that our usefulness to them, in killing Sunnis, and in supplying money, money, money (that is how the United States is seen: as the Supplier of First and Only Resort, for everything, and the "Iraqi people" can hardly believe the bonzanza lavished upon them these past three years, and hope to get as much as they can, for themselves, their famlies, their tribes, not for a place called "Iraq").
That's "victory" to be ordered about by the malevolent government of Iraq? That's what Americans should find splendid?
You mean "Defeat" would be if we, the Americans, decided when we would leave, whatever the consequences for the "Iraqis," because we had come to the conclusion that we were squandering men, money, and materiel, and had more important things to do, including preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic of Iran?
And you think it would be a "defeat" if Sunnnis and Shi'a inside Iraq were to carry on hostilities, at whatever level, for a long time, and to obtain aid from co-religionists from outside Iraq, especially from those two most powerful and most malevolent and dangerous of Muslim states, Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, fighting a proxy war in Iraq?
I'll tell you what a "defeat" would be. A "defeat" would be to ignore, or still worse try to overcome, rather than identify, and then exploit, the sectarian and ethnic fissures that are presented for the benefit of Infidels, if only our government had the wit to see, and was able to disguise (or not feel the need to disguise) its eagerness to leave in order that those fissures might not narrow, but widen. As they will, no matter what, and no matter when we leave.