If Islam had been properly understood, then not this idiotic "war on terror" but rather a war of self-defense, a war for human freedom, against the Jihad, would have been properly declared and articulated.
If Iraq had been properly understood, then this idiotic and messianic and polypragmonic dreamy desire to reshape Iraq and "the whole Middle East" would never have occurred to anyone, much less be obstinately held on to by Bush and Bush loyalists of all kinds. Instead, it would have been jetsam thrown overboard by a sauve-qui-peut captain of the listing ship of state, the S.S. Narrenschiff, long since.
More and more people are beginning to realize what a mess Iraq was fated to be. Still, many more give no hint of understanding that, once the regime had been overthrown, everything else that followed -- above all that sectarian fissure between Sunni and Shi'a -- was not "possibly" to follow, not "likely" to follow, but was "inevitably" to follow. It was inevitable, and was described as such at Jihad Watch in early 2004, just as soon as it became appallingly clear, by the end of February or at the latest mid-March, that the Administration was serious about all this "bringing democracy" nonsense -- instead of coolly calculating the benefits of exploiting the natural fissures, sectarian and ethnic, that were now free to widen and widen.
The Administration was incapable of understanding this. And therefore so were its loyalists. The opposition was similarly incapable of realizing this, and thus of making the most convincing and most appealing case for prompt American withdrawal. Both sides still are incapable, it seems, of fully grasping this. But some of the returning soldiers and Marines with whom I have recently spoken seem completely willing to listen, and to comprehend, when the whole thing is laid out. After all, they have seen the so-called "brave Iraqis" who supposedly "want freedom" and are willing to shoulder the burden of defending it. They know that "Iraq" does not exist, that the "Iraqi" army and "Iraqi" police do not exist. They may not quite realize why Sunni-Shi'a hostilities within Iraq can only serve to weaken the camp of Islam and Jihad by dividing and demoralizing it -- and not only in Iraq. They may not quite fully realize why an independent Kurdistan would weaken not only Syria and Iran (both of which need weakening), even threatening their territorial integrity, but would also serve as a model -- Kurdistan the Model, not Iraq the Model -- for other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers of Algeria and Morocco (and even of France). But they seem remarkably willing to listen.
And so now do others, including some in Congress who are likely, in the future, to have a major say in the formation of policy.
The Old Order passeth. Or possibly goeth. As prideful obstinacy, before a fall. Before the hideously expensive pratfall named "the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq."
Not a moment too soon.
For every day it becomes clearer: Islam, the Sharia law that the mujahedin wish upon all of us, is a failure.
It is a political failure, for it locates legitimacy not in the expressed will of the people, but in the will of Allah, as expressed by him in the uncreated and immutable Qur'an, and further glossed by the hadith.
It is an economic failure, for despite ten trillion dollars in OPEC oil revenues since 1973, the Muslim oil states have everywhere failed to create modern economies, and show no signs of doing so now -- dependent as they remain on foreign workers for doing everything of significance.
It is a social failure, for it treats all women and non-Muslim men as legal and social inferiors, who are abused in many ways, and prevented from attaining to full equality.
It is an intellectual failure, for it offers a Total Regulation of Life and a Complete Explanation of the Universe that at every point discourages or even punishes independent thought and free and skeptical inquiry, and has no way to reform within itself as long as the Qur'an is not seen as a historical, man-created text but as something outside of history, and man, entirely.
Keep showing how Sharia is a complete failure. Help to create the conditions where the most advanced souls in the Islamic world will be forced to realize the connection between the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Islam, and what Islam itself is all about.
Do nothing to help them. Raise the issues at every conceivable opportunity. Show the connections outlined above.
It's all there.
The rest is merely filling in the detail.
Of course they Bush and all knew this would happen. However, once they reach the dizzy heights of power they think they are superhuman and can bring peace on earth and good will to mankind...
At the same time they sell their own nations for personal selfish financial gain. We have a string of politicians both sides of the Atlantic for a hundred years that sure up their personal empires whilst destroying the empire of the people they serve.
As they are not in touch with their own duplicity it is no surprise they are in denial about the duplicity in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, many normal Americans haven't gazed away from their navals long enough to understand their nations counter productive "meddling" overseas either.
My point is truth condemns each and every one of us humans because we all, at some time or other, deny it out of selfishness.
In our denial we do stupid things to avaoid responsibility.
The West's legacy to the world is violence in more than the middle east as we fail to understand human nature and hand over empires to despots and then sell these despots weapons and prop up their new mini-empires.
The reformation does not need to start in Iraq so much as it does in the West as we have sold our souls for sort term personal wealth and a temporary peace because truth is inconvenient and we are greedy.
Maybe this mess will wake us up to the reality of our own and our leaders' shortcomings and maybe we will do something about it?
We left a desire for virtue, chastity, honesty, self sacrifice, pilgimage, etc in the Middle Ages and now we have nothing to to defend us against those that brought forward lie, rape, greed, subdue, and oppress from the Middle Ages.
Hugh your points are well taken, but you fail to realize that Bush is human, he looked at how "Democracy" has helped bring people out of poverty, and with its introduction would be a good change for the middle east. everyone that has jumped all over this man, should realize also he is leaving in two years. so my point is who and what party will take over control. right now you have a very far left wing positioned to take over in Jan. and pelosi a far left from sanfrancisco is trying to riegn in her left leaning buddies, who will try to accomodate the poor muslims, and make deals with iran,syria, and there will be much less support for Israel. so be careful for what you wish for.
Hugh - excellent commentary, as usual. The term "War on Terror" has always frustrated me - are we at war with the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Brigades, the Symbionese Liberation Army, The Weathermen, Earth First!, etc, etc, etc, ????
No - none of the above - we are at war with Muslim terrorists who are acting in a straightforward manner on the tenets of their ideology. If the term "War with Islam" is too unpalatable for politicians and public figures to utter, perhaps "War with Islam's War on us" would work for them. It's a little wordy, but at least it is not disengenuous like the ridiculous "War on Terror."
"we are at war with Muslim terrorists who are acting in a straightforward manner on the tenets of their ideology."
-- from a posting above
But not just "Muslim terrorists" -- that is, not just with those whose preferred instrument of Jihad is terror.
No, we are at war with all those who promote Jihaad, whatever the instruments they may employ. These include the "wealth weapon,"(as it is referred to in Muslim discussions of Jihad), "pen, tongue" (i.e., propaganda), campaigns of Da'wa, and of course, most important and most difficult to deal with given the suicidal lack of imagination and of self-confidence of most Infidels, demographic conquest.
All these matter. They matter as much as, no much more than, the "terror."
Hugh has managed to change my mind on Iraq with his writings. He's right-Iraq is indeed a mess and hanging around that mess isn't doing anyone any good. I have also come to the conclusion that in some cases a dictatorship isn't such a bad thing- had Saddam kept to himself in 1990 he'd still be in power and the world would be much different. Iraq would still be under his thumb but as events of the last three years show that's what its people seem to require. Yes, it would be nice if democracy would flourish in the world but many parts of the world simply aren't suited for it. The US would be better off dealing with strongmen in the future whose interests coincide with it (as it had done in the past with the likes of Ferdinand Marcos-fighter against Islamania by the way) than to overthrow them and hopelessly try to democratize them.
If Iraq had been properly understood, then this idiotic and messianic and polypragmonic dreamy desire to reshape Iraq and "the whole Middle East" would never have occurred to anyone, much less be obstinately held on to by Bush and Bush loyalists of all kinds. Instead, it would have been jetsam thrown overboard by a sauve-qui-peut captain of the listing ship of state, the S.S. Narrenschiff, long since.
Polypragmonic, eh? Iraq and Afghanistan aren't about idle interference. In the end, the motivation is to prevent attacks at home. You enforce the doctrine of Individual Liberty and Free Trade, you create wealth and independence, and people do then not resent you and have cause to attack you.
Your honour, I present to you Germany and Japan as my witnesses, I thank you.
Iraq isn't going to be mocromanaged from the States, it will be allowed to act independently. There is no busybodiness about the invasion of Iraq at all, because it's all to do with the preservation of the West. It was a preemptive action, and not only was it justified in terms of self-defense, it was justified in a whole number of ways (Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions. Not just airy fairy ones. No, they were in violation of Chapter 7 resolutions, and pretty much at the end of that particular tether. There was WMD, and people said at the time that it was going to Syria, and now there is evidence that that was the case. The sanctions were being abused. Saddam Hussein was a monster. A real evil dictator and genocidal maniac). Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11, remember that? Do you remember that?
So what is the alternative? The alternative is to let them scrap it out. Destabilise each other, kill each other. Let them render themselves usesless. Leave Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, this is very much the Democrat/Franco-EU view of the world isn't it? (I call it the Yellow Chicken S**t I am a Traitor and a Coward Syndrome). In order for us to be free, others must be persecuted and manipulated. This has the added bonus of providing us with a victim to be feel sorry for. In fact, you just don't let them get on with it, you exploit it.
Well I have several objections to this:
It's often said on this site that it is very hard for Muslims to leave the religion themselves. That is why there must be external help for them to do that. Muslim's are not going to become non-muslims in a land ruled by Sharia.
And we are often presented by this contradiction where we are told that Islam will fight within itself, but it will also come to dominate the world. Although it's not really a contradiction, because infighting in Islam is irrelevant. Even if there is only one muslim left in the world, that is enough for the motivation to be there to make it global. Islam is coming, it has been 1400 years in the making. Shia fighting Sunni is a hiccup. Islam will get over it, it will get over all of its internal factions because of its essence of timelessness. And it has a seriously long memory, and it will remember when the West wobbled and ran away from the jihadists on the ground.
Yes, there are jihadists on the ground with AK47s. Why don't we fight them instead of running away. That will send a better message, don't you think?
The only way we derail Islam is by forcing it to change. We have to do that.
I agree that we need to have this war recognised for what it is, but in the most part, I find this to be indicative of reflexive Bush-hatred, and of course we just wrap it up in fanacy pants language in the hope of blinding folks to the reality. But folks, disregard Bush - if you hate Bush, disregard him. That way, it might help to think of this policy as less "idiotic and messianic and polypragmonic(aly) dreamy", but actually something that we can proactively follow to affect our future for the good.
Honestly, I think that with friends like this, we don't need enemies.
Hugh has managed to change my mind on Iraq with his writings
I am sorry to hear that Islamsforlosers. You see, he's got you thinking that dictatorship is all right. That's what Chirac thinks, and he is just despicable. I'm not on Chiracs side.
I'm not on Fitzgeralds side. I don't recognise anything worthy of fighting for in what he says, and I don't see anything that I recognise from my own English speaking tradition.
"In order for us to be free, others must be persecuted and manipulated."
-- from a posting above
This is a most peculiar way of attempting to describe my views. That view is, put simply, this: recognize that the Camp of Islam needs to be weakened in every way, militarily, economically, and intellectually (that is, in the certainty that it is right, that Islam is The Way). Then locate the possible ways to further that weakening, and wherever something presents itself on a platter that might divide or demoralize or otherwise weaken the Camp of Islam, do not ignore it, or still worse, attempt to do away with that source of division and demoralization. Do as little as possible where there are pre-existing conditions that will inevitably work to the benefit of Infidels and to the disadvantage of the Camp of Islam and of Muslims. This requires nothing that could be described as a policy in which "others must be persecuted and manipulated."
Hugh has managed to change my mind on Iraq with his writings
I am sorry to hear that Islamsforlosers. You see, he's got you thinking that dictatorship is all right. That's what Chirac thinks, and he is just despicable. I'm not on Chiracs side.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 22, 2006 08:37 AM
I wasn't giving all dictatorships a blanket endorsement-some are far worse than others. I wouldn't mind if Iran's disappeared but I think Pakistan will always require one-better a secular general running that place than the Taliban (although I'd prefer someone less two-faced than Mushy Raff at this point). Different countries and circumstances require different solutions. And I agree on Chirac, he is dreadful.
Hugh - thanks for the reply. I should note that I am of the school that holds the term "Muslim terrorist" as largely a redudancy, for the reasons you state - that passive support that they recieve from the Umaa and the non-military, non-violent aspects of their campaigns (Da'wa, etc). I will concede that not all Muslims are active terrorists, but all are active supremecists and hegemonists.
"I'm not on Fitzgeralds side. I don't recognise anything worthy of fighting for in what he says, and I don't see anything that I recognise from my own English speaking tradition."
-- from a posting above
What "English-speaking tradition" is that? Is there an “English speaking [sic] tradition” of not fighting wars cleverly? Of observing not merely Geneva Conventions but Marquess-of-Queensberry rules? Is that what you would like? Hasn’t one of the oldest strategies of the English dealing with enemies on the Continent to seek to weaken that perceived enemy by dividing his forces? Didn’t the English always seek to do this? And didn’t they seek to do it when they established their Empire, playing on tribal, ethnic, and other divisions in Asia and Africa wherever they could? Is it the "English-speaking tradition" of, for example, the most successful Foreign Minister of England, Lord Palmerston, who though he never left England, he knew all about the world, was always trying to act so as to divide the rivals and enemies of England? Or of Churchill, who tried to pluck from the Axis grasp, wherever possible, this or that regime – such as Spain under Generalissimo Franco, or Hungary when Premier Kallay was still in office?
Have you read what the Chief of Staff of the British Army just wrote about Iraq, and why he thinks that the Coalition forces should leave?
What in god's name are you talking about?
And what in god’s name are you talking about when you say “you don’t recognize anything worthy of fighting for” in what I say? What about all the things I have written about in a thousand or two thousand posts here since late 2003? What about artistic exspression, free and skeptical inquiry without which the enterprise of science is impossible, mental freedom of all kinds, individualism rather than the collectivism – the Umma al-islamiyya – that is at the heart of Islam? What about my constant condemnation of an essentially totalitarian system of belief, that offers only the Total Regulation of Life, and a Complete Explanation of the Universe? That isn’t something “worthy of fighting for”? The only thing you can think of “worthy of fighting for” is to stay and at great expense, in Iraq, bring “freedom” to people who, with a very few exceptions, have no sense or understanding or admiration for that entirely antipathetic-to-Islam “freedom” that we pretend can somehow be transplanted and watered with the money and blood of Americans? Islam means submission to the Will of Allah. Allah, who knows best. The only way to bring a modicum of mental freedom to societies suffused with Islam is not to impose on them mere procedural democracy – that is, an election or two – but to force them, by refusing to give them aid, to confront the sources of their own failures, their own aggression, their own inshallah-fataliams and penchant for despots. And the swource of their failures is Islam itself. And they, or a sufficient number of them, must finally stop waiting for the West to fix things without touching Islam. For Islam is the problem.
As both Parties face the facts that neither our presence nor our withdrawal will bring civility to Iraq or deter the growing jihadi movement, perhaps they are ready to hear why the problem isn’t solvable given the current state of their culture and the religion that drives that culture. This is an opportune time to direct their attention to the good work done by this site and the few like it.
I think it is less important that one aggress exactly with Hugh. The basic lesson is that knowledge is the only way to discover viable options. Our leaders and fellow citizens can at least eliminate fantastic fantasies and avoid gross errors by gaining knowledge of the religion and history of these people. It’s almost certainly a waste of time, money, and most importantly, lives, if we refuse to do our homework. Let us education our fellow citizens. Keep up the good work!
Free Lee,
Germany and Japan. Can you explain to me how Germany is like islam. Germany had a little under 15 years of fascism. The jidhadi, 1400 years of fascism. In Japan, the emperor was considered a divine figure. He was not considered a prophet. He was also alive at the time to tell the Japanese people what we wanted them to hear. No chance of that with jihadis. There were many reasons to attack Iraq, so we did. Turning it into a mini America was not what I was led to believe we would do. If you think they will up and change their 1400 year old ideology for the material things we have, you must not understand the ideology. They don’t want to make friends, they want the world to submit, and there is no room for negotiation. Convert or fight them, those are our choices. Were either of these enemies, Germany or Japan so repulsed by the rest of the world that they didn’t even want us to touch them? They think anyone who is not arab/muslim are not even human, I happen to think just the same of them. I have heard a lot of people here talk about their blind adherence to the administrations policies. These pols of today are no different than those of the last 30+ years. PC multiculti idiots who couldn’t come up with an original idea if their life depended on it. I want military men to start running for office not these pols educated in these hotbeds of anti Americanism. I do not trust anyone who has come out of those institutions of lower learning(you know who you are) over the last 30 years until they have shown me they can be trusted. Case in point, the cowardly student spokeswoman at Syracuse University says, we youth are not going to fight the jihadi for this country, Wrong, they will fight the jihadis or fight us, there will not be any side changing in the future. Millions of Americans have fought for their right to attend college, but these lowlifes of today care not if any others get the same privileges down the road. I say, when the stuff hits the fan we deport them to the jihadi areas, let them become jihadi slaves or concubines. Freedom is for those who would fight for it, the cowards who would put off to another generation deserve none/will receive none. The enemy is here, now, and sometimes they look and sound just like us.
I am not on your side.
I think that you would rely on despots to keep control of people by suppressing them and killing them, who otherwise would bring a bit of discomfort to your life. This is an elitist view point that holds that people are slave to their culture, or to their ignorance, and people who know better (probably people who use words that are not even in the dictionary) should decide that slavery is the best solution for them, and for us. That's why there is NOTHING in what you say that is worth fighting for. You want to "force them, by refusing to give them aid, to confront the sources of their own failures, their own aggression, their own inshallah-fataliams and penchant for despots." Leave them to stew in it. But I say, they can never escape from it themselves. They can only blame their deprivation on others. Us and the Jews. And what you never say is that you want human beings, who happen to be muslims, to be killed and maimed for us.
I say the Islamic ideology will keep coming, they will keep holding their perception of hatred of our way of life, and they will come all the harder if we cut and run from Iraq. We have to disabuse them of their delusion. I say again, all teh tribulations that you have in store for Muslims will not stop the Muslim ideology. Your solution only means that the misery will go on and on.
Next point, the English speaking tradition is to spread freedom, and fight back tyrrany - not rely on its suppression to give anyone an easy time. I am talking about The 1st and 2nd English civil war (the 2nd being the American revolution), the defeat of Napoleon, the coming defeat of the E.U. The English did what they could to establish themselves in the world by trade (and usually fighting off the spread of French tyranny). They took the idea of individual freedom with them.
Yes I know about what the British Chief of Staff said. He was taken out of context by all the Bush-haters, and he rapidly had to back track to clarify himself. That is what in God's name I am talking about, dude. It's rich, isn't it, because when I am trying to cut through your sophistry, that is exactly what I say to myself.
I am not on your side. Thanks to you there is poor old Islamsforlosers (otherwise a poster that I hjave read some good sense from) thinking that dictatorship is not a bad thing. He should change his name to Democarcysforlosers. I don't think that you are helping.
As for the other thing:
Britain and America invaded Europe to free it from Nazism (and if anyone tells you that the Free French stood alone with the UK, you should laugh in their face. The Vichy French did more fighting for the other side). They didn't need to be so "polypragmonic(aly) dreamy" as to think that they should assert liberty on the continent. Hitler was seeking peace with Britain. Instead, we invaded them HARD and changed their belief system. Germany was split in two, but now is a whole and (just - thanks to the EU) independent country.
Japan was invaded HARD and their belief system was changed. They are not micromanaged from Washington. Japan and Germany are like Iraq, not Islam. I didn't even say they were like Islam. Goodness me.
And the rich thing is, the thing that really makes me laugh is this, you lot want us to fight Jihad, but when we are fighting it, on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't like it. Go figure.
sorry that should have been
And what you never say is exactly what you mean:(end of first paragraph) that you want human beings, who happen to be muslims, to be killed and maimed for us.
which is appalling
In fact, no wonder Mr Spencer is batting off all these nay sayers and the do-him-dirty squads and the muck rakers.
Anyone neutral or moderately Islamic comes on this site, which should be a place where we can show support for anti-jihad in a cerebral and logical way, and sees that we want the muslims to die in their own sordid mess, will only see hatred.
And then in reaction there might be badly spelled letters sent in to Mr Spencer, which we will laugh at and call illiterate (real nice way to treat folk), and people will make racist remarks about Arabs. And how is that going to make us look? Like a bunch of idiots with nothing useful to say.
FREE LEE-
I can't say that dictatorship is a good thing-generally speaking it is not. However, it seems to me that there are sizable portions of the world that have no experience of democracy (such as Iraq)and that usually means anarchy when democracy is tried. When Saddam was ovethrown I really hoped that the people there would be relieved and would finally build some sort of democracy. Instead, we have these people killing Americans and each other, as if some horrible Pandora's Box was opened with Saddam's downfall. These people should be building a nation, not killing each other. I really don't think that Iraq will be able to build a democracy with the bloodlust going on there- the best that can be hoped for for the forseeable future is some kind of strongman who's pro-West, secular and not a bloody monster like Saddam was. I personally favor partition-let each side have its own country in the hope that if each new country doesn't have to live with murderous enemies within its borders there might be a chance for democracy to take hold.
I guess I can't help being pessimistic about democracy taking root in places like Iraq. If I have to choose between an unstable mess like the Iraq of today or a more stable Iraq run by a strongman I would have to pick the latter. Something tells me many Iraqis would choose the same option.
Free Lee:
Democracy does not equal freedom. The Palestinians voted and elected Hamas. Shia in Lebanon voted and elected Hezbollah. Hamas and Hezbollah don't care about anybody's liberty.
Pervez Musharraf, on the other hand, a dictator, just pushed through a reform of the rape law to make it almost civilized. If the people of Pakistan had voted on that change, it would not have passed.
The founding fathers recognized that democracy was a means to an end, where the end is liberty. Moslems, believing that sharia law is ordained by their god, will vote in large majorities to restrict the liberties of their fellow citizens. Dictatorship under such circumstances is the lesser of the evils.
And the Iraqis voted too, didn't they? And who did they vote for? Well, for various religious and ethnic parties. Those who favored a non-sectarian, secular, united Iraq - Allawi's list - got 8% of the vote. That's just not enough to build a country with. And now we see that the freely-elected prime minister of Iraq is in bed with the warlord Moqtada al-Sadr.
Is this what we wanted democracy to accomplish in Iraq?
Free Lee,
Not that this applies to the situation in Iraq, but just to make this quite clear: war is not a social assistance project, it is a fight for survival of people and culture. War involves killing and maiming some people to prevent their killing of maiming of other people. It stops only when both groups sincerely agree to stop killing and maiming, or when one group submits to the will of the other. If you are categorically against killing and maiming for the sake of your county, you are a 'pacifist'. That is your business, but be up front about it.
That said. The more people try to deny that we are at war because we are in serious danger, and try to pretend that it is really more about saving the world than about protecting ourselves, the more brutal and irrational people will be when events cause the very scary truth to dawn on them. America will not be lead to serious harm, through ignoring the reality of war, without a major backlash.
What hate exists on this site's comments was probably mostly born of years of government lies about the peaceful nature of Islam despite a steady stream of events strongly suggesting the contrary; suggesting that avoiding the truth is very dangerous. You cannot expect this sort of deception to not cause some serious anger and some at least tentitive hate. It may not be good, but that's how humans react to deception on serious matters.
Importantly, the honesty about Jihad ideolology on *this* site actually works to *neuter* hate which might otherwise grow, because it comes with the equally honest proclaimation that, despite the ideology's current role in mainstream in Islam, many Muslims are good people, and we still have the right and ability to talk about concerns honestly. Don't confuse the influence of the site with the influence of government and MSM lies about vital matters.
Stable republican (rights-protecting) democracy is better for all human beings than dictatoriship, becuase of what human beings are. It should be worked for, as appropriate given myriad other considerations, worldwide where ever dictatorship exists. However, democracy demands certain things of a population or else it quickly degrades to yet another dictatorship, or worse. The things it demands of a population cannot be forced from outside overnight in all situations. You can try, to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and taxpayer debt, with little improvment, but eventually the folks footing the bill will start to consider whether or not this is a realistic way of both ensuring our security and improving the world.
Again, this is a situation in which lies -- in this case about democracy (that it is an instant cure-all which can be bought for others should we provide enough tax money) -- are likely to backfire. The truth is neither that democracy can be exported in the way iPods can, nor that some people "deserve" dictatorship because of their ideological flaws. The truth is that democracy is good, and that it is good for all human beings, and that all human being deserve freedom, but that freedom simply isn't always easy or quick to get, or something that can be fostered in a direct, forceful way. Sometimes economic contact, or other non-forceful contact over many years, or maybe even withdrawing forces in a situation where they are being scapegoated, is more useful, or at least not counter productive.
We are not obligated to stay in Iraq. It might be wise to stay, for all I know (I become increasingly convinced of Hugh's position the more desperate, impoverished arguments I see against it), but your arguments don't address why that might be; they focus on our supposed duty to reform the world without serious concern for the feasibility of doing so, or concern for maintaining our ability to stay on our own feet. Leaving a place where most people don't want you isn't even killing and maiming people for us! It is, on the contrary, a way to demonstrate where the killing and maiming are *actually* coming from.
We must keep a strong military presence in the area. Possibly (as some suggested) as a fortified position in the Kurdish section of what goes by the name of "Iraq."
As for G. W. Bush, he again showed his inability to comprehend by remarking that the Islamic anti-American (and anti-Israeli) demonstrations in Indonesia pleased him as they were expressions of "democracy in action" or some such imbecilic remark.
Talking with Marines back on rotation from Iraq, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they were not unthinking automatons that had swallowed the "bringing democracy to Iraq" line of Bush & Co. They did, however, agree that pulling out of there and letting the feces hit the fan (my expression not the Marines") was not the answer.
Someone in a foregoing comment has wisely stated that inter-Moslem strife will not save the West from what is coming: the Islamic avalanche. How to stop it?
Don't let 'em in--to "our" countries. That is, severely restricted legal immigration plus the apparently impossible-to-achieve (with the idiots and self-serving people that "govern" us) secure borders.
Vigilance as concerns those (Moslems) already "in"--citizens or not. Declaring CAIR what it is: a jihadist-defending organization seeking to replace the Constitution of the United States with sharia.
This is in the US. In Europe? I don't know. leave it to a European (not a dirty word in my book) to come up with solutions for that part of the world.
When we go to meet the foe, slay him in large numbers wherever he is encountered (even at funerals for his comrades-in-jihad killed by us).
I could go on, but who is listening? Who believes that they mean business while we are listening to the "peacemakers?"
Going into Iraq and removing Saddam was good. Any suggestion by me about what should have been done afterwards is Monday morning quarterbacking. And who cares about what should've been done or could've been done. Let's start from now. The partition into three parts, let the sunnis and shiites kill each other, and, as Hugh suggested, support the Kurdish autonomy. Keep rapid-deployment strike forces there with heavier contingents to back them up. I'm no general so this is just a suggestion. Wiser heads will prevail (one hopes.)
"Going into Iraq and removing Saddam was good. Any suggestion by me about what should have been done afterwards is Monday morning quarterbacking."
--- from a posting above
Not if it was done on Sunday morning.
Go into the Archives of Jihad Watch for February, March, April 2004. Look for "Posting by Hugh" pieces. See if you think what was posted then, less than a year after the seizure of Baghdad, discussing the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a clash and the Kurdish insistence on autonomy that approximates independence, constitutes "Monday-morning quarterbacking."
Monday morning quarterbacking?
I don’t even know what that means, although I have heard the dimwits in the mmm use it. We don’t shake hands and go home on Sunday afternoon, the battle goes on, how can it be Monday morning quarterbacking? The sports analogies should be left to sports. This is war not a simple football game. Adapt and overcome, that is the American way.