More wisdom from Diana West:
Americans are confused about Iraq. They are confused about Iraq because Republicans, from the White House on down, haven't figured it out, haven't girded themselves to break through the filters of political correctness to grasp that Islam is the insurmountable obstacle to remaking Iraq as a Western-style state, and to shift our strategy in the region from being emphatically pro-democracy to being emphatically anti-jihad — the best strategy for all fronts in the "war on terror."...There's more. "The American soldiers and civilians who train the Iraqis are constantly on guard against the possibility that the police might turn against them," the Post reports. "Even in the police headquarters for all of western Baghdad, one of the safest police buildings in the capital, the training team will not remove their body armor or helmets. An armed soldier is assigned to protect each trainer."
This isn't just surreal; it's insane. As one trainer put it: "We don't know who the hell we're teaching. Are they police, or are they militia?"
Good question, fella. But no one Stateside has an answer-unless Condoleezza Rice's prattle about "the ideology of hate" (her vacuous phrase for Islam's more violent manifestations) ultimately losing to "the ideology of hope" (the stuff we're supposed to provide) constitutes an answer. She makes it sound as if what Sadr City really needs is a good Head Start program-only don't forget the body armor....
This is hardly to suggest we have no strategic interests in the region — a condition that would justify Democratic plans for speedy withdrawal. But Democrats, both by temperament and philosophy, seem incapable of figuring out what they are. And when it comes right down to it, not getting it at all (Democrats) is worse than not getting it right (Republicans). Which is probably one of the odder reasons to vote Republican. But it's better than being stuck with the party of John Kerry, in Iraq or anywhere else.
I am a Democrat who does not agree with withdrawing the troops. In fact, in my mind we probably need more. There seems to be absolutely no security, which is paramount to winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis (assuming their religion does not get in the way of that). I agree with you that the Republicans are not getting Iraq right...they have proven that. We can only hope that a Democrat-controlled congress will help the White House adopt a better direction there. I'm not sure it can get any worse. I guess that's not much of a slogan though: "Give us Democrats a try, we can't do any worse."
"The American soldiers and civilians who train the Iraqis are constantly on guard against the possibility that the police might turn against them," the Post reports.
Trust is the basis of all human achievement through cooperation but Islam creates a climate of distrust and fear that destroys the creative mind. In multi-ethnic America, we mostly ask ourselves about others: what can they do? what are they good at? In the world of Islam, as in Iraq, they are concerned about ethnicity, sect, and beliefs. We cannot project our point of view on them without being victims of Islamic deception and violence.
Americans are pratical. They are begining to see that there is something profoundly twisted about this belief-system. In this matter, we must kick the dirt from our shoes and "let the dead bury the dead".
Democracy is a nice thing. However, imposing it on people who don't want it is self defeating. Shifting from delusions of spreading democracy to going into anti jihad mode is the ONLY way to win this struggle. And if that means having to get a few not so democratic but effective allies on our side then so be it (provided we don't fool ourselves into thinking they are our bosom buddies for life and that we can change them). We had Stalin on our side in WW2 and we all knew (many people did, anyway) what a bastard he was but without his help Hitler(an even worse bastard at the time) would not have been defeated as quickly as he was.
Iraq, like Gaza, should be seen as a Demonstration Project. Not a Demonstration Project of "democracy" on the march. But a Demonstration Project that shows what happens, and will happen, when there is neither a despot, or strongman (the strongman need not be as strong as Saddam Hussein, and sometimes power can be diffused as with the princes -- in the Sudeiri line--of the Al-Saud), along with an army and secret police to hold things in check in a society suffused with Islam.
In such a society, the aggression and failure to compromise (so essential in advanced Western democracies) will inevitably create, out of any rivalry for money and power (and in societies where the only money comes from control of the government, which receives and allocates the only real source of income for the so-called "rich" Muslim countries (that still have been unable, or indifferent, to the creation of modern economies, and rely on wage-slaves from abroad) -- those revenues from the sale of oil and gas revenues, for those Muslim countries that possess the necessary deposits.
The only other source of real money, which is received by the Muslim states that do not possess oil (and gas) wealth, is that of the disguised Jizyah of Infidel foreign aid. And that too is sent to governments, with lots of skimming off the top, and more than the top, sometimes all the way down to the bottom. It is American aid, for example, that continues to help pay for Mubarak's family-and-friends plan, for son-of-plucky-little-king-Hussein Abdullah of Jordan and his assorted mediagenic female relatives (his wife, and not-quite-valide-sultan Queen Noor, with that "Act of Faith" feelgood nonsense), and all the others who forgot to be born with oil and gas under their countries.
In the United States, people who make or strike or inherit it rich then often spend money tryng to acquire high office (you know: "to give something back" or to engage in "public service" --meaning they love the fame, they love the attention, they love being important, and besides, after the first hundred million, you get bored and boys just want to have fun). In the Arab and Muslim countries, the only way to really get rich is to obtain political power, or even to seize control of the government. That is what is being fought over in Iraq, among other things -- and it will be fought over, no matter what the Americans do, and indeed the more money the American govenment pours in, the more fighting over it, rather than sharing of it contentedly, will occur. The psychology of Islam -- read Andre Servier, read so many others -- has not been given sufficient study or thought.
What do I mean "sufficient"? In the American as in other governments of the Western world, it has been given no attention. That's what I mean.
Diana West has a point... the theme of most of our governmental effort should be 'anti-jihad' but we need another dimension as well. The way to win in the long term will be through ideas. Our ideas will win if they have enough time and a physically secure medium to grow. We can plant the seeds of democracy through a) taking the ability to mount organized attacks away from the jihadists b) enabling the free exchange of ideas c) doing the best we can to make it physically secure for people who renounce tryanny.
c is problematic... we can only have spotty consistency for long periods of time. But given enough time our marketplace of ideas will win. (US means the entire free world - not simply The West)
We need to destroy those who would enslave others, the fighters & the religious leaders as well. We need to take away their ability to mount attacks and control the people. THEN we can plant the seeds of free thought, expression and of conscience. People who are under threat of physical violence will not be able to develop the way they need to if they are to join the rest of us in the free world. I refer to Maslow's hierarch of needs... at the base is security of person. Humans can't develop past this first level in his model until their basic security needs are met. The jihadis and imams must be removed from the equation. ISLAM is the 'al-qaeda' - translated 'the base' we must fight and decimate -- not al-Qaeda the terrorist network.
I'm a Republican who thinks neither side will sanely address Iraq, or any other trouble spot in the middle east, because the governmental leadership of neither party will come out and say that a primary issue of the region's turmoil is Islamism, as defined in the sources of the Koran and Hadith.
The largest concentration of oil reserves on the planet is sitting directly under territory occupied by people dominated by a worldview espoused by a seventh-century warlord. American or other policy makers would have to include a demand for Islamic reform as part of any genuine attempt to civilize the area.
If the west did this, our erstwhile partner in the harvesting of this oil for the last sixty or so years, Saudi Arabia, would either have go along with the resulting explosion of anti-west hatred and stop cooperating with us, or risk near certain destruction from within at the hands of its own fundamentalist muslim population, thus ending the playboyish reign of the Saud family.
As a result, we have our forces on the ground in Iraq taking fire on some vague pretence of social reform, when our political leadership can't, or won't, identify the real malaise of the society we're supposedly trying to help.
It would be great if there was a more intricate, sophisticated answer to wrap our freely inquisitive minds around, but I don't believe there is one.
As long as the economy of the world is dependent on oil, there will be a western military presence in the middle east. To expect either party to deal with the cultural issues involved forthrightly and honestly, along with all the implications of doing so, is a stretch. At least until such a cataclysm occurs that the politicians can't do the potomac two-stem around the them anymore.
West for President.
And Secretary of State.
Sadly, as a Republican, I must admit there's a lot of truth to what Ms. West says. The Administration has been far too politically correct and failed to educate the American public on islam. I suppose too many in the Administration buy the "religion of Peace" non-sense. Then again, can you imagine the firestorm of criticism if GW Bush came out and told it like it is?
"Give us Democrats a try, we can't do any worse."
Sorry, Democrats can do a lot worse. The party right now is controlled by extremist left wing nut jobs who are philosophical allies of the Islamists who hate this country, Western Civilization and Christians and Jews. The Dhimmicrats will worsen the situation dramatically with their appeasement and deny the role Islam plays in terrorism. They will place the blame for Jihad on our policies instead of where it really lies. The Islamists want the Democrats in power. That's all I need to know. Enough said.
Re: Islam, what difference does it really make if a politician is democrat or republican? In the end it comes down to "not alienating" voters, to getting elected. They're whores all.
As an Islamophobe, I believe I am second to none, but I will not vote for the "what me worry" party that gave us Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney.
Let Bush feel heat on his ass.
I have been urging for a couple of years now that the answer to sorting the jihadists from those who can be loyal to a pluralistic regime in Iraq is to use the brain-scanning lie-detection technology that is already quite reliable. We have the technology. We just aren't using it.
It appears as if Diane West has been reading posts by Hugh Fitzgerald. Thank-you for visiting JihadWatch, Diane.
Hugh,
Don't forget about all the money Kofi Anin and Saddam Insane skimmed from the U.N.'s jizya to Iraq...
Just thought I'd mention that.
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
I'm sure that if the Athenians and Romans tried to bring democracy or an "ideology of hope" to the Persians or the Huns, all those nasty problems of raping and pillaging could have been avoided.
There's more. "The American soldiers and civilians who train the Iraqis are constantly on guard against the possibility that the police might turn against them,"
What's that old saying again? Something about sows' ears and silk purses? Being pigs, they fit this saying quite well.
The Iraqi "police", that is.
"Give us Democrats a try, we can't do any worse."
Yes, scrap the Patriot Act, stop listening in on terrorists, give every jihadi a lawyer so he can make a joke of us in front of the world. Shut down the Guantanamo Ice Cream Parlor. Open the borders so jihadists don’t have to work too hard getting in. To them Bush is the real enemy, with Cheney a close second. To them there is no jihad, it is a figment of our imagination. One day you are going to wake up to terrorists at your door and you will wonder, briefly, I thought it couldn’t get any worse?
A dem house would be a disaster, what with appeasement stupidity and cowardice ( and Jimmy Catta).
At least with the republicans we are in the right spot at the right time and we can influence policy.
Agree with West - change the emphasis to anti- jihad. It's on the road to Iran.
The inability or unwillingness of the soldiers being trained to be members of the “Iraqi” army or “Iraqi” police who can be relied on, can be trusted, first to fight alongside the American troops who are now doing almost all of the real fighting (the Iraqis, of various kinds, have been great at kidnapping and torturing people of other various kinds, and then leaving their bodies, dismemberd or intact, here and there throughout Baghdad and the rest of the country, but that’s not what one means by fighting), and then without the Americans being present to actually to behave semi-decently toward civilians or the prisoners they take, and furthermore, to do their fighting for an ideal called “Iraq” (an ideal that the American soldiers are imbued with, or at least they were until reality began to set in, far more than those “Iraqis” who run away, or who fire wildly, or who show up only to pick up their paychecks but never for the real battles – and that takes care of a great many of them, especially of the Arabs rather than Kurds). No, they are not fighting for “Iraq” but, when they fight at all, almost always for the possibility of of inflicting damage on others not of the same sectarian or ethnic background. This ineluctable problem has been pointed out, in many articles and in hundreds of postings at JW, many quite detailed – for nearly three years.
Here is just one of the more recent examples – a mere 14 months old:
"Iraq's doomed police training
Paula Broadwell writes in the Boston Globe, with thanks to Hugh Fitzgerald.
IN SEPTEMBER 2003, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs constructed the Jordan International Police Training Center outside of Amman to train Iraq law enforcement personnel. Sixteen nations provide a total of 352 police trainers for the center. The camp has a capacity to train 3,000 Iraqi police recruits in an eight-week basic police skills course and graduate 1,500 new police every month. New Iraqi police come away with a coveted paycheck ($150) and sufficiently trained and equipped to counter foreign intelligence operations, pandemic lawlessness in an anarchic society, and insurgents who target US troops or collaborators.
In April 2005 I had the chance to visit the center, the world's largest international police training camp. I am a military officer and have been deployed throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, but this was one of the nicest training posts I have ever seen. However, the comprehensive training I witnessed was disheartening. The Iraq coalition constituency deserves to know why this mission is likely to fail.
There are three main reasons why these forces will never be ready to defend their country: The wary, uncommitted recruits are immature and lackadaisical about the mission; the parsimonious training is inadequate; and accountability once recruits return to Iraq is inconsistent at best and lacks the return on investment that one would expect.
The recruit pool. According to international instructors at the camp, the troops are often recruited from among intimidated teenagers or disillusioned, desperate unemployed men left with few job prospects in their chaotic country. We aren't always getting the highest quality ''volunteers" because many of those have already joined the insurgency. Others are understandably concerned about their life expectancy if they join the police. In spite of most of the high-quality, experienced instructors, I learned that a clan relative of the Jordanian terrorist mastermind Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was also an employee at the camp, adding an interesting element to operational security.
Return on Investment. Purportedly, about 40 to 60 percent of these graduates never actually join the Iraqi police force when they return from Jordan. They defect, taking their coveted pay and their new skills to the insidious insurgency, according to liaison officers in Iraq. Some are forced to give up the weapons they were issued at this camp to corrupt local police chiefs; these often end up on the black market. Others lose their firearms in insurgent raids on police stations. Sadly, too many are targeted immediately upon return to Iraq. Forty-six newly returned graduates on a bus were executed point-blank by insurgents this spring; more than 1,500 of those who have made it into the police force have died just this year..."
[Posted by Rebecca on August 30, 2005 01:19 PM]
Three subsequent postings under that thread elaborate upon the significance of Bradwell’s observations:
#1.
“This article points out the near-hopelessness of the situation. It is cruel to force the entire weight of the Administration's misunderstanding of both Islam and Iraq onto the soldiers, the officers and men who are supposed to train "Iraqi" police and an "Iraqi" army when there is no such feeling for "Iraq" -- not at least outside a handful of people, the very handful of unrepresentative Iraqis whom, outside Iraq, and inside, the Americans have met and assumed were the "people of Iraq." But Rend al-Rahim Francke, Ahmad Chalabi, Kanan Makiya and all the rest had spent decades abroad. They were mostly well-off and well-educated and whether Sunni or Shi'a, largely secular. For their own good and sufficient reasons, they wanted the Americans to depose Saddam Hussein. This the Americans did. But these completely unrepresentative "Iraqis," the way they offered prospects of things to come in a Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations Iraq, and did so plausibly and pleasingly, are not Iraq. The real Iraq, the Iraq that the soldiers have to deal with, is much more primitive, much more determinedly hostile to Americans (except insofar as they can be temporarily bought off, like a tribal leader here or there, by infusions of American cash -- are we to keep transfusing that cash to the endlessly corrupt "Iraqis" and if so, what will we really be getting in return, save for a temporary cessation of hostilities in this or that small area of a large country?).
The author of the article for some reason does not mention, in her discussion of the treacherous nature of the recruits, so many of whom take the cash, and the weapons, and the training all supplied by the Americans, and then promptly join the most violent enemies of those same Ameicdans, the intractable problem of Kurd mistrust of Arabs, of Shi'a mistrust of Sunnis (and both with good reason, solidly based on experience over a long period). Perhaps she had not been thinking on those lines. If she has the leisure to think at the Kennedy School this year (despite the Kennedy School, not becasue of it) perhaps she will take a moment to read Bat Ye'or on The Dhimmi, and even more relevant to Iraq, Elie Kedourie's "The Chatham House Version." One needs officers in the army to educate themselves about Islam and about Iraq -- it is too bad it has to happen so late in the day.”
[Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2005 03:07 PM]
#2.
"the iraqi's won't forget those who foght for them"
-- from a posting above
“No, the Iraqis will be just as grateful, no doubt, as the Egyptians have proven over the past 25 years during which they have received $60 billion from the American taxpayers, or as the "Palestinians" have proven to be for the billions they recieved (and somehow managed to misplace, so pretty please send us more right away to make Gaza bloom, because otherwise we might have to get nasty and that would be bad for the road-map and the two-state solution and...."). They have already forgotten what the Americans did for them, are doing for them.
Oh, I'm not saying all Iraqis are like that. There is Kanan Makiya. That's one. There's Rend al-Rahim Francke. That's two. There's Ahmad Chalabi. That's three. Gosh, I could go on all night, and I bet if I put my mind to it I could name all -- what, 20,000 Arabs in Iraq, oh -- the Kurds are another matter -- who are genuinely grateful, and seem to understand the West and appreciate its ways. Why of course they do -- they've all spent at least 25 years in that West. but what about the rest of the Muslim Arabs in Iraq, the 20 million or so (deducting for the Kurds). Out of those 20 million, let's not stick to 20,000, but make it 50,000. No, let's go wild -- let's say there are 100,000 Muslim Arabs (i.e. not counting the Kurds, and not counting the Christians who worked as the house staff -- cooks, drivers, etc. -- for Saddam Hussein and then did the same for the American generals and high civilians in the Green Zone) who are truly grateful.
Well, that just isn't enough. That just is not enough on which to base a policy. There are some very nice Iraqis, and the Americans in Washington and in Baghdad have met every single last one of them. That's what they have to realize. Emerson wrote something called "Representative Men." Well, the problem with the Iraq policy is partly that it was based, and continues to be based, on "Unrepresentative Men." And women too -- like that girl who hugged the dead Marine's parents at that Washington soiree. Sentimental, a crowd-please, and the most unrepresentative Iraqi you could possibly find. Fun for the crowd, cruel for the spectators at home, who were being offered the equivalent of a Potemkin-village Iraq.”
[Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2005 08:41 PM]
#3.
"After the dust settles we attack the winner...Is that so wrong?"
-- from a posting above
“Not wrong, but not necessary. The dust will not settle. The Sunni-Shi'a split will remain, the fault line not along the Iran-Iraq border, but within Iraq. Let the Sunnis and the Shi'a receive outside help. The Shi'a help is likely to consist of basijis, True Believers, whom those who hate the Islamic Republic of Iran will be glad to see go, as cannon fodder, making their own task of undoing the Islamic Republic easier. In the mess, the Americans can concentrate on destroying or heavily damaging Iran's science project -- which must take precedence over everything else.
The dust will not settle, and there will be no winner to "attack." But resources of all kinds, and upheavel of all kinds -- and we want upheavals, we should welcome upheavals, all over the Muslim countries, one damn upheaval after another, until the Infidels or enough of them have taken their crash courses in Islam, and a new understanding of what needs to be done can be shared between North America and Western Europe. The spectacle of intra-Muslmi warfare, with the traditional ways of that warfare (no more American kid-gloves, Geneva-convention stuff -- that's for Infidels), will do much to spoil the Da'wa pitch made to vulneraable Infidels in the West, casting about, either on a spiritual search, or on a search for some ready-made vehicle to express their alienation, even hatred, of their circumambient society -- and along comes Islam to fit the bill.
No, the dust won't settle. It can't. But American troops right now are being asked to move heaven and earth to creae an "Iraqi" army, and an "Iraqi" police, and to move heaven and earth to make sure that Sunnis and Shi'a create a democratic Peaceable Kingdom. Why? Why would that help us contain Islam? What is the sense in this? It is machiavellian in reverse. How ignorant of Islam and of Iraq must some of the policymakers be, and how blind to the possibilities (blind because wilfully timid) of other, more effective, less profligate, policies?”
[Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2005 10:30 PM]
A good deal, perhaps almost everything, that can or needs to be said about Iraq has already been said at JW. This includes: what was rational and justified, and what was not, in both the intial invasion and then in what that invasion and occupation turned into, and why the war was won long ago (and “victory” claimed on these pages), and why the “Iraqis” do not exist and in any case will never compromise as required with one another, and why this is not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing, and why ethnic and sectarian fissures and economic fissures that exist, that do not have to be created or even encouraged by Infidels, are already present in Iraq (and the third main fissure, that between haves and have-nots, may also turn out to be relevant), and need only be exploited by the merest act: the act of withdrawal and thereby ceasing to prevent such fissures from growing and being acted upon, as they already are.
Press and Pentagon, to find what you want, on any topic you need, just google away. Saves time, saves effort. And just as the evidence suggests that more and more members of the press are not only visiting this site regularly and, not surprisingly, by dint of constant repetition certain themes have been introduced permanently into their consciousnesses, then the same can hold true for the Pentagon, even the State Department (where one hopes those on the Euopean desks will begin to express their anxiety about the islamization of Western Europe, and do battle over the right policy to be adapted toward Islam and the instruments of Jihad with those who, until now, have been in charge of such matters – those who have been in charge, often disastrously, of the Middle Eastern desks. Why not just put whatever subject you are looking for into the Search Box, click, pull up, read, and then circulate, or crib if you wish, to your heart’s content.
That would cost nothing. It might save one hundred billion dollars. Or two hundred billion. But who’s counting? Who has the time to be so vigilant?
Let Bush feel heat on his ass.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 3, 2006 10:47 AM
.. and let the Republican Party pay for Sheikh Jorge-al Bush selling out hard-working, tax-paying and honest Americans to Islam (remember, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight "terror" AFTER 9/11, blanked pages on Saudi Arabia, from 9/11 commission report, gave money and F-16s to Pakistan and invited CAIR to Iftaar dinners) and illegal immigrants (remember 'jobs Americans won't do, pagtriotic Minutemen called "vigilanties" and his amigo Vicente "The Fox").
Consider this when you vote:
Al Quaeda top dog said recently that Iraqi and coalition forces have killed over 4,000 "foreign fighters" (Islamic terrorists) in Iraq, so don't let anyone convince you that our efforts and sacrifice are not a part of the "war on terror". If we pull out of Iraq too soon, many Iraqis will die needlessly, and many emboldened jihadis will be free to roam. One party will stay until the job is done and the Iraqis can police themselves, one party will leave, redeploy, cut, whatever.
I ask you...where would they send our forces? This is a worldwide struggle and we are winning in Iraq. Go to some military websites to get the true story on Iraq. Mainstream media paints an untrue picture of this bizarre and unpredictable conflict. We need to stick this one out, tough as it is. The stakes are high.
As much as I hate war, I couldn't be prouder of our brave volunteer military who face the most brutal street warfare and continue to enlist and prevail in the field. Support Americas' troops here: www.americasupportsyou.mil
They're the finest army in the world, and they really need our e-mail to boost their spirits. We need to maintain a strong military. One party will continue to support the military, one party will gut our forces once again to fund social programs.
I don't know if Bush is emulating the duplicty of the enemy when he hosts Ramadan feasts and calls Islam a religion of peace...I only know that we're helping kill thousands of the enemy while he does this, and it needs to continue.
Not one of my favorite news sources but...
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-23T095742Z_01_GEO743062_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Decent Iraqis appear to want us to stay.Don't give them a death sentence with the wrong vote.
For anyone who missed it, here’s a few reasons to vote,
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/
And here’s the reason we are getting them first where ever they are,
http://www.company71.org/wtc.htm
Vote like you life depends on it, it does.
but......
we also get more of this....
US stops audit of Iraq rebuilding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6114132.stm
how dare we want to see how our resorces are mis-handled(no-bid contract's,chargeing what they want,telling us what they are spending the money on)
NOT ,telling us what they are spending the money on,i meant
We can only hope that a Democrat-controlled congress will help the White House adopt a better direction there. I'm not sure it can get any worse. I guess that's not much of a slogan though: "Give us Democrats a try, we can't do any worse."
Posted by: Inhocdana at November 3, 2006 08:20 AM
Look, the Democrats have no alternative plan for Iraq and most of them consider the threat from islamic terrorism to be either nonexistent or the result of American foreign policy. Frankly, I'm less worried about Iraq than our open borders and as we all know, Democrats are strong advocates of open borders. Democrats are on the wrong side of everything that matters.
I don't want socialist government healthcare and I don't care if gays get married; those issues are trivial compared to the threat of nuclear terrorism in America. I want our borders sealed and protected and I want someone in Washington to wake up and admit that islam is a a deadly scourge that must be stopped. What is the point of fighting fanatic jihadists in Iraq if we're going to let them walk across our borders and disappear until they are ready to start killing us? The Republicans may still not "get it", but they're much closer than the democrats will ever be.
Democrats would give the terrorists in Quantanamo Constitutional rights and probably release them and allow the ACLU to sue the United STates government for billions. They would kill the Patriot Act and every other program developed to prevent attacks on this country. They would appease muslim demands and promote European socialism. They would destroy our strong economy with tax increases and continue to promote collectivism, socialism, the welfare state, and judicial tyranny to impose their will on issues the people are opposed to. They would further weaken the military and encourage illegal immigration.
There is no choice in this election. As sorry as the Republicans have been on many issues, the Democrats would be ten times worse! We cannot place the security of this country in the hands of Democrat radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Charles Rangel. I can't believe people continue to elect these lunatics. There is more at stake here than just the ill-conceived war in Iraq. If the Democrats win next week, it will be a victory for islam, jihad, and the jihadists. They don't deserve any victories, least of all the victory of dictating the outcome of our elections.
Everyone is so focused on Iraq and completely
missing the fact the IRAN is the key to the
increased violence.
Also, the Russians are helping Iran with nuclear technology as the Iranians have none themselves.
So, to solve the problem we have to deal with Iran AND Russia. Many think the Cold War is over and that is not true. The Russians are trying a new twist. Arafat was a pawn of Russia.
Do we have the political and moral will to deal with Iran and Russia as it needs to be or will we play "footsie" in Iraq.
Geo-politics is the answer, not a single country such as Iraq.
Many interesting comments have been shared above and especially by Hugh, thank you for your insightful posts across a whole range of serious subjects here. I'll begin by declaring I am not a fan of the liberal MSM bias worldwide. What is at stake is above politics, way above simple minds and opinions, and polls and theory - what's at stake, brave troops in Iraq know daily. They know it in a blink of an eye. The Dem's dissent for the GOP pales in comparison to the pure evil hatred radical Islam holds for the West.
The Democrats have much to learn in terms of the nature of the beast that is radical Islam. I feel as others do here, that the type of harangue that comes from secular liberal quarters is destructive, and serves, excites and pleases the same “people” who 5yrs ago jumped with joy watching the trade towers collapse. As informed visitors to this site well know, global jihadist could care squat for the values, beliefs and platform held by the Dems, indeed for all non-muslim infidels. An elitist left wing intellectual armed only with his opinions, misguided sympathies, theories and a NYT subscription would last no more than a few breaths if dropped into a Taliban zone. However, I welcome the Dems into the congressional fold, and only because it may (here's hoping) finally introduce them to the harsh reality that is radical Islam – and in full Technicolor.
With regards to efforts and actions undertaken to face terrorists abroad today, I want to share a fascinating insight from a general and leader who had to confront much the same savagery and asymmetrical warfare some 2,000 years ago...
"Do you believe that so many nations accustomed to the name and rule of another, united with us neither by religion, nor customs, nor community of language, have been subdued in the same battle in which they were overcome? It is by your arms alone that they are restrained, not by their dispositions, and those who fear us when we are present, in our absence will be enemies. We are dealing with savage beasts, which lapse of time only can tame, when they are caught and caged, because their own nature cannot tame them ... Accordingly, we must either give up what we have taken, or we must seize what we do not yet hold."
- Alexander addressing his troops on the approach
to Afghanistan; Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander
I'm sure many here would agree the Dems deep resentment of the GOP clouded any effort to come up with practicable solutions concerning Iraq all these years, and no solutions on matter of radical Islam and jihad.
Americans will vote and voice their feelings at the ballot soon and if the Dems do capture a majority then they will finally have to confront much they have chosen to ignore all these years. We'll all see how steely and decisive they really are (or not)..
So liberals take note, don't be surprised when the retreat from Iraq you daydream about languishes on and or fails to materialize. The Dems will also have to answer their voters as to why when that time comes... and if a full cowardly retreat is their only solution they will have to answer to global opinion when Assyrian Christians and other minority groups are left open to annihilation and a hell is unleashed upon them like nothing seen in Iraq so far...
Iran's perverted influence on the region definitely needs to be addressed soon. Imho, if anything could send shivers through radical islamists everywhere and especially in the mid-east it would be Russian soldiers fighting side by side with US troops... Russia could do more for the region and the whole world by joining western forces than trying to squeeze temporary dollars out of Tehran and Ahmadinejad. Pipelines can be turned off at the valve at a moments notice, or Israel could have them destroyed along with nuclear plants in a matter of days...