But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down. – David Bell in this article
Apparently the author, though having nothing piercingly original to offer, nonetheless felt he had to have his say on the Pressing Matter of the Day, and did so. He contented himself with the banal observation that what we see before us -- the entire Baby-Huey operation of "boots on the ground" in Iraq, determined to prevent those very fissures, sectarian and ethnic, that we should welcome -- is an "overreaction."
He did not wait to find the right word: it is not an "overreaction" but a misguided reaction. It is a reaction of the kind that will come if we persist, like Bush (or like David Bell), in thinking that this is a "war on terrorism." In that case there is no need even to begin to think of all the other instruments of Jihad, the more effective and dangerous instruments, such as the money weapon, Da'wa, and demography. For if Jihad proceeds with instruments other than terror, and Infidels are only engaged in a "war on terror," then we should be content with any analysis that focuses on that. And so the disagreement between the Bush Administration and David Bell is merely over the size of that "terror" threat, and the proper size of our military and security steps to meet that "threat."
Nothing here about the islamization of Europe. Nothing here about the systematic long-term attacks on Christians in Indonesia (thousands of churches destroyed in 2003 alone), on Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, and deep into India. Nothing here about attacks on Christians over the past few decades in Nigeria (the Jihad that Col. Ojukwu, head of Biafra, was fighting against), nor in southern Sudan, nor within a great number of sub-Saharan countries. Nothing about the worldwide activities of the World Muslim Congress or the financing of mosques and madrasas, for which the Saudis have spent $100 billion in the last two decades. (The Soviet Union, in all the years of its existence, never spent abroad on pro-Soviet propaganda and agents more than $10 billion.) Nothing about the takeover of academic departments, or at least the use of Arab money to endow Centers (Durham, Exeter, Georgetown), or expensively-upholstered chairs (University of California, Harvard Law School, and a great many other places), where the King Abdul Aziz Professor of this, and the Guardian of the Two Holy Places Professor of that, can make sure that neither they nor the successors they choose ever enlighten the students about Islam. Thus, for example, does Frank Vogel help pick, with a little help from Roy Mottahedeh and John Esposito, Noah "After Jihad" Feldman to continue to misinform Harvard Law students about Islam, providing a guide to nothing and to nowhere, for the next 35 years. But how would the faculty members, innocent of Islam and of what is going on in the field, be aware of that until long after Feldman arrives, trailing clouds of glory?
Perhaps David Bell is merely disturbed at the colossal waste: the squandering in Iraq of men's lives, of vast sums of money ($700 billion in past and committed future costs), and of war materiel. Then there is the damage to American morale, military as well as civilian -- all to pursue a will-o'-the-wisp of "freedom" and "democracy" in a united, stable, prosperous Iraq that will be a Light Unto the (Sunni Arab) Muslim Nations. That, readers of this site understand, is both impossible and exactly the wrong goal to pursue.
He might merely have written: a response that is purely military, based on a misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the menace, is the wrong response and the wrong type of response, insufficiently various, effective, ruthless, and cunning. For that menace, David Bell might have referred readers to others: See, for example, Bat Ye'or, Oriana Fallaci, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Allam, Anne-Marie Delcambre, Alain Finkielkraut, Alain Besancon, Ali Sina, Bassam Tibi, Wafa Sultan, and a thousand others -- not one of whom, I suspect, David Bell has yet read, digested, thoroughly assimilated.
Poor Bell, it really is too bad "only" 3000 Americans died on 9/11-perhaps 3 million would have been suitable for the reaction that did happen. I suppose it would have been best for Bell if we "did a Clinton" after 9/11-make a speech or two and then forget about it because then 3 million deaths would have been more likely in future attacks. But then would 3 million out of 300 million people have been enough for Bell? Probably not-for boobs like Bell no number of American deaths are enough for the US to kill as many as one terrorist because, after all, the US is the root of all the world's evils and these people are justified in hating us. After all, Islam is peaceful-1400 years have shown that without any doubt-so we have no excuse at all to do what we have done.
If you ask me, Bush did not overreact or react in a misguided manner. He has UNDERreacted. I doubt China would have reacted with as much restraint
(deliberate or otherwise by Bush) had it been the target of 9/11.
3,000 deaths at the hands of Islamic Activists on 9/11 is apparently insufficient to trigger Professor Bell's threshold of righteous indignation sufficient to justify a massive reaction (which he would not consider to be an over-reaction).
If he needs higher raw casualty numbers to really get his dander up, perhaps he should refocus his attention on the abortion holocaust, which since 1973 has claimed the lives of millions and millions of innocent children. I am sure that the National Right to Life organization would welcome his talents and energy.
It's always interesting to see the reaction whenever you discuss Bush's Iraq War policy.
Lots of conservatives have been drawn to Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch to hear you guys demonize the enemy and tell them how dangerous the Islamic threat is. But as soon as you draw from that the conclusion that Bush's Iraq War policy is misplaced or misguided, they shy away.
That's not what they want to hear. They crave reassurance that what Bush is doing in the Middle East is right, and that our troops there are not dying in vain.
That there is a genuine Islamic threat there, despite what Leftists like Michael Moore say, we can all agree on here. But as soon as you start sounding like you're criticizing Bush or his Iraq War policy, forget it!
I've gotten that same reaction too. And it's also why the recommendations of columnist Diana West (who is a lone voice of conservative sanity in a neoconservative loony bin) to change our course in Iraq, have fallen on deaf ears as well.
The implication of what you're saying, Hugh, is that those brave American soldiers who have given their lives in the past two years to support Bush's democracy-building venture, died in vain. That is a message more likely to resonate with Leftists than with the conservatives who usually frequent this website. You do realize that, right?
I want the Infidels to win. That's all I care about.
Perhaps the troops currently stationed in Iraq can now focus on a more threatening enemy next door. So, I suppose the Iraq War has some use.
Steven L,
I think that (dare I use the word?!) the situation may be more (hmmmm) nuanced. Yes, you have those who will not abide by any criticism of Bush's war in Iraq. But there are others (in the middle ground), who are more open to critiques. These are people who do not object to the principle of invading Iraq (the initial military invasion and victory as declared on the aircraft carrier), but who now see enormous difficulties and a no-win situation (and who are looking for a rapid exit strategy).
The other night on CNN Michael Ware suggested that there are actually 4 hidden wars being fought in Iraq. There are the former Baathists (the "insurgents") fighting the American occupation; there are the religious extremists (al-qaeda types) fighting everyone; there are the sectarians (that's the Shiite vs Sunni rift). Then the fourth war is the proxy war with Iran.
Most of the fighting appears to be not directly related to the Americans. So the question really does become, why get involved? and even if one does become involved, how would an American presence ever hope to stop genocidal extremists (many within the Iraqi govt) from killing Sunnis? or vice versa.
A way out must be found.
"The other night on CNN Michael Ware suggested that there are actually 4 hidden wars being fought in Iraq."
-- from a posting above
Michael Ware, with that disturbingly asymmetric face (that nose which perhaps was pushed to one side in a bar-room brawl), did make many intelligent points, despite the presence of the ever-obtuse and annoying Charlie Rose (what does Amanda Burden see in him?). But he kept talking about how all the alternatives were terrible, how an American withdrawal would be a "catastrophe."
"Catastrophe" for whom, I wanted to ask but the television's set antiquated technology wouldn't let me. Not for us. Not for Infidels. For the Camp of Islam.
That, readers of this site understand, is both impossible and exactly the wrong goal to pursue.
We all know that the short term goal is to foment and return to the salad days of the Iraq-Iran war.
But as I see it the only possible long term goal is to pursue systematic de-Islamization of Moslem populations, or to quarantine inveterate Moslems.
Now we can have a new "Bell Curve", representing not those few who are smarter and get the Problem of Islam, but those many who seen incapable of matriculating to the simple insight that extraneous non-Islamic factors cannot explain the mountain of disturbing data (including the tinkle of a headless ice cream vendor's bell in Thailand) coming out of the Muslim milieus. The new Bell Curve is cracked -- not from tolling the clear-headed clarion of independence and liberty, but from ignoring the incessant knell of Islamic slavery and intolerance.
About the "Catastrophe" -- I'm not entirely convinced that a melt-down in the Middle East (and beyond) wouldn't eventually hurt Infidels...
Back to the Matthew Fisher scenario of a domino-effect -- we'd be facing potential Shiite uprisings in the Hejaz of S. Arabia, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, etc. There could be oil interruptions, etc.
Unfortunately, the west does have ties (oil ties primarily) to some of these areas, and maybe stability is preferable (?).
Might be another "war" in addition to the 4 strands listed above -- this strand, not quite so hidden -- between government forces and messianic, apocalyptic cults. On Sunday, there was the "Battle of Najaf." There was (supposedly) a cult leader who claimed to be the earthly representative of the hidden imam (apparently, the British citizen who was his barber was also killed in the ensuing fire-fight.)
Michael Ware is reporting that the details are still uncertain (including even whether or not it was a cult or an Iranian vs anti-Iranian battle or a Shiite break-away militant group out to kill al-Sistani).
Speaking of melt-downs in Iraq...(Oh, and i do like Michael Ware, I think he's one of the best reporters out there, and very courageous...unlike all of us arm-chair militants...:)
It would take far less, in an emergency, to seize the oilfields of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (where the Shi'a of Saudi Arabia, several hundred thousand of them, all live), and the U.A.E., and Qatar with its natural gas, then to hold Baghdad. And if there were attacks on oilfields, the rest of the oil-consumers in Europe, in India, in China, not only would not be angry, but would be positively begging the Americans to "do something." Perhaps we should let them beg, and keep begging.
And it is entirely possible that the Saudis themselves will beg the Americans to take over the oilfields if they are threatened by Shi'a unrest and sabotage, aided by Iranian agents who might come through via Dubai (with its 400,000 Iranians). Just think of it: the House of Al-Saud begging the Americans to seize and hold those oilfields, lest they be blown up by maddened Shi'a.
It could happen.
The worry about what will happen to the oil is a phony one, encouraged by those who want us to continue to remain in Iraq only in order to fight the Shi'a and protect the Sunnis from them. It is a transparent ploy, if you have normal eyesight. If you are wilfully blind, or have received money from the Saudis or other Arabs, whether directly or indirectly, now or in the recent past -- see Raymond Close, see Brent Scowcroft, see John Esposito, see James Akins, see George Mcgovern, see Jimmy Carter, see see see -- then of course you will keep repeating "but what about the oil, what about the oil? We can't let the whole place go up in flames."
One, it won't happen. The Muslims know perfectly well that if they attack the oilfields of the enemy, their fields will not be spared. Look at what happened during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, and how careful, after some initial tit-for-tat, they both were not to harm the oilfields of the other. The price of oil went steadily down, by the way, from 1980 to 1988.
Two, a little bit of fear, a little bit of panic, should be induced in the oil-consuming nations that assume the Americans will always be there, spending their own trillion dollars, when in fact the cost of defending or protecting that oil should be shared -- and we've more than done our share now -- by all oil-consumers. Otherwise -- tought.
And since when does the gas station owner decide that he's not going to defend his station from bands of marauding vandals, because he can count on you, one particular customer out of all the many customers he has, to protect it. You, Uncle Sam. You, Uncle Sucker.
No more American money need be spent to "protect" oil supplies. If the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the Qataris or those in Abu Dhabi want their oil and gas, the sole source of their wealth, to be protecdted -- let them come begging for that protection, and let them pay for it, and pay as well for the past sums we have incurred, or will incur, about $700 billion and counting, for the Iraq venture. Make them pay. They've gotten ten trillion dollars without lifting a finger, from oil and gas, since 1973. Time to get some of that.
Hugh wrote: "And it is entirely possible that the Saudis themselves will beg the Americans to take over the oilfields if they are threatened by Shi'a unrest and sabotage, aided by Iranian agents who might come through via Dubai (with its 400,000 Iranians). Just think of it: the House of Al-Saud begging the Americans to seize and hold those oilfields, lest they be blown up by maddened Shi'a."
"It could happen."
Hugh,
The accuracy of some of your past predictions is uncanny. I only hope the amazing Carnak turbin that you seem to possess, comes through again on this one.
Regards.
I just happened to catch Fawaz Gerges on Lou Dobbs. It was about the U.S. military taking on Iran. (And I do NOT think Lou Dobbs watches CNN news, since it was CNN's OWN reporter, Michael Ware, who says there's a proxy war going on -- that's Iranians killing Americans!! geez..One of Dobb's guests, another so-called "expert" doubted the military presence of Iranians in Iraq: as in "show me evidence" -- well, how about talking to M. Ware for starters? But, then Ware's actually IN BAGHDAD! The only one who countered the "IRAN is wholly INNOCENT, INNOCENT I tell you!!!" was retired General David Grange.) Anyway, with the notion of Americans taking on Iran, Gerges was scared, if not terrified, petrified and sweating at the prospect. (Gerges reminds me of an Esposito, only Gerges' lies are smoother, less obvious, slimier).
Maybe the U.S. should remain in Iraq, so as to go after Iran.
I'm back to believing that the Americans should not leave the theatre, but should extricate themselves from urban areas (civilian populated zones), and daily combat patrols, but remain in the area. American casualties would then be minimized (but able to take the fight into Iran, if need be).
(From previous post: The number 5 strand, using Ware's notes on Iran's proxy war, is Shiite vs Shiite).
I am one of those conservatives (a British one) that is absolutely in agreement with the posters and authors of this site, Robert Spencer et al on the danger inherent in Islam – the dictatorship guided by Muhammad from beyond the grave, managed by vicious old men with beards and enforced by young men and women filled with the joy of being praised for their hatred by a system where every evil is permitted as long as it is done in the name of Allah.
I’m also one who still, just, draws away when Bush and the democracy project in Iraq is criticised. I know it’s been a fucking disaster. I know it. We are losing people too. We also have to watch the MSM pile on the horseshit until the horse begs for mercy.
My problem with the criticism is that I don’t know what else Bush could have done that is not already being done. There are thousands of ways the US (and god knows the UK also) could improve its response and war on all the various jihad channels (money, propaganda etc) but ultimately no leader controls the agencies and bureaucracies sufficiently to force these institutionally left-wing and risk-averse bodies to act in a sensible and committed way to produce the results required to safeguard the nation. Let’s not even talk about the kind of ‘help’ we could expect from the media.
Ultimately going to war may have been the only thing Bush could actually sign-off on and expect to see come to fruition… I find it hard to criticise him (and Blair) for the apparent failure of what is called a neo-con project when at least they seem to grasp the nature of the threat far more clearly than any other world leaders, outside Australia and India – and furthermore were prepared to actually DO something about it, without the benefit of hindsight or focus groups and in the teeth of furious opposition from their populations (to varying degrees).
OK, it may have made some of the measures we now need to apply domestically more difficult – but then it may not. The bastards are coming out of the woodwork now and, at least over here, tiny minds are opening little by little to the reality that we are at war. Perhaps without the Islamic rage – and murderous reaction – to what has happened to Iraq and to the Taliban we would not be able to say that.
Of course, as a Londoner, I expect my city to pay the price in blood for this awakening, and, if Iran gets the bomb, which it will, London may only be a memory in ten years, but that was always a possibility. Once you stand up, you can never sit down again.
Fuck ‘em if they can’t take it
"My problem with the criticism [of Bush] is that I don’t know what else Bush could have done that is not already being done."
-- from a posting above
If there was in fact reason to believe that Saddam Hussein either possessed or was well on his way to developing weapons of mass destruction, then and only then was the invasion of Iraq justified.
If there was such reason to believe, so that an invasion was rational, then it ought to have consisted of the following:
1. Scouring Iraq for such weaponry. Seizing it wherever found.
2. Scouring Iraq for weapons programs and disrupting them, and seizing, or dispersing, or eliminating, all those Iraqis involved in such projects.
3. Seizing or killing all of the major figures in the regime: Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein's two sons, and the four or five dozen main figures.
Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to justify believing an invasion was necessary is still unclear because we are not privy, outside the Administration, to what information it possessed. But let's say it was a rational act.
Was #1 achieved? Yes.
Was #2 achieved? Yes.
Was #3 achieved? Yes.
When were #1 and #2 and #3 achieved? By the beginning of 2004.
When should the Americans have announced they were leaving Iraq, promptly? On or about late February or the beginning of March, 2004? When should that removal of troops and all equipment have taken place? On or about late March 2004. By when should the withdrawal have been completed? By June 2004.
That's what Bush should have done.
If you wish, go back into the Archives of Jihad Watch for January, February, and March 2004. See what I put up then. See if it contradicts, in the slightest, what I have put up here. See what it says about the inevitablity, and desirability, of Sunni-Shi'a hostilities. And the desirability, though not necessarily inevitability, of the declaration by Kurds of an independent Kurdistan, and why that, like the sectarian fissures within Iraq, could do so much to divide and demoralize, and hence to weaken, the Camp of Islam.
Yes, the regime change was successful (and how). Perhaps you are right that what was lacking was the killer instinct to just pick up and leave the Iraqis to it at that point.
I now understand that the focus of your disagreement with Bush is that he stayed, not that he went in.
I don’t have a problem with Shias and Sunnis killing each other, other than the feeling I get when I look at my daughter and think of Iraqi families in human terms, the divisions seem largely win-win.