Fitzgerald: What was done, what is being done, what should be done

Thx, Hugh. It agree that Bush went wrong with the whole democratization strategy. This was nothing but ignorance masquerading as idealism.
It's always great to see our troops whack the jihadis; it's too bad that the Iraqi government they're helping are also a bunch of jihadis. Kind of takes the joy out of it all.

One note. In the piece above, a distillation of what I had thought since Saddam Hussein was captured and, above all, sufficient time had passed to scour for weaponry, I still thought that perhaps (mainly in order to get the approval of the Bush Administration) that the Americans could leave a "small--50,000 combat troops -- force in the desert to keep the essential peace."

By early March I realized that this was also silly, and that it was much more important not to "keep the peace" but to allow the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a hostilities to widen, and to think only of possibly aiding, in the ethnic division between Kurds and Arabs, the Kurdish side, but preferably by resupply from afar.

Over the next few weeks, from time to time, I'll put up those pieces from early 2004, and you can decide if you think what was argued then should not still be argued today, but with even more fury at the squandering of men, money, materiel, morale both civilian and military, all for a "victory" that, as vaguely defined by the Bush Administration, not only makes no sense but would deprive us of a return on our gigantic investment, would prevent, rather than do nothing to stop, the sectarian and ethnic fissures that, properly playing out in Iraq and with spillover effects, can do so much to divide and demoralize and weaken the Camp of Islam.

Hugh,

For several years I have been wondering why the policy establishment, in both parties, still refuses to study Islamic theology, scripture, and the history and doctrine of jihad. Is a case of simple sloth? Is it an arrogance born of the fact that these people consider their sheepskins from prestigious universties an imprimatur on the finality of their received knowledge? Or, as was very ingeniously referred to in an interview with Bill Warner on a frontpagemag.com, "The Infidel Revolution," is it the case of a collective, as well as individual, case of "mind molestation"?

I'm so livid over the squandering of my tax dollars in Iraq, along with the drivel I keep hearing from C. Rice (by the way, I read in jpost.com that she was furious with Abbas over Fatah's joing with Hamas, but then what did she expect?) that I've decided to allocate my annual GOP renewal fee to JW.

Hugh,

With all due respect, i question some of the assertions in the above essay.

"It was right, proper, necessary to destroy Iraq's military power, and its regime." Why do you think that was necessary? At another place, you praise enlightened despots like the Shah of Iran, King of Morocco, King Hussein and Kemal Pasha. In what way was Saddam different from them? I don't understand your argument. And what about the war in Afghanistan? Is it not necessary to win over there?

Have you noticed that they hardly talk about that war. And what about tackling Saudi Arabia which spends millions of petro dollars to spread islam all over the world? Don't you think that should have acquired top priority than attacking Iraq and leaving it in a greater mess than it was? And what about the Jihadi factories in Pakistan? Musharaff is taking everyone for a ride and what are they doing other than giving him millions of dollars to prop him up, selling him weaponary that will be used against NATO in Afghanistan and the Indian army in Kashmir and elsewhere.

The Iraq war is a wasted effort. Militarily also, it is as General William Odom says "The Greatest Strategic Blunder" the US has ever committed. My objection to this war is that it has done nothing to understand or tackle the more fundamental problem of containing Islam. Also read Gen Odom's
article titled "Victory is not an option"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

On the issue of what should be done, now that the damage has been done, withdraw from Iraq and focus more on the Afghanistan war which seems to be sliding into a defeat. Sometimes withdrawal and losing temporarily may be a strategic imperative toward future victories.

What has changed? (What has developed?)

1. The Iraqi Kurds have had 3 years in which to consolidate their position, and they've surely spent the time wisely, with the clear eye of people who know the cruelty of this world. This gives "aspirational hope" to Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Kurdish gains rankle in Ankara, Tehran and Damascus (and Baghdad).

2. We've used military power in the manner of a scalpel and hemostatic clamp to open, and to keep open, the scarred-over Sunni-Shia wound. The wound is starting to putrefy, slow-cook festering even in Dearborn. Thank you, Abu Musab.

3. The Iraq war doesn't cause jihadist furor, but it certainly stirs things up. It's better to have "lads" and "garçons" going public with crazed jihadism now, than to let the quiet jihad push ahead, plausibly discounted, for the next twenty years. New stories of jihadists returned to Manchester and Saint-Denis will get louder, sooner. The Iraq War is forcing the issue in the West.

counterjihadi your points are well taken. l know some think its a waste to be in iraq, but otherwise we would be like Europe in a slow bleed by allowing muslims to sneak in through the back door. this kaos created in iraq has opened the eyes to many of th evils of islam. it also militarily can be advantageous for further attacks in iran. l am sure there are a lot more learned men in the military that have voices their reasons for bases in the middle east.

We withdrew from Afghanistan once the Soviets left and were then blamed for NOT staying. We were blamed for arming and for encouraging people to fight to achieve OUR aim and then leaving them to their own devices. We were blamed for the Taliban's existence. How much of the current Bush plan in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the answer to those criticisms and an attempt, as it were, to refight the last war?
If leaving Afghanistan, a poor country with few resources, to its own devices gave al Qaeda a secure operating base which led eventually to 9/11, what would be the result of leaving Iraq, a country with vast oil wealth and an educated citizenry, in a similar fashion?
No one is willing to do what is necessary to discredit Islamization. How can leaving a force in the desert accomplish this goal? Either we destroy Islam as a governing philosophy or we don't. That means putting the screws to Saudi Arabia and our other "allies" in the region. It means banning ALL Muslim immigration to the US as long as Islamization is supported in Muslim countries. It means telling Muslims to pick a side. What president or would-be president has the guts?

General Odom, who has somwehow won your favor, annd somehow has managed to remain outwardly respectable (why, he even teaches impressionable students at Yale, no doubt impressed with his having been on the National Security Agency). But Odom is an appeaser, and of a particularly appalling kind, the kind that pretends to "tough minded realism." You know -- Brzezinski, pretending to be different from Jimmy Carter, but in the end being more or less the same?

Look at his appalling remarks on Iran. He respectability at Yale). His reasons for not invading Iraq are essentially the same as those of MoveON.org., and Markos Kos, and Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski. About Iran he not only insists, falsely, that there is "nothing to be done" (nothing? nothing at all?) and that the only way to un-nuclearize Iran is to have the Israelis give up their nuclear weapons. A clearer statement of sweetly sinisterly calling for the suicide of Israel cannot be imagined. He's transparent, is Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret'd.).

His "Victory is Not an Option" article misses the point, missese all kinds of points, because this former bigshot in the National Security Agency and in the CIA has not learned about, chooses not to know about, Islam, either its doctrine or the history of its practice, chooses carefully not to find out about the division of the world between Believer and Infidel, chooses like the Bush Administration to pretend that the Jihad is a matter of "terrorism" or of military combat alone (not a word from Lt. Gen. William Odom, ret'd. about Da'wa or demographic conquest in the nations of NATO).

He accepts the Bush Administration's definition of "victory" in Iraq and then proceeds to tell us it's not possible. But what he misses is that there is another definition of victory that does make sense: to weaken the Camp of Islam. And in Iraq, the invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein had its main justification in what we were told was evidence either of possession of, or projects designed to produce, weapons of mass destruction. A second justification was that the removal of Saddam Hussein would, inevitably, lead to the transfer of power of the Land of the Two Rivers, and Baghdad itself, so important in
Sunni Arab mythologizing about the glorious past, into the hands of the Shi'a, by removing the Ba'athist boot, and that whatever else happened, the Shi'a would never relinquish that new power willingly, and the Sunnis, in and out of Iraq, would never acquiesce in the Shi'a dominance of Iraq.

"Victory" is not what the Bush Adminstration defines it as -- first there was to be Iraq the Model, a stable, peaceful, prosperous place, somehow to be emulated by Sunni Arab states that would apparently not notice the loss of Sunni power and the dominance of the Shi'a (but who in the Administration gave much thought to Sunnis and Shi'a -- and just how much thought did Lt. Gen. William Odom, ret'd., now "teaching at Yale," ever give to the sectarian, ethnic, and eocnomic divisions that might be usefully exploited withint the Camp of Islam, when he was still in the government?), and find what was going on in Iraq worthy of emulation.

Odom does not re-define "victory" intelligently -for a "victory" will be achieved, though now at far greater cost than had the Americans left three years ago, just as soon as the Bush Administration stops its sacrifice of men, and stops inflicting such harm on the army, both the regular and the civilian army (what is happening to the Reserves, and to the National Guard, to the morale of people who are not quite as willing to endure what the regular army, and the Marines, are enduring, and the building cold fury at the Administration, and its more compliant generals, at this nonsensical policy, is a story that needs to be told).

Just donated $25 to JW - first jizya payment of 2007 - GO GET 'UM!!

Hugh,

If your definition of "Victory" in Iraq means weakening of Islam by causing Shias and Sunnis to fight amongst themselves, then the war has been already won. I don't understand what more the soldiers over there need to do. It is about the question continuing the mission there that i am in agreement with Odom.

I am saying, the fight in Afghanistan is faltering and there is greater need of reinforcement over there. It seems to me that some of the NATO countries are having second thoughts about the mission there and the Taliban and Pakistani establishment are salivating over the possibility of NATO giving up and withdrawing. That in my opinion would be a greater disaster than what happens in Iraq. Already the Italians have voted against sending troops to Afghanistan and the Canadians want to pull back. The Epicenter of Jihadi movement is Pakistan-Afghanistan with financial assistance of Saudi Arabia. If the struggle in this war cannot be sustained, then Jihadists will have the upper hand for a long time to come.

And speaking of appeasers, who is not an appeaser?
Almost everybody in the establishment and media are appeasers. Bush (Sr and Jr), Clinton, Carter, Reagon, Tony Blair. In fact Reagon went as far as calling himself a "Mujahideen". How can one be close to Saudis and not be an appeaser? The current Indian govt. is full of appeasers.

My point is the priority should be right in this long fight and currently i think fighting and winning the battle in Afghanistan-Pakistan and fighting an ideological battle (with Islam) should be the top priority.

It was right, proper, necessary to destroy Iraq's military power, and its regime.

No. I dont think Hugh himself believes that, he's just saying what's expected of him to say.

A Baathist Iraq (not necessarily under Saddam) was GOOD for American interests. It was a counterweight to Iran and the Baathists were ruthless in dealing with fundamentalist Islam. Same rationale is valid for Syria (the father of the current president of Syria was really good about keeping the Islamic crazies in line).

Now the so-called "NeoCons" regard both Syria and Iraq as historical enemies (for obvious reasons), but their interests and agenda are at odds with the national interests of the USA.

I was thinking that it was a great mistake to take out Saddam! Look at the disaster there.

Saddam kept them controlled with an iron fist - now there's no control. Whichever side, one or the other sect of the cult - slaughters each other. They've been doing for 1500 yrs.

Let them do it alone.

Why do our kids have to get killed?

Don't you understand that we're getting nothing out of it - but the death of our childrren? When robotic hordes keep attacking, and attacking without the thought or care of themselves getting killed, why stay? When the mothers and families of these hordes don't care and keep sending out their own to get killed, why stay?

What is the point?

YOu see, People, they are a cult of death.

But we love life.

Now, I must say something. That if we are truly determined to oppose these islamics, no longer can we JUST send out our kids - our best genetics.

Because the military doesn't take physical defect.
The military doesn't take mental defects.

But only our best and strongest and most intelligent - they don't take tests and exams for nothing.

So we just keep losing these men tht could be the future fathers of our culture.

We can't afford that anymore.

We have to now - right now - commit our entire culture - I mean our women and children too - to
resist this islam.

We really have to change and become an army right here among the civilian life. We really have to change our culture - NOT to become a death culture, but to resist being taken over.

If yu've ever heard of the Earth Changes - well, this is now becoming part of the Changes here on Earth.

I mean one doesn't have to go out and fight the scum/loonies outright - there are many, many other ways to overcome them.

It looks like the police and authorities and not going to help us. As you noticed, they have their orders, and no matter how the individual policeman feels, we're not going to be able to overcome them.

The way the Indians in that country, in India were overcome by the islamics is not only their indigenous religion - you know, the aspects of that thinking, of all the divisiveness, the Caste system, the non-resistance attitude, the idea of Re-incarnation, the separate suzereinties, all that contributed to their defeat at the time of the Invasions - not only at the time of the Moghuls, but at the time of the British, and even today. They still have the problem in India today.

Now, a great many Hindus and Sihk have left their country to escape their politics, but it's done no good. Trouble has followed them - so now there is no running, the Indias have no choice but to unite to defend their own.

We, in the country, have had 200 years to build up a particular mind set of Liberty and Universal Justice. There's no running away from the problems we're facing today. As I understand it, a great deal of Americans are leaving the country because of it. And on the other hand, I understand, tht a great deal of Europeans are leaving their countries to come here, because of the islamics there.

WHAT A JOKE!

But to end, this rant, I will say, that although, I don't condone violence, I commit myself to resistance. In everyway necessary.

AHO!

Ishwar;

In fact Reagon went as far as calling himself a "Mujahideen".

There are some rules that most posters on Jihadwatch tend to follow, not because they are given to us or because we will be pulled if we don't. They are followed because the average person here is of the mindset of the more intellectually gentile.
These rules as I call them are self imposed, the result of which is a free exchange of ideas. This is something which is a cornerstone of Democracy.
When a person makes statements about a much honored former President of the USA they usually cite where this information came from. They also make every attempt to spell his name correctly.

I most add something.

I hardly think this is a conspiracy theory, in what I will say.

It looks more and more that We, The People have been abandoned by our governments - here - and elsewhere in the West.

You can see it everywhere - across the Board - in the Courts - the Schools - the Government - the Medical Fields - the National Borders - the Culture - our Spiritual Values - our Future Children.

Imagine it's getting to be our own Food and Water Supplies to sustain our bodies - are being removed from us.

Is this a conspiracy theory - or are you seeing it?

I can only surmise that it is because
the MIddle Class, has achieved enough education and sense of Freedom and Universal Justice - that some "They" wants to disband us.

We're on our own. WAKE UP!

The governments are even intending to remove Free Speech - including in the Internet.

Even if this is done, we must band together, as that Master Teacher Yeshua meant to. Whether it be christian, jew, atheists, or pagans. This includes all humanity with a sense of compassion and brotherhood.

It's going to be up to us to continue our own way - our forward thrust in civilization.

We're very soon - I'm afraid - going to have to form our own Policing and Watch Men.

Our own Medical Corp. Our own Teachers. OUr own Spiritual Teachers. Even in this, because there is information in the Internet, that the structure of the Roman Catholic Churhc is being revamped from the bottom. Priests are dissatisfied and are moving closer to the actual daily needs of the populace.

Masses are beginning to be conducted in private homes. Laymen are starting to conduct the Ceremony of the Wine and the Bread.
This is the way it should be - as in the time of The Master Teacher.

This is good.

We're going to have to be own own leaders - and encourage others to do it also.

As to what I just said. Is this a conspiracy theory. Will this post be deleted?

"Now notice: I posted the original draft of this article on February 20, 2004, and have done nothing in this version except make some revisions for clarity. In three years, what has changed"?-Hugh

You are a bit of a grumpy pessimist. Things will change with regard to foreign policy and Iran will not be permitted to get nuclear weapons.

Much has changed and the results of those changes are on their way. People (ordinary folks) once believed that this "religion" was just another belief-system that deserved equality-acceptance along with the rest of the "faiths". People met Muslims with an attitude of good will and assumed they sought equality of beliefs-and that they desired the universal practice of the Golden Rule.

But folks have learned that this is not a "religion" that preaches the universal practice of the Golden Rule, nor do Muslims desire equality of religious beliefs, and Islam does not preach or permit freedom of conscience for all people. No. We have all learned that this "religion" preaches its own dominance, that it rejects the Golden Rule (except sometimes for other Muslims). It permits deception, and even the killing of unbelievers. Islam does not permit freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, anywhere in dar-al-islam.

Many Muslims in America have done their best to prevent ordinary people from knowing that Islam is not about the universal practice of the Golden Rule. But their best efforts to intimidate, to fool folks, has failed. People have lost their naivete with regard to Islam. Much has changed thanks to folks like you.

I had a chance to attend an intelligence talk by a Reagan General during the Iran-Iraq war. He was asked which side we wanted to win. His paraphrased response:

‘Neither, as long as they are fighting each other, they won’t bother us.’

"'It was right, proper, necessary to destroy Iraq's military power, and its regime.

No. I dont think Hugh himself believes that, he's just saying what's expected of him to say.'"
-- from a posting above

I have never, not once, said "what's expected of" me "to say." On the other hand, I have been known to take fiendish pleasure in saying exactly what I should not say, in all sorts of places, with all considerations of politesse and politique deliberately ignored. It keeps me ever young.

In February 2004 I knew or thought I knew that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I still am unclear -- are you perfectly clear? -- on how much was exaggerated about the ability of Saddam Hussein to manufacture or acquire such weaponry. That is, even if he did not possess such weaponry, how easy would it have been to re-start programs ended under U.N. supervision before. That was the great unknown.

Furthermore, it is now clear that Saddam Hussein was doing everything he could to make a certani party think he had, or could soon get, weapons far more powerful than, it seems, he actually possessed. But that party was not the United States. It was not any Infidel land. It was, rather, the Islamic Republic of Iran, about which Saddam Hussein was rightly worried. For his army had been greatly weakened by its defeat in the Gulf War, and by the subsequent sanctions impossed on it. And that was known in Iran. And so it was important for him to noisily claim not to have, but at the same time to make the Iranians worry that he had, such weapons. Unfortunately for Saddam Hussein, it was the American government that took him most seriously, and the American government that decided to do something about it.

Soon after that posting, Mr. Kay's report, and other things that came out in dribs and drabs, have led many to conclude that it was all bluff and bluster by Saddam Hussein. Now if you go back into the earliest archives, you will see that again and again I wrote that the main worry was always Iran -- go look. Go to www.challenging-islam.com and find things on Iran. Look in the Articles, under "Islam for Infidels" and the three related pieces on Iraq, by clicking on the link in the bar above ("Hugh Fitzgerald").

Within a very short time, I had changed my formulation. Having figured out that Saddam Hussein had been bluffing, I now was careful to write that the decision to invade Iraq was "rational" because it still made sense to 1) scour the country for weapons because supposition that he did not possess them was insufficient and 2) because the overturning of the regime would lead inevitably to a weakening of the Camp of Islam by making the Shi'a in Iraq necessarily dominant.

As those early pieces are posted, I will make sure to point out how the "right, proper, and necessary" becomes, quite soon, the merely "rational" and "justifiable" and "legitimate." It was not wrong to invade Iraq. It was wrong to invade Iraq for any reason other than to make the Camp of Infidels more secure, by seizing or destroying major weaponry, if it existed, and by undoing the Ba'athist regime to set in motion the fissive forces we now see all about us, but for some reason our government is reluctant to identify, to welcome, and to exploit.

"When a person makes statements about a much honored former President of the USA they usually cite where this information came from. They also make every attempt to spell his name correctly."

Posted by: auntbea

Ronald Reagan, a far more capable president than George W. Bush, nonetheless was equally naive and wholly ignorant of Islam and the people he was promoting:

“Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability.”
- Ronald Reagan, Proclamation 4908 — Afghanistan Day (1982-03-10)

It would hardly be surprising to find documentation of him calling himself a Muhajedin.

As long as Americans and their modern leadership remain steadfastly ignorant of Islam and its principles, America will not enjoy a Jeffersonite victory over it.

"When a person makes statements about a much honored former President of the USA they usually cite where this information came from. They also make every attempt to spell his name correctly."

Folks,

My sincere apologies for misspelling President Reagan's name. I heard the issue of Reagan calling himself a 'Mujahideen' in one of the networks in the aftermath of 911 amongst many interviews/conversations between journalists and terrorism analysts/experts/ (i don't remember exactly which one). My intention was to make a point about appeasement and you cannot deny the fact that most people in the establishment and media (weather left or right) are appeasers.

"Furthermore, it is now clear that Saddam Hussein was doing everything he could to make a certani party think he had, or could soon get, weapons far more powerful than, it seems, he actually possessed".

That is true. Saddam even threatened to use WMDs (if we invaded)just before the invasion. Saddam was bluffing and he got his bluff called and so will the psychotic in Iran face the same reality. In many ways the Psychotic and Saddam have a similar grasp of reality. Maybe Islam does that to people.

Allat,

"The way the Indians in that country, in India were overcome by the islamics is not only their indigenous religion - you know, the aspects of that thinking, of all the divisiveness, the Caste system, the non-resistance attitude, the idea of Re-incarnation, the separate suzereinties, all that contributed to their defeat at the time of the Invasions - not only at the time of the Moghuls, but at the time of the British, and even today. They still have the problem in India today."

I suggest to you to read the book titled
"Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders" by Sita Ram Goel. The entire book is available online at

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhrmi/

"Will this post be deleted?"

Not this time. But next time. Conspiracy theories are exhausting to have to deal with, and lower the tone, and the attractiveness of this site to visitors who are not themselves shares of that particular conspiracy theory.

Instead of denouncing "the corporations" how about analyzing Cupidity?

Instead of finding here, and there, and everywhere, a conscious and coordinated effort to tie down The Little People (as we are affectionately known amongst ourselves, in our own little conspiracy) why not note that in mass democracies, political survival is often to the misfittest.

Start only with the Blind Ambition of Lady Macbeth, who may be the Democratic nominee. Like the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Like the family dynasty approach? Do you think the Framers would have been happy? (Yes, I know all about Adams and then, with Jefferson, Madison, and Munroe intervening, the arrival of John Quincy Adams, but he was one of the most learned and astonishing figures in American history, not akin to either child-of-privilege medicore Bush or either flim-flam Clinton.

It is easy to be satisfied with some All-Purpose Answer, the Panacea of conspiracy theories.

And they can be taken out, dusted off, aired at a hundred thousand websites. But not at this one.

Word. Sufficient. Wise.

What complete nonsense. Afghanistan and Iraq are resounding victories, which have been won with unimaginably low casualties. What some said was impossible, has been done, TWICE. Yes, the new democracies may not be perfect, but we have converted two enemies into two allies. The locals both support their new security forces, and the locals will be able to handle security on their own soon.

It is laughable to think that the insurgents, who in both countries are VASTLY outnumbered and outgunned, have any hope at all of toppling the democratically-elected governments. It is amazing that people can look at two COMPLETE AND UTTER victories and can't even recognize reality when it's staring them right in the face. The wars have both been carried out near-perfectly. In both cases the US avoided having to go to war with the locals. Not bad for a foreign invasion. Not too many precedents for that.

Full analysis for both wars can be found below, explaining why Bush's actions were the correct choice:

http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/02/afghan-war.html

http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/02/iraq-war.html

Given that the US disbanded Iraq's security forces, it has an obligation to provide them with replacements. Then we can observe how Iraqis manage to cope with western-style laws and law enforcement. Which will provide the information required on what to do about the rest of the Middle East. Most of that information is already in. The total US losses amount to approximately one month's worth of US road toll. And Iraqis are due to take over all of Iraq in Nov 2007. A complete and utter slam dunk. The high crime rate is militarily irrelevant, and a problem for the Iraqis to solve in their own time.

I think the problem in Iraq is the force posture, the Bush democracy experiment utilizes the troops there in a way that makes them vulnerable with little to show for it. If you jump in between two fighting guys and try to break it up, you will likely only succeed in getting hurt yourself, which is what the US forces have been asked to do for several years now. Being "neutral" only means that they get shot at by both sides, and neither side is willing to help them with force protection. Sending them out in small numbers and lightly armored vehicles with restrictive rules of engagement on missions to stop centuries old Sunni-Shiite violence is like tilting at windmills under hostile fire. They should shop around their services, then help the one side annihilate the other in return for help securing US bases and oil facilities.

The surge in my view only had a psychological value to send the message to Al Qaida that just because Democrats won the Congress doesn't mean our ability to fight against you is compromised. Since Pelosi wasted no time to make clear to Al Qaida that it does mean that our ability to fight against A-Qaida is compromised, so much for that.

If Bush was thinking to send these extra troops to bases in northern Iraq to stealthily pre-position for potential war with Iran, that would be clever. If he's thinking to have thousands of more troops available to send out in small numbers and lightly armored under restrictive rules of engagement into urban areas to root out the Sunny insurgency, (a job that can be done much better by Shia death squads if they are not interfered with), and then send them against Shia groups fighting the Sunny insurgents as well to make sure the US troops are "neutral" (translation: drawing fire from both sides), it's a really dumb idea.

Problem is that the quality of top military leadership in Iraq right now is really questionable, or they are taking orders from the State Department. Petraeus was with the 101st in charge of northern Iraq. He drew criticism in opening the border with Syria for trade, and then farming out border control to an Iraqi force led by a Sunni Baathist Iraqi general with clan ties across the Syrian border. He made a deal with Syria to exchange oil for electricity. This was criticized by congressmen because since there are restrictions on trade by US citizens with Syria, this was technically a violation of US law. This was all supposed to lead to peace through economic recovery. Then foreign fighters and bombmaking material from Syria started showing up in Baghdad and the policy was reversed as Bush blasted Syria for meddling, but the horse was out of the barn.

His next assignment was training Iraqi security forces. He actually wrote an op-ed for the New York Times patting himself on the back for how good a job he had been doing. Well, now we know that the security forces are heavily infiltrated by Shiite militia members. So he didn't secure the border with Syria after the invasion, the forces he trained are crawling with Shiite militia members, and now Bush makes him top man in Iraq?

allat-

The problem with conspiracy theories is that, as the saying goes, it is "impossible to prove a negative". That is not to say that there are not real conspiracies. Groups are indicted and tried for conspiracy to defraud, to murder, etc. Groups of people do get together to plan and to do sinister things. But any prosecution of a conspiracy has to provide incontrovertible-positive evidence to get a conviction from a fair-minded jury. (The prosecution can't just say: because the conspiracy cannot be disproved, therefore it must be true.)

Probably someday CAIR members will go to trial for conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism, etc.-LOL. But the evidence will not be theory, it will be positive tapes, films, eyewitness accounts. There will be smoking guns everywhere, and the perps will be found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Hugh,

You write: "We should be winning back Europe by promoting a long-overdue alarm about the demographic invasion."

This sounds more than a little optimistic to me. The alarm has been sounded repeatedly; the problem is plain to see, but only for those who wish to see. Do you think it can be promoted more than it is already? Or that the willfully blind --led by EU power-junkies you rightly condemn-- can be made to see?

Regards

Hugh, how could a smart and informed person like not be from the start skeptical of the administration's claims regarding Iraq's WMD?

Remember the perfidious disinformation campaign waged by the White House shifting the blame for the 9/11 attacks on Saddam (remember how, following a series of shameless insinuations by Bush and Cheney a majority of Americans came to believe that Saddam was behind 9/11?)?

And instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan and taking on Pakistan, the administration diverted our resources to Iraq! Just like the Spanish government blaming ETA for the Madrid train bombings. The Spaniards were smarter than us, and threw the lying bastards out.

Letting AlQaida, Afganistan, and Pakistan off the hook and attacking Iraq instead was not a 'mistake', but a deliberate policy that served, essentially, non-American interests. In other words, treason.

allat-

Much of the Muslim world is prone to conspiracy theories. Hard, incontrovertible, positive evidence is never produced to confirm their "Zionist" or other conspiracies. It's a waste of time to try and disprove such theories. It's impossible to prove a negative.

Mr. Hugh, I never mentionion "corporations"- I did, howver, mention, government.

Why would my presentation even be considered conspiracy - when the evidence of cultural destruction is everywhere, anyway?

Can you rebut this? Not even a teeny weeny?

Frank: I never mentioned "Zionist" either.

I just know something weird is happening, behind the scenes.

Word. Sufficient. Wise.

I donb't do threats. Kick me out now.

My words here are just as valuable as the next.

There is almost no gratitude directed at the Americans by more than a small fraction of the Iraqi population -- for rescuing them from a monstrous regime.

However simplistic it may sound, this really represents a significant portion of the bottom line in Iraq. The Shia population is wholly incapable of appreciating their release from the grip of a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. This beggars the single question of; Why?

It is time for America to confront the glaring fact that Muslims of all stripes embrace death far more readily than the least Westernization of their culture. This has been demonstrated over and over again in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian Territories. With their continued rejection of democratization, it may well be time for the majority of our troops to exit and let Iraq's internecine violence drain them of all vitality. Quite the fitting reward for their thankless masses and intensely deceitful government.

One of the only remaining messages that must be sent Baghdad’s way is that should they make any attempt to participate in terrorist activities, we continue to retain the option of “Rinse and Repeat.”

”The Iraq war is a wasted effort. Militarily also, it is as General William Odom says "The Greatest Strategic Blunder" the US has ever committed.”

Ishwar, it’s reasonably safe to say that Iraq will look like a minor misstep should Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Now that would be “The Greatest Strategic Blunder”. Iraq has served some useful purposes. The entire MME (Muslim Middle East) was put on notice that America can, and will, intervene when it feels national interests are at stake. Despite willful ignorance on the part of nearly all other nations, America also showed its determination to remove a murderous despot of huge proportions. While perhaps unintentionally, the newly empowered Shias now exist as a counterweight to Sunni ascendancy in the region. Finally, it has forever been demonstrated in no uncertain terms that Muslims are clearly incapable of living in peace, even amongst their own kind. This last fact may be among the most valuable of all lessons brought forth out of Iraq.

The world must be made to understand how ungrateful, xenophobic and obsessive Islam is with respect to any outside intervention or influence. Iraq has been the pluperfect model for just such a demonstration. As counterjihadi mentions, “The Iraq War is forcing the issue in the West.” Beyond that, it has also provided a convenient base for deploying against Iran. Make no mistake that this one facility may well go a long way towards justifying the expense of Iraq.

One final lesson which must be absorbed from Iraq is that the era of nation building is over, for once and all time. No more boots on the ground. No more invasions. No more reconstruction. No more Marshall Plans. We go in and break the bad boys’ toys and leave. Rebuilding is on the dime of those rogue nations who refuse to recognize the global community’s need for security. If this single notion can be absorbed and converted into foreign policy, Iraq may well have been worth the cost.

"Frank: I never mentioned "Zionist" either.

I just know something weird is happening, behind the scenes".

allat-

I did not say that you did. I am very careful to make sure I don't put words in peoples' mouth. I was using it ("Zionist") as an example of the kind of crap that gets currency in terms of "conspiracy theory" in the Muslim world (especially re "Zionists").

In my communication with you, I am addressing the problems of "conspiracy theory" in general. I do not address anything specific with regard to your comment.

I merely make the point that "it is impossible to prove a negative". That's why a person is presumed innocent (under our system-not Sharia law-LOL) until positively proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (hard evidence, or hit the road).

Again, my point is general, not specific to you. Sorry for any misunderstanding, Allat.

In the absence of hard "smoking gun" evidence it is generally useless to formulate arguments, to attempt to demonstrate proofs. In the trial of Galileo, Galileo cleverly and humorously makes that point.

In the trial, the prosecution asserts that it is possible that the moon is covered by a clear, smooth, crystalline substance, thus making the Bible accurate in its description of the moon as a perfectly smooth sphere. The prosecution says Galileo can't disprove that, so it might be true.
Galileo answered it is possible invisible crystalline mountain ranges are rising out of the smooth crystalline surface and since that can't be proved false it might be true.

It's not merely the conspiratorial flavor of allat's post that is problematic, it's also the alienation from his own Body Politic one finds implicit in that post. And that sense of alienation is more widely shared here among Jihad Watch posters -- in their constant location of the problem of myopia to the problem of Islam in some cabal of "elites", thereby demonstrating a myopia of their own to the wider problem of the dominant and mainstream culture of political correctness --, regardless of whether or not this sense of alienation leads to the further wrinkle of a conspiracy theory per se.

Ishwar, it’s reasonably safe to say that Iraq will look like a minor misstep should Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Now that would be “The Greatest Strategic Blunder”. Iraq has served some useful purposes

I am not convinced. But i sincerely hope that all you folks are right. I want the US to prevail in Iraq, but i can't see how. With a mere 140000+ soldiers. As george_rem says, i find it bewildering to find someone so well informed like Hugh still justifying the Iraq war. I guess i am puzzled at the thinking behind the US foreign policy.

Correct me if i am wrong, but when Iraq was attacked , there was no immediate threat from Saddam and the situation in Afghanistan was far from stable. Similarly, i can't for the life of me understand why Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and the rest pursued military action against the Serbs in Kosovo and are still hell bent on separating Kosovo from Serbia thereby handing victory to the KLA terrorists. So also, i can never understand the unstinted support given to Pakistan by every administration here. Pakistan has given nothing in return (well maybe a few terrorists whenever they need to come into the good books of the administration here), the Taliban/AlQaida has flourished and even strengthed under Musharaf. Just look at the treatment he gets when he visits the US. He is almost a celebrity here. Can not the people who matter see thru him?

Afghanistan and Iraq are resounding victories, which have been won with unimaginably low casualties. What some said was impossible, has been done, TWICE. Yes, the new democracies may not be perfect, but we have converted two enemies into two allies.
........
Given that the US disbanded Iraq's security forces, it has an obligation to provide them with replacements. Then we can observe how Iraqis manage to cope with western-style laws and law enforcement. Which will provide the information required on what to do about the rest of the Middle East. Most of that information is already in.

Posted by: Paul Edwards

Iraq was not a counterweight to Iran, as many claim. It was the other way around until Jimmy Carter decided the Shah wasn't worthy of being a US ally. Iraq was never an ally or even a friend of the US, in any sense of the word. Along with the other secular Arab governments, they were Cold War allies of the Soviet Union, the only non-Communist nations in all the world who allied themselves with the Soviet Union.

I agree that both actions were necessary and that much has been accomplished, but victory isn't among them. That is because this administration's definition of victory is something we can never achieve.

In Iraq, we got rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons, and most of his government is dead, in prison or in hiding. However, the people of Iraq, at least the Arab people, have shown no inclination toward Western standards of government. Their intent is to install a Shia religious autocracy in place of the Sunni secular (more or less) dictatorship. Instead of building a future for their entire country (many Sunnis suffered under Saddam) the Shia are busy settling old scores. Sectarian cleansing of neighborhoods flies in the face of the mixed society that we were told made Iraq a prime candidate for a viable democracy.

The Sunnis immediately set about attacking the US forces and destroying everything that was put in place. When the Shia won a democratic election (hard to lose when you're almost sixty percent of the population) they didn't try to unify the country. The Shia themselves are divided between tribes. How do people with tribal loyalties put them aside in favor of national priorities? It's the same problem in Afghanistan.

What is victory?

Afghanistan is trying to kill people who leave Islam. The Taliban is making a comeback. Terrorists STILL operate freely on the Pakistani border in the more remote areas.

Iraqis cheer when Americans die, but they don't want the US to leave. They are now being attacked with chemical bombs, such as chlorine. They expect the US to save them from themselves and from one another. That's not our job.

Saddam is dead. The Baathist regime is gone. The Sunnis are out of power. The Shia have control of the government. What are THEY doing with the gift they were given? NOTHING.

Our original mission may have been successful. We accomplished what we set out to do. So let's leave with heads held high.

You say we destroyed their army so we need to provide replacements. For how long? It's been four years. How long does it take for people to take responsibility for their own neighborhoods?

The Iraqis have had more than one election. They have had ample time to set up a government. They're not stupid. They're not primitive. The problem is that with us there they don't have to take responsibility. At what point do we let go of the handlebar and force them to steer their own bike? Will they hold us responsible when they skin their knee?

"I say we begin the carpet bombing of Iran, just like in WWII. And then install a rebuild effort similiar to Japan following WWII."

Why rebuild our dire enemy? Can you really foresee any outcome different from that we have experienced in Iraq? DO NOT carpet bomb Iran. Use cruise missiles and pinpoint bombing to dismantle their nuclear weapons R&D labs (while at maximum occupancy), decapitate the mullacracy, neutralize all major military bases and cripple their gasoline refining capacity. This will bring their entire nation to a grinding halt.

Let Iran, for once, divert its massive oil wealth towards some real rebuilding of their country. It will sideline enough income so that they cannot possibly allocate any significant portion of it to atomic weapons research. Use trade incentives as an encouragement for them to install democracy. DO NOT send them any aid and make it crystal clear to Iran that any further indulgence in terrorist activities or sponsorship will result in a round of "Rinse and Repeat."

Bush is getting hit hard from both sides. He reports to a financial oligarchy that threatens to take their business off-shore unless they get their way. And he reports to a population that is getting increasingly addicted to social programs that they don’t pay for. 88% of the electorate pay only 14% of the taxes. Our industrial base is leaving because of ridiculous environmental and permitting requirements. The one thing that can’t send overseas is generous social programs that the electorate feels entitled to. It is an unstable system that has trouble defending itself against external threats.

Plato didn’t like pure democracies because he felt that they were unstable and would inevitably lead to totalitarianism, which he viewed as the worst kind of government. The democracy our Founding Fathers instituted was brilliant (only lien-free landowners had voting rights) because it spread power widely, while at the same time ensuring that voters were shareholders. It gave individuals an incentive to work hard and own property.

Our political system has become a combination of oligarchy and pure democracy, and we end up getting the worst parts of both. The emergence of real-world threats and the eventual failure of the social safety net will cause things to change.
.
Islam in Russia is a driving force moving her away from democracy towards totalitarianism. Iraq and the emergence of Islam in the West will accelerate the transformation of liberal democracies to something else. Hopefully, to something similar to what we fought for 230 years ago.

Hugh,

The case for leaving a US armed presence in Iraq--preferably fortified in Anbar province, the Syrian desert as you suggested previously--is not to keep Sunni and Shia from killing each other, but to be in striking distance of incipient mujahaddeen training caps and other al qaeda units that could threaten the US homeland.

The fortified, but not concentrated, US force is also needed for any Iran action. Although naval platforms are in the area, Iran must be discouraged from invading Iraq by ground forces. The Iraqi army is not strong enough to do that.

From the point of view of we infidels, Iraq war is justified because it has succeeded in creating the violent split in the enemy camp. Iraq war won decisively when Baghdad was captured and total victory was ensured with the capture of Saddam. Staying after that point in Iraq is what has caused demoralization and fatigue in the American public and troops. If troops have withdrawn after capture of Saddam, by declaring victory and ignoring the interests of contractors, corporations, politicians benefitting from 'reconstruction', 'winning heart and mind', 'bringing democracy' etc. by now US would have been ready to take on Iran after a well deserved rest and relaxation. But in that scenerio, probably they would not have needed that.

"Those mujahid will turn on Russia and china just like they did to us. Russia should learn from history - but just like the left here - they prefer ignorance and hatred towards us instead".s-sgt7

I don't claim to be some foreign policy maven-expert. But it appears to me that Putin is using Iran as a bargaining chip. Russia lost her empire overnight with the collapse of the USSR and her borders returned to those of 1600 in the blink of an eye. 400 years of Russian history were undone in a very brief period. Putin has called that "a geopolitical disaster" for Russia.

I think Putin is trying to put some of Russia's geopolitical puzzle back together and wants the US to cooperate to that end. (I think this is especially true with regard to the Ukraine. Putin knows that without the Ukraine in its geopolitical orbit, Russia is a 3rd rate power.) He also wants us to buy his oil.

If Putin gets what he wants, Iran is toast. I think we should view Russia as a potential alley. We have to rethink our foreign policy with Russia. Putin is a Russian nationalist and a strong Russia is good for us. A nuclear armed Iran is bad for us and Russia.

The very competent General Heinz Guderian once made a comment re the US that I think will prove to be true. He said America would choose to not be an imperial power because he said "Americans treat war like a football game. They like to win and then go home and celebrate". (My quote is close to what he said after WW2.)

We don't have the desire to subjugate other people. I think that's true in the Mideast. We have to come to some agreement with Russia to end the Iranian problem. (That may be true re Iraq too.) I think we should formulate a new foreign policy that gives more influence to Russia in her former empire and back away from Russia's former sphere of influence. I think my instincts are sound on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian

I think we are seeing the end of the Wilsonian pipe-dream of "making the world safe for democracy". It's getting us in too much trouble and its not worth the trouble.

s_sgt7-

You are a thoughtful fellow. You think things through and see what you see. I like that. I'm independent too in the way I look at things. (In a choice between Saudi oil and Russian Oil, send in the bears and get rid of the snakes.)

"I think we are seeing the end of the Wilsonian pipe-dream of "making the world safe for democracy". It's getting us in too much trouble and its not worth the trouble."

Posted by: Frank

I think you're right, Frank, given that democracy is often its own worst enemy.

Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic (..."if you can keep it." said Franklin) and we have done our level best to sabotage their efforts ever since; all in the name of "Democracy".

There are damned few countries on the planet who haven't made a perfect hash of democracy and those few are, IMHO, still working on it.

The world will never be "safe for democracy" It is too vulnerable to those espouse it the loudest.

The only consideration to an eventual peace, is when you drop the bomb; then peace can be appreciated.

Hugh,

Agree that we shouldn't try to win hearts and minds of followers of the koran

Just establish what will happen to those hearts and minds that will our death or try to kill us.

We are in the right place: Iraq.

We should be destabilizing Iran with all due haste.

And the war, as most all know, is local as well.

Despite what s_sg7 says, the U.S. is most emphatically NOT "surrounding" Iran. The proof is simply in the woefully inadequate numbers of U.S. troops involved. We have around 200,000 troops combined in the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters. That's hardly "surrounding" anybody.

Here in America, if there were a dangerous al-Qaeda cell, fully armed, it would be laughable if the cops tried to "surround" the building with two or three cops, because they could easily be overpowered in any confrontation. It would only be credible to "surround" the building with a whole SWAT team. Anything less is a joke.

In fact, looking at a map of the entire Middle East, it looks more like Iran has our troops surrounded. To the west they've got Hezbollah; in Iraq, they've got the pro-Iranian militians like al-Sadr. He felt comfortable enough with Iran to flee there when he thought the going was getting rough for him in Iraq.

If the U.S. confronted Iran militarily, a lot of Iraqi Shiites are going to side with Iran and shoot our troops in the back. You're going to find out just how "grateful" they are for U.S. troops in their country after they see us bombing the hell out of their Shiite neighbor.

So what we would have is two Shiite countries, Iran and Iraq, with a combined population of Shiites of some 90 million. Facing a U.S. ground force of 200,000. Our forces would be bled to death at a loss rate far higher than anything sustained to date, till we would have to admit defeat. Even without counting Hezbollah involvement, which would also be a likely outcome.

Petraeus' own counterinsurgency manual, WHICH HE WROTE, said you need a minimum ratio of around 1 soldier for every 100 enemy civilians. For the U.S. to undertake any military action with only ONE-FOURTH the number of troops required is a prescription for an even bigger catastrophe than what has already taken place in Iraq.

Don't start fights you can't win.

But, I know that Islam is a greater threat than communism.

Only in the near-term, s_sgt7. With communist China, we are dealing with a racial memory over 6,000 years old. Do not underestimate the virulence of such an entrenched cultural meme. Over the long run, Islam’s psychotic whiners and tyrants will all look like a bunch of Boy Scouts by comparison to the PRC. Communist China and Russia’s emerging totalitarian regime represent far greater threats to America and ones with much more intractable problems to solve. Remember, they are the ones with nuclear arsenals and far fewer compunctions about their use.

"I think we are seeing the end of the Wilsonian pipe-dream of "making the world safe for democracy". It's getting us in too much trouble and its not worth the trouble."

Frank, I’ll ask that you please consider the alternative to democracy. What is it? Is there even one at all? I do not think so. I have begun to think democracy is a fundamental human right and that it must be spread to the four corners of this planet STAT. Democracy is well worth the trouble. Permit me to quote Winston Churchill for you:

“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

— Winston Churchill, 1947 —

”Don't start fights you can't win.”

It’s not that we can’t win the fight, Steven L.. A single Ohio class submarine could win a dozen of these conflicts with a single launch. It’s that we do not have the will to win. America is forgetting the lessons of WWII with astonishing rapidity. No one seems to understand that, if required, Total War must be delivered to our enemies. Islam has declared Total War against us, within its meager extent. Yet, out of some perverted and inappropriate sense of fair play, which is entirely misplaced in this situation, we continue to use the kid glove treatment where what’s called for is a mailed fist.

Germany’s Spiegel magazine:

Fanaticism infuses numerous faiths, certainly not just Islam

February 25th, 2007

Germany’s Spiegel presents yet another puff-piece on moral, religious and ideological equivalence. ‘All religions lead to fanaticism’ and are equally bad, we are told. Christianity of curse, is worse than the rest because it caused all the evil in the world today.

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/25/germanys-spiegel-fanaticism-infuses-numerous-faiths-certainly-not-just-islam/

It is interesting that this article on Britian's struggle to control Iraq after WWI should appear in todays Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301746.html?sub=AR

Hugh,
The "democracy" industry have been derelict in ignoring the Quran and Islamic history but I don’t see pulling back into enclaves helping the situation. The Iraqi military is not ready yet. Chaos would be the result. Iran would take the opportunity to control the southern half of Iraq, along with substantial additional oil resources. If the U.S. will not aggressively deal with Iraq, there is no chance it will deal with Iran.

I think your analysis, Hugh, is (unfortunately) accurate...clear-eyed and without illusions.

I've read another text (called the "J curve"), and what struck me (yes, yes, the author's not quite up to snuff yet per "Islam" -- quite out-to-lunch in some respects), but the author did have some interesting observations.

The author, Ian Bremmer, notes that the Saddam regime was based entirely on patronage (as is found in S. Arabia and other Arab states), thus, Bremmer writes: "patronage networks formed the structure on which rule of Iraq has been based" (p. 60), and the author continues, "personal trust and loyalty, more than respect for national institutions or law, became the political coin of the realm. The men who made Iraqi history, then and since, have treated political power as a weapon to be wielded against personal enemies and as a source of personal profit -- rarely as a tool for serving the national interest" (p. 61).

Hence, "democracy" simply becomes enfolded into a patronage scheme..."friends" befriend "friends." So, what else is new?

I also note (pessimistically) that the same thing happens when Islamists enter western nations -- they do precisely the same thing -- form patronage networks (ie, lubricate their "friends" with lots and lots of money, and threaten all those who refuse to comply to Islamist demands -- like an organized crime syndicate -- ie, CAIR.) That's yet another reason why these groups are so dangerous to democracies...they are an endless source of corruption and nepotism.

"Hence, "democracy" simply becomes enfolded into a patronage scheme..."friends" befriend "friends." So, what else is new?

J.S., your exceedingly cynical view is not appropriate to the proper description of democracy. To a "good old boy" network, yes. Ordinary democratic networks do not "lubricate their "friends" with lots and lots of money, and threaten all those who refuse to comply to [democratic or] Islamist demands -- like an organized crime syndicate -- ie, [the democratic party] CAIR"

Yes, patronage plays a part in illegal political organization, but it is precisely that, illegal. Need I clarify?

"The Iraqi military is not ready yet. Chaos would be the result. Iran would take the opportunity to control the southern half of Iraq, along with substantial additional oil resources. If the U.S. will not aggressively deal with Iraq, there is no chance it will deal with Iran."
-- from a posting above

What is the "Iraqi military"? Is it Sunni Arab? Is it Shi'a Arab? Is it Arab rather than Kurd? Explain to me exactly the makeup, and real desires of, and size, and competence, of this "Iraqi military" you posit? Are there Sunni units and Shi'a units, or mixed units, and if there are mixed units, how do you think they perform now together? In the future? Ever?

And why do you say that "chaos would be result"? Would not a civil war be the result? It would not necessarily be "chaos" for most of the country is clearly Sunni-Arab-ruled, or Shi'a-Arab ruled, or Kurdish(non-Arab)-ruled, save for Baghdad. Would chaos exist for a long time? Would not the armed parties on either side quickly establish their own lines, and then would not something like the civil war in, say, Russia, ensue, with here the Sunnis defeating the Shi'a or being defeated, and here the Kurds pushing out the Arabs, or vice-versa? Is that "chaos"? And if it were "chaos" why would that be bad for us, the Infidels? Why do you have such a difficult time envisioning an area of constant warfare, and unsettlement, and that very warfare, those hostilisties, that constant unsettlement, would keep everyone preoccupied, each with each, and what's more, the interference of co-religionists, chiefly of Iran and of Lebanon's Hezbollah, on the side of the Shi'a, supplying money. men,and weapons, while Saudi Arabia and other rich Arabs would supply money to the Sunnis of Iraq, while Sunni volunteer soldiers might arrive rom everywhere in the Sunni Arab lands, but especially from Egypt, Jordan, and even Syria, whose Alawite rulers would be glad to see those Sunni warriors go elsewhere to fight and die). Why is this a bad thing? Why is this not a good thing, as good or possibly even better than the eight-year Iran-Iraq War?

And why are you so quick to predict that the Shi'a of Iran will, whatever aid they send, simply come naturally to control southern Iraq? What makes you say that? The Islamic Republic of Iran cannot even control the Arabs now within its bordes, in Khuzistan? What makes you think the Arabs of Iraq would not simply take Iranian aid, to be used against the Sunnis, but still wish to preserve their own independence? This business of one vast Shi'a state is a fear now being whipped up by the governemnets of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, in order to inveigle the Americans to remain as long as possible in Iraq to protect the Sunnis, even as the Sunnis in Iraq assume that they can continue to try to kill as many Americans as possible. It's a false fear that the Sunnis are attempting to raise in Washington, a kind of bookend to the false hopes that were raised by plausible westernized Shi'a in exile, such as Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted to inveigle the Americans into getting rid of Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Shi'a. Remember all those promises about how the "liberation of Baghdad would make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession"? That was, I believe, Bernard Lewis, but it could have been any number of American advisors and strategists who were confusing the secular, westernized Chalabi, Alawi, Kanan Makiya, Rend al-Rahim et al., with the real Shi'a of Iraq, who are represented much more truthfully by al-Hakim, and al-Maliki, and al-Jaffari (the man who on his Washington visit called for a "Bush Plan" for Iraq, just like the Marshall Plan for post-war Europe), and of course the ineffabble los-de-abajo Moqtada al-Sadr.

We were fooled by Shi'a hopes, and now are being fooled by the exaggerated fears of the Sunnis. When, for god's sake when, will Americans in both the Executive and Legislative branches, finally become immunized to this kind of middle-eastern-souk bargaining, promises ("I love you, effendi, I love you more than I love my mother, I love you more than I love my father"), threats, and all the rest of the Arab blague. Good God, how naive can people be? After all, we are not schoolgirls, we are not Samantha Smith, we are not Jimmy Carter -- are we?

Hugh wrote: Ahmed Chalabi, who wanted to inveigle the Americans into getting rid of Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Shi'a

Dear Hugh: take a look here please http://home.twmi.rr.com/mymaria/bullshit.jpg

The NeoCon gang running our foreign and war policy started planning the invasion of Iraq before Bush came to power. Chalabi was their tool, not the other way around.

Hugh, Assuming you are correct that Islamic societies cannot be democratized, my problem with your argument is still this.. by arguing that a redefinition of our mission in Iraq is in order, you are making common cause with the multicultualist, secular progressive left wing which actively undermines both our war efforts in Iraq AND OUR RECOGNITION OF, AND ABILITY TO FIGHT THE ISLAMIC MENACE. As a practical matter there is absolutely nobody in the public political domain on the democrat side who both seeks a redefintion of our mission in Iraq AND appears to have the slightest appreciation that the Islamic menace is a reality or that we have values worth preserving. So our collective choice appears to be either keep faith with a perhaps unrealistically optimistic war effort or throw in with the profoundly deaf, dumb and blind denizens of the left. Given that choice, i submit that the only responsible choice but to keep faith with the war.

i meant to write .. the only responsible choice IS to keep faith with the war

Zenster,

MY (?) exceedingly cynical view?? As I laugh...It's not my view -- it's the Islamists who fully intend to take advantage of each and every "democratic" "opportunity" that comes along...or presents itself. (The latest, btw, has been the Supreme Court ruling which strikes down security certificates -- the certificates had nothing to do with 9/11 or any anti-terrorism laws, the certificates were there so as to enable the government to deport criminals attempting to enter Canada -- but, I'm willing to bet that as a consequence, not only will those currently being held on a "security certificate" (all presumed al-Qaeda suppoerters) will not only be freed, they will be COMPENSATED. Ja, the only question is -- how many millions, eh? Now, if that's just "too cynical" for you, then too bad...that's the "reality" of Canad-duh's "democracy.")

Maybe you'd have to live in Canada to grasp the nature of the "system." Not quite there yet, eh?

"The NeoCon gang running our foreign and war policy started planning the invasion of Iraq before Bush came to power. Chalabi was their tool, not the other way around.."
-- from a posting above

Never mind the simplifying phrase "the NeoCon gang" which is often used -- perhaps not in this case -- as a way to make charges ("Neo-Con" often being a word applied, quite selectively, to Jewish policymakers -- Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle -- which of course ignores all kinds of other people heavily involved, including the now-stoutest and unswervable supporters of the Tarbaby Iraq business, who include Bush, Cheney, Rice, Senator McCain, and all kinds of others whose names somehow are not included in that famous list of "Neo-Cons."

On the assumption,however, that you are not using the term in such a way, but are including all those who thought it advisable -- no one more than Bush himself -- to act against Iraq, are you seriously going to maintain that Chalabi et al., as they made and made the Washington rounds, had no effect? Is it your contention that Chalabi, Allawi, Rend al-Rahim, Makiya, or for that matter Vali Nasr, or Fouad Ajami, the "good Shi'a" who have had such influence, were not very important contributors to the atmospherics of Washington in which it was devoutly believed that the Americans could go in, remove the (Sunni) despot, and then everyone would be so grateful, and chambers of commerce would be set up, and Iraqi policies turned fervently and permanently toward the West -- where do you think all this nonsense came from? It was one thing for Bush and others to overestimate the need to remove Saddam Hussein. But far worse was the belief that Iraq could be subject to an Instant Makeover, or that, rather, the westernized, secularized Shi'a making the rounds in Washington and London represented the "real Iraq." Of course they didn't.

For those Shi'a, the "victory" that counted was the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the transfer of power to the Shi'a. Some of them -- Chalabi for example -- actually thought the transfer of power would be made not to "the Shi'a" in general, and certainly not to the troglodytic leaders of Dawa and SCIRI (Moqtada al-Sadr was not a blip on the Potomac horizon in 2002 and early 2003), but to the westernized, secularized, advanced Iraqis like themselves, or preferably, to themselves.

But that is always the problem with such people. Having sloughed off Islam, in essence, and representing a very tiny proportion of the population, and having spent decades outside the Middle East, they forget what the real Muslim Middle East is like, its rumors, its conspiracy theories, its endemic violence, its aggression, the inability of even its most advanced citizens to publicly (or often privately) to recognize that the source of their political despotisms, their econoomic backwardness, the moral and social and intellectual failures of their societies,and of all societies suffused with Islam (including those re-constituted in the cities of the West), is Islam itself.

To think that Chalabi,and other Chalabis (say, what's become of Waring's Problem, since it gave Chalabi the slip?), were being used by the Americans, shows a misunderstanding of such wily fellows as Chalabi, or indeed of any of the Arabs, who know exactly how to wind the Americans around their little fingers. The Saudis have been doing it for decades -- having Adminstration after Administration believe that Saudi Arabia is our "staunch ally" and that we can "trust the Saudis to moderate oil prices" and, as a consequence, a third of a century has gone by without the energy policy, or a hint of one, that is needed. Everyone kept believing in Saudi "price moderation" -- a belief that was false, and even were it to have been true, would have been irrelevant to the long-term problem of energy supply, demand, and anthropogenic environmental damage.

Hugh
I am glad to see you agree that troops need to remain in Iraq, in bases, that can be defended. For Me that was always the obvious reason for being in Iraq at all, to secure bases in the very heart of islam, capable of striking anywhere in the middle east within minutes, and not at the mercy of the capri of a ruling family as was the case with the elaborate and terribly expensive bases built in saudi arabia.(reminded of the RAF officer who comments about the bases in NATO Germany " ...a reminder to the Germans that we were NOT invited here,we are not guests"...) As I point out to many opponents, the "real enemy" is now only half a tank of gas away, rather than half a world away. Thru the succesful toppling of saddam coupled with our presence in afghanistan, we now are in the ideal situation to deal with the real enemy, iran effectively, a possiblity that would have been much more difficult, with painfully limited options available, without the two prior actions taking place.
Coupling these facts with the very pertinant point that, as the democrats are so quick to point out, that iraq is NOW the center of terrorism ( except of course when they claim it is not related to the WOT, just depends upon which spin they wish to use) and islamists from the world over are shoving and jostling each other to be next in line to "come out into the sand, and die" ( and they do and are, by the thousands) then it is hard for me to see where the "failure" of this policy lies. I would like to see our kids pulled out of the cities as soon as that is possible ( easier to kill in the sand than in the streets, and safer too) and I hope this latest surge will allow us to turn over the streets of baghdad to the iraqis, but as long as we maintain our bases in the country, the bigger issues will be addressed.
Regardless I much prefer the islamo fascist fighting our "best and brightest" fully equipped, and cognizant of the danger in a battle area in iraq, then a deputy in Iowa, a marine in fallujha, rather than a cop in philly. you get My point

Another thing, before I forget..

With regard to the rewarding of M. Arar 10 million plus dollars of Canadian taxpayers' monies -- due to the fact that Arar's fellow countrymen (that's Syrians) allegedly tortured him -- and Canada picks up the tab (even though there was no finding of "malice" on the part of Canadians -- explain that one to me), how would it be possible for anyone living in Canada NOT to be cynical? and, btw, none of this corruption and nepotism and goings on behind closed doors is "illegal" -- it's perfectly legal theft.

And, if one were not quite so cynical, certain questions might just come to mind -- such as who was representing Canada's interests in the Arar affair with respect to the "settlement", hmmm? Who were these lawyers? Members of the Muslim Lawyers Association? Any kick-backs? Again, one just might think that this would be of interest to a "free" press. Wouldn't you think? But, oh No!! Heaven forbid!! The "press" (such as it is in Canada) was far too busy painting Arar as Canada's "national hero" -- I kid you not. Do a
"news" search with Arar and Hero as your search terms. Even the National Post (a supposedly "right-wing" paper portrayed Arar as "Canada's Dreyfuss," as I gag.) But, as I've mentioned elsewhere this is hardly the first time Canadian taxpayers have been awarding millions to Muslims of suspect backgrounds (based on the slightest of claims -- one occurred in which the recipients stated that Canada's immigration system was just "too slow" in getting these non-citizen Muslims into Canada -- for that it was worth untold millions -- yeah, "too slow" in accepting Muslims into Canada.) Immigrants from countries with extensive patronage networks, believe me, know perfectly well how to play the system -- and rest assured, they do so. Also, as I have repeatedly noted, the Supreme Court ruled years and years ago that the moment a person sets foot on Canadian soil, that person is entitled to full rights -- equal to that of Canadian citizens. (I hear the same b.s is being attempted in the United States, through the ACLU -- but the U.S. hasn't quite reached the level of insanity that Canad-duh has -- not yet, anyway).

s_sgt7: Zenster, you are probably right about communism. It is a very bloodthirsty, tyranical, totalitarian way of government. Between two major communist leaders, almost a 100 million people died in less than one century. We don't even have an idea how many Kim Jong Il has murdered so far. Hussein, and Iran, both had communist, or secularist, influence and look how their leaders have behaved in the last 4-5 decades.

As you go on to note, the only thing that truly distinguishes Islam is its suicidal obsession with global dominance. Otherwise, there are numerous similarities between it and communism. Among the most glaring are; Ideological fixation, political monoculture, consistent violation of human rights, totalitarian governance, disproportionately harsh punishment of relatively minor offenses and xenophobic leadership.

I am only giving my opinion here. I don't know what is going to happen next, I am looking at the situation and guessing. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons - they are willing to sacrifice their own people to wipe out Israel. Keep in mind that even the communists don't commit suicide - they kill, but their goal is not to be a martyr at all - unlike muslims - whether they be shiite or sunni. Their stated goal is to prepare the way for the one caliphate and establish sharia law worldwide. take them for their word - they mean it.

Much as we are obliged to accept Ahmadinejad’s spoken intent to annihilate Israel, so must each of us believe Islam’s persistent avowal to overrun all other cultures on earth. The monumental hubris of this posture is surpassed only by the stark realization of what will be required to eliminate such a dire threat. The prospects for any peaceable solution are incredibly bleak. That Islam carries forward with such self-assurance despite having given the West so few actual alternatives only serves to cement all notions of a permanent and enduring incompatibility between Muslims and every other culture.

J.S.: Maybe you'd have to live in Canada to grasp the nature of the "system." Not quite there yet, eh?

I was not aware you lived in Canada. With respect to your own situation, such cynicism is entirely understandable. However, please do not credit your nation with the actuality of democracy. Canada displays many trappings of the democratic process but is wholly socialistic in far too many important ways to earn the name. Again, your tarring of democracy is inappropriate. When your statements are taken in the light of referring to Canada’s political system, they do make quite a lot of sense.

Hugh: It was one thing for Bush and others to overestimate the need to remove Saddam Hussein. But far worse was the belief that Iraq could be subject to an Instant Makeover, or that, rather, the westernized, secularized Shi'a making the rounds in Washington and London represented the "real Iraq." Of course they didn't.

It is this Muslim predilection, nay, addiction to dissembling and outright lies that will be their death knell. If I interpret you correctly, Hugh, you deem Islamic society completely incapable of accepting democracy. I concur with this observation. Nearly all Muslims deem man-made (i.e., democratically legislated) laws to be haram compared with the Quar’an’s God given commandments. what then can we expect from Islamic societies in the way of governance?

Is theocracy their sole format? Is it understood that the monarchies of Jordan and (especially) Saudi Arabia are merely figureheads for their nations’ theocratic underpinnings? Finally, how then to incorporate such abrasive and non-cohesive societies into the global community. More importantly, is that is even possible?

My point being that democracy is the only functional form of government that assures global political equilibrium. Socialism and communism are both dysfunctional socioeconomic models. The continued and ongoing failure of such ill-conceived states stands as glaring proof of this. America is absolutely correct in sowing democracy wherever it goes. Some interpret this as our selfish attempt to create a political monoculture non-hostile to and compatible with our cultural interests. The world must finally come to understand that democratic rule, complete with elected representation, constitutional law and trial by peer, is a fundamental human right.

The final upshot being that if Islamic societies are utterly inimical to democracy, then for the sake of our own survival, it may be necessary to either subjugate such nations or obliterate them completely. Barring a genuine and authentic reformation of Islam’s jihadist doctrine, there are few, if any, other alternatives. In the long run, the notion of a Quar’antine to constrict and contain Islamist activity can only amount to a stopgap measure. Covert development of Islamic WMDs and incessant terrorist incursions upon the West will assure this. As Iraq has so thoroughly proven; Muslims are totally incapable of living in peace, even amongst their own kind. We must take this knowledge and begin formulating policy that accounts for this societal incompatibility. Personally, I see very few alternatives should Islam prove reticent to adopt wholesale reformation. Such willful refusal to peacefully integrate with the world community must be taken as adequate justification for the elimination of such a dire threat to global peace.

PMK, "I agree that both actions were necessary and that much has been accomplished, but victory isn't among them. That is because this administration's definition of victory is something we can never achieve."

Bush's definition has ALREADY been achieved. An ally that can sustain itself. It is not technically possible for the insurgents to topple the democratically-elected government. They are vastly outmanned and outgunned. The US presence just makes the battle even more one-sided.

"However, the people of Iraq, at least the Arab people, have shown no inclination toward Western standards of government. Their intent is to install a Shia religious autocracy in place of the Sunni secular (more or less) dictatorship."

If that's their intent, they sure haven't shown it. They have a roughly western-style government already, and even have a Bill of Rights. You can see from the Iraqi bloggers that they have complete freedom of speech to trash their own government if they want.

"Afghanistan is trying to kill people who leave Islam."

Yep, it's certainly not up to western standards, but it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be, and they're anti-terrorist instead of pro-terrorist, and all this has been achieved with extremely low casualties and without having to go to war with the people.

"The Taliban is making a comeback."

The Taliban are simply dying. That's a good thing. They have ZERO chance of toppling Afghanistan's government. They are vastly outmanned and outgunned.

"Terrorists STILL operate freely on the Pakistani border in the more remote areas."

Sure. No attempt to fix Pakistan has been made yet. There are higher priorities.

"Iraqis cheer when Americans die, but they don't want the US to leave."

Iraqis don't speak with one voice. Those strange opinions coming from Iraqis are something that needs to be solved in time, and is probably due to poor logic skills. Let's see what freedom of speech and the internet and a modern education results in. The US should leave Iraq while that is happening.

"What are THEY doing with the gift they were given? NOTHING."

It's not true. They are working hard and fighting for their freedom and risking their lives to vote in far larger numbers than the US.

"Our original mission may have been successful. We accomplished what we set out to do. So let's leave with heads held high."

Sure. That's exactly what should be done.

"You say we destroyed their army so we need to provide replacements. For how long? It's been four years. How long does it take for people to take responsibility for their own neighborhoods?"

It nominally takes 12 years for an army to be built from scratch. However, the army only needs to be good enough to defeat the insurgents, so it can be fast-tracked. In my opinion, the milestone due in Nov 2007 of the Iraqis taking charge of all of Iraq is the end. That's enough "foreign aid". The US should basically just supply air support and 20k troops after that, with a view to winding down the 20k troops to just special forces as was provided to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

"The problem is that with us there they don't have to take responsibility. At what point do we let go of the handlebar and force them to steer their own bike?"

Nov 2007.

"Will they hold us responsible when they skin their knee?"

With their poor logic skills, quite probably. But it's also irrelevant what they think. The fact is that all the US's immediate goals will have been achieved. And will stay achieved so long as the US protects against a military coup or external invasion - the only 2 things that can possibly overthrow Iraq's democratically-elected government.

Zenster,

This will probably be an exercise in futility...but, what the hay. I do not understand why it is you feel that "socialism" precludes "democracy." Or that Canada is "socialist." (?) I don't get it. I also fail to understand why you claim I'm unilaterally condemning all "democracies" -- I'm not.

First, Canada is democratic -- we have a parliamentary system of government. (I was born and raised in the United States, and I have dual citizenship - Canadian and American). The parliamentary system of government is what is practiced in nearly every democracy, world-wide. (In fact, Iraq's parliamentary system and its form of "federalism" was supposed to have been the blueprint for Iraq's new parliament.) It is the U.S. system which is unique in the world (with its three separate branches of government...each striving for balance and over-seeing the powers of the others).

Secondly, I don't think democracy is doing well in Iraq (for a number of reasons -- in the text -- it's a political science text called "The J-Curve" -- the author gives numerous instances of the failings of democratic systems in Arab/Muslim states.) In many of these Middle Eastern countries, without the proper civilian institutions and infrastructures in place, democracy isn't gonna work. As in Algeria, you'll get into power the Islamists. (The same shaky states exists in S. Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc., etc. -- these are all dictatorships, but potentially they're very unstable ones -- they can easily implode, and be replaced with even worse forms of governance (potentially even more volatile, and terrorist-supporting). "Democratizing" these regimes is a BAD thing; it's destabilizing. (Do we really want to see, say, Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, controlled by Taliban types?)

Thirdly, (Back to the text, "The J-Curve"), one of the features the author failed to consider is what happens when Islamists immigrate to western nation-states? (The author of "The J-curve" dealt solely with dictatorial regimes -- those on the left-hand side of the J-curve -- and how to get these dictatorships to open up and become less of a world-wide menace/threat.) What I'm asking, is what happens to fully mature democracies -- democratic states on the right-hand side of the J-curve -- when we are invaded by Islamists? This has not been looked at by this author -- I think it's a huge oversight. (Oh, and I also am a fan of democracies -- if one is speaking of Human Rights, the Rule of Law, and Enlightenment Values...clearly, no other political system comes close...certainly not Islamism. I believe western style democracies are wondrous flowers in a wilderness of tyrannies and despotism.)

Fourth, complacency in light of Islamism is not good. I don't consider the United States impervious to the threat that Islamism poses...Canada may be further along in the process of Islamification (the UK even further), but the ACLU is ALSO in the United States, and believe me, you've got a lot of liberals and other pro-jihadis around. The U.S. is not immune.

I do not understand why it is you feel that "socialism" precludes "democracy."

Socialism, as I understand it, relies far more upon a centrally planned economy than free market systems. China's pervasive corruption is a sterling example of how free market economics are perverted by central planning.

Or that Canada is "socialist." (?)

Canada's government, with its national health care and significant role in redistribution of wealth (a hallmark of socialism), seems to have strong socialist tendencies when compared to the USA.

I don't get it. I also fail to understand why you claim I'm unilaterally condemning all "democracies" -- I'm not.

Glad to hear it. Then we probably are more in agreement than either of us realize.

I'll agree that many MME (Muslim Middle East) societies are ill-prepared for the immediate installation of democracy. Hamas' election to power in the Palestinian Territories is a sterling example of this. However, I also do not see much of a way to make any gradual transition over to democratic rule in many of those places. That said, all examples of democratic conversion need not be the trainwreck that is Russia. Still, I will concur that tyrannies like the MME possesses in great number may be particularly ill-suited for instant conversion to democracy.

Speaking from a strictly American viewpoint, I'm beginning to care less and less about how difficult it is for the countries in question to convert over to democracy. The current forms of government existing in MME countries hostile to the USA are so repugnant and constitute such a threat to global stability that, like Iraq, having their aggressive tendencies sublimated by internal strife might just be a good thing.

Hugh says...

"He accepts the Bush Administration's definition of "victory" in Iraq and then proceeds to tell us it's not possible. But what he misses is that there is another definition of victory that does make sense: to weaken the Camp of Islam."

You can't do that unless you id who the enemy is. Bush has made it very clear over and over again that he thinks Islam is good. He said this is a war against terror and a few misguided muslims and evil dictatorships. His objective is to bring democracy to the Islamic world.

How can Bush come up with a strategy to defeat something if Bush cannot tell you who the enemy is we are trying to defeat?

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu

I man who has been dead for 2500 years would do better then our current president and military leadership. Weapons may change but strategy is as old as the hills.

Hugh, the 'Neo-Con gang' obviously includes Cheney and Rice and Bush, etc. Not just Wolfowitz, etc. But in any case I fail to see the relevance of this.

The Bush administration was desperately looking for excuses to invade Iraq. They sunk to blaming 9/11 on the Iraqis. Chalabi was brought to Washington to provide the "evidence" the Administration wanted.

"Speaking from a strictly American viewpoint, I'm beginning to care less and less about how difficult it is for the countries in question to convert over to democracy."

Exactly! I'm also getting pretty fed up -- including these texts (such as "The J-curve") which repeat all the same propagandistic lies of the jihadists. If democracy isn't succeeding, then, of course, it's all the fault of the West. The West can do absolutely nothing right, while the Islamists can do no wrong (this has become in the academic world formulaic, like some sorry, pathetic cliche.)

The author of the j-curve devotes a section on Iran...including all the whining about how horribly the iranians have been treated by the evil-doers in the West. then this same academic claims that what should not be done is propose that there is only a choice between confrontation or capitulation (the author claims this is a "false dilemma.") But, of course, this same author never gets around to explaining just how to avoid this dilemma...the author hints that the "reformers" (yeah, those unicorns) need to be "supported"...but then, in the very next breath states that, of course, "support" cannot in any way be associated with Americans, since anything associated with Americans is a "poison." So, this imbecilic academic arrives at a stasis -- you can do NOTHING...that's his "solution." You can't confront Iran (that might hurt Iran's feelings and might make them mad); you can't capitulate (that would further the terrorists' nuclear agenda), but you can't provide any obvious, named support for the (imaginary) Iranian "reformers" either (since that would turn everyone off).

Then, of course, there's the repeated allegation that the "slide down the slippery slope to chaos" would be oh so awful for Middle Eastern dictatorships. yeah, sure. As stated elsewhere, maybe instability is a good thing (including for iran -- at the very least, it might put a damper on their nuclear ambitions...once embroiled in a civil war, it might halt any nuke projects...focus their attention on different matters.)

Another thing which these authors do is to state a conclusion, yet provide zero evidence in support of said conclusion. Thus the author maintains that it would be "unwise" for the west to crack down on Muslim immigration, yet fails to explain how this would be "unwise." The author simply makes derogatory statements about "gated communities" and that, I guess, is what constitutes a convincing "argument" for an academic...quite pathetic (although, I suppose, the author figures he's preaching to the choir, the already converted...that's what our "universities" have become -- mindless propaganda mills churning out the same sorry junk.)

"Exactly! I'm also getting pretty fed up... "

J.S., as I suspected we seem to be in violent agreement.