Fitzgerald: Getting out so as to concentrate on more important things

Hugh

Maybe you are right about pulling out of Iraq , that it could be a good strategy to set the 2 faces of the Islamic world at each others throat - but and it is a big but - what if you are wrong?

- and the result is that they fight for a while but later Iraq becomes what Al-queda and the rest want - the start of a new caliphate - what then? - are you advocating a COMPLETE pull out - or do you think we should maintain our bases - in order for example to re-engage - if the Caliphate looks like being on the cards

Either way a complete disengagement seems ill-advised - there are just too many unknowns in the equation at the moment.

Setting up ethnically pure Kurdish/Arab Sunni/Arab Shiite areas in Iraq will achieve precisely nothing of any strategic value. What is strategic is making Iraq as close as possible to being like a European country. Technically, it is damn close to that already, at least on paper. The laws of Iraq do not discriminate against race or religion, and the government of Iraq is trying, with US assistance, to enforce Iraqi law.

The fact that it's taking longer than WWII to create an Iraqi army from scratch is also not abnormal. It nominally takes 12 years to start a US-style army from scratch. Regardless, the Iraqis are due to be in charge of all of Iraq by November 2007. THAT (ie December 2007) is the point at which it is time to move on, only leaving sufficient forces in Iraq to ensure there is no external invasion or military coup that would destroy all the hard work that has been done.

In any reasonable comparison, this war has been waged at extremely low cost. Casualties are equivalent of about one month's worth of US road toll. And what has actually been achieved - an Arab Muslim democracy similar to a European country - is nothing short of phenomenal.

Iran should not be bombed. It should be liberated. Mosque attendance in Iran is near-zero from what I have read. We really need to liberate those people to find out what it is they really think, quite apart from any obligation we have towards the human rights of our fellow man. There is no need to stay in Iran for reconstruction. So just the initial war (ie what took 3.5 weeks in Iraq), is all that is required. There's no need to disband the Iranian army, as there was in Iraq.

I recommend toppling Syria and Lebanon after that, before getting to Sudan. If some European country would like to do Sudan instead of waiting for America, that would be even better.

As for public opinion - it is the government's job to make sound decisions based on science, not blindly follow a misinformed public. If you want to educate the public so that they are actually informed about the broader strategy, you can do so. I don't think most people are interested in actually studying that, or any other government policy, though. They'd rather watch American Idol. As is their right.

A limited Caliphate, perhaps. Does anybody think that Indonesian Muslims will tolerate being governed by Arabs? Will Shia Muslims tolerate a Sunni Caliph? Nasser tried uniting Egypt and Syria; that didn't last very long. Will Wahabbi Saudis allow a non-Wahabbi Caliph?

A Caliph having sway over all Muslims, even over Arab Muslims is not very likely.

A limited Caliphate, perhaps. Does anybody think that Indonesian Muslims will tolerate being governed by Arabs? Will Shia Muslims tolerate a Sunni Caliph? Nasser tried uniting Egypt and Syria; that didn't last very long. Will Wahabbi Saudis allow a non-Wahabbi Caliph?

A Caliph having sway over all Muslims, even over Arab Muslims is not very likely.

l think leaving now would creat more of a problem, even though Hugh states it otherwise. the media protrays such a different pictures, than what you hear from people who have actually fought there. nothing is easy in life, and this is damm hard.

"And then there is the possibility of seizing southern Sudan and Darfur, until such time as a referendum on independence can he held."

Yes I have been waiting for this for years. Finally you have begun to write on this site that the US should use its military to start liberate infidels from muslim rule and non-arab muslims from arab rule. Perhaps you will start to write more about Sudan and then Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bosnia, Kasakhstan, Azerbaijan etc. They should all be forced to give up territory to new infidel states so that the size of the islamic world is significantly reduced. Paki occupied Kashmir, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus should be liberated and returned to Indian, Serb and Greek rule. And an independant Assyrian state should be carved out in Iraq, it doesn't matter what size it is, it can be as small as Rhode Island or even San Marino. The establishment of a Christian Assyrian state will piss the muslims so much off that it almost will be worth the entire Iraq war, and a clear signal will be send to perhaps Egypt that further support for terrorism might lead to an independant Copt state.

All over the world the physical seperation between muslims and infidels should be promoted for the sake of peace and security of infidels and population transfers of the same size that happened in 1945 should be considered. Those population transfers were one of the major reasons for peace in Europe for 45 years until war broke out when muslims started to create new islamic states on Christian European soil.
So please a couple more articles that highlight how infidel independance from muslim rule should be promoted all over the world and supported by the US armed forces. Now when the FBI has started to listen to you perhaps people with power over the US military will as well.

What if "Iraq becomes what Al-queda and the rest want - the start of a new caliphate - what then? - are you advocating a COMPLETE pull out - or do you think we should maintain our bases -"
-- from a posting above

Apparently what I have written a few hundred times hasn't been taken into account. Let me try again.

To wit:

"Al Qaeda" is a group that in Iraq, under Zarqawi, and his successors, is dedicated to killing Shi'a, denouncing them as "Rafidite dogs" worse than the ordinary non-Muslim Infidels. How do you propose for Al Qaeda to win over the 60-65% of the population that is Shi'a Arab (and 20% well-organized and well-armed Kurds) and that this "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has been engaged in killing? Even if somehow it managed to win over more Sunnis -- but why would it? why should the mass killing of the traditional tribal leaders among the Sunnis win the tribes over to Al Qaeda, a small but deadly group? And if they did, so what? Still more than 80% of the population in Iraq would be a permanent enemy. And those 80%, quite unlike the Americans, are capable of ferreting out intelligence, and acting on it, in ways the Americans never would. Imagine what would happen if the Shi'a militia had been able to continue to operate in Sadr City and Baghdad - and what will happen when they, inevitably, are able to do so? Why, given all this, do you keep raising the spectacle of some magical takeover, of all of Iraq, of a group, Al Qaeda, whose members the Kurds and the Shi'a and even some of the Anbar Province tribes would like to rend limb from limb?

Why do you persist in saying, or thinkiing, or predicting such a thing?

Furthermmore, why is "Al Qaeda" brought up as if that is the only worry? Isn't Al Qaeda just the most-publicized of a thousand Muslim groups, working to commit acts of terror? And aren't there far more potent weapons, at present, against the West, than acts of terror? At present, what are the instruments of Jihad the Western world needs to worry most about? Despite the bombs in the London and Madrid subways, that is not at present the main instrument of Jihad.

The main instruments of Jihad in Western Euorpe are the money weapon, used to finance mosques, madrasas, and pay for an army of Western hirelings who defend Islam, in one way or another (promoting Saudi Arabia, helpiing to disguise the Lesser Jihad against Israel, helping to fend off, sometimes through street violence (demonstrations), sometimes through political pressure (some politicians now court the Muslim vote), sometimes through lawsuits, or merely trheatened law suits, in order to intimidate and inhibit Infidel governments and institutions and individuals from resisting what Muslims believe should be the unopposed and inexorable spread of their Truth, the Truth of Islam, and will stop at nothing, are inculcated with the idea that is a duty to stop at nothing, to achieve the goal of tearing down all obstacles to the spread of Islam, for everywhere "Islam must dominate and is not to be dominated."

Daw'a, or the Call to Islam, is conducted not only by individual Muslims (all of whom are supposed to spread Islam in their own way) but through well-financed, carefully-targetted campaigns, especially among the institutionalized, that is prisoners, but also prey upon two groups -- the economically marginal, for whom Islam is presented, quite falsely, as a vehicle of "social justice" and the pyschically marginal, the johhn-walker-lindhs and yvonne-ridleys of the Western world (or for that matter, the psychically-marginal who do not become full-fledged Muslims but merely running dogs, to use the Chinese-Communist phrase, of Islam, such as Karen Armstrong).

And along with Daw'a is the demographic conquest that comes from Muslim immigration, virtually unchecked, and certainly not yet halted or reversed (and both such measures will, for the purposes of rescuing Western Europe and its civilizational legacy, have to be undertaken, and undertaken just as the Czechs, for their own safety, passed the Benes Decree of 1946 and expelled 3 million ethnic Germans, and have never been criticized for that understandable decision, save by revanchist German far-rightists).

How is the islamization of Western Europe, or the killing of Hindus in Kashmir and India, or of Buddhists in southern Thailand, or of Christians in Indonesia (East Timor in the past, the Moluccas at present), or the mass murders of Christians in the southern Sudan over 20 years, or the Jihad against the Christians in southern Nigeria before, during, and after the Biafra War, or the attacks on non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, how is any of that dealt with by the Americans sacrificing men and money and materiel and morale to focus, so crazily, on Iraq, and to promote a policy that instead of exploiting the natural fissures, ethnic and sectarian, within Iraq which, if left to develop on their own, will lead inexorably to dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, the only goal, from the American point of view, that makes any sense, or that begins to justify the enormous expenditure in men, money, and materiel (and morale, military and civilian), that has already been incurred, and for which no further expenditures need be made.

I repeat: the Sunn-Shi'a split is of such depth and duration that nothing the Americans do will patch it up. The Sunni Arabs have convinced themselves that they are more powerful than the Shi'a, despite all the evidence, and in any case, Sunnis in Iraq and outside Iraq will never acquiesce in the loss of Sunni control over Iraq, the most important place in Sunni Arab mythology, and the site of fabled Baghdad, the madinat al-salaam, for five hundred years, the most glorious years (in Arab minds, permanently fixated on the supposed glories of the distant past) in Arab Muslim history. And the Shi'a, per contra, will never again allow themselves to be subject to Sunnis, nor will they give up the power they think that is theirs by right (and certainly by numbers), and whatever they promise the Americans for now, to keep them around, it will all fall apart, the minute the Americans leave - no matter when.

Yet you think that if the Americans leave "Al Qaeda" will somehow take over. Why? Because some people repeat this phrase? Because Bush or others say, with great certainty, that "we can't leave" or "if we leave it will be perceived as a defeat" or "if we leave the terrorists will win"? The "defeat" will soon enough be seen as the intelligent move, for our purposes, that it is. The "defeat" of America will be seen, almost immediately, as leading in fact to a colossazl headache -- not for America, but for Muslims everywhere in the Middle East, and even as far away as Pakistan. That "defeat" is only a "defeat" in the rhetoric of Bush and Cheney, who knew and still know so little about Islam, and who, in their obstinacy, and even in their embarrassment -- they just can't allow themselves to imagine that they have been wrong, or that they need to change course, because they can't allow themselves to admit to such, and would rather keep on, and sacrifice others, to a policy that does not make sense, than admit to this. Anyone who worries about the world-wide Jihad, and realizes what damage they have done, and how many resources, tangible and intangible, they have squandered, will find their current insistence on remaining in Iraq unforgivable.

Do you really want to have the American army remain there, at huge expense, with American soldiers and Marines being sacrificed to a policy that is attempting to do exactly of what, if Islam and Iraq were rightly understood, is desirable from our point of view? Now that the total cost of the war (see the paper by Blimes of MIT) is estimaed to rise, once the care of the wounded is factored in, to a total of about a trillion dollars, what do you make of it? Can you think of any other ways a trillion dollars, or even $750 billion, might have more effectively been spent to counter Da'wa, and demographic conquest?

The bottom line is: One cannot win by playing defense. Defense takes at least ten times the men and materiel than offense does. Worse, defense abdicates all initiative to the enemy.

In Iraq, we are playing by the Dien Bien Phu strategy--sit in the middle of a hostile valley, surrounded by enemies, and wait for them to attack. Worse, when they do attack, we "arrest" them and send them to "jail," after which the Islamic "justice system" either releases them outright (perhaps in celebration of Ramadan, or for some other excuse), or else arranges for them to "escape" from captivity.

The armed services in recent decades were shrunk by half, and reorganized to be "expeditionary forces." They are designed to move and to attack and to prevail. They are not sized, trained, or equipped to be occupation forces. But in Iraq, we use them as gendarmes and jailers and public affairs officers.

Instead, our expeditionary forces should, as they are designed to, be following the jihadists back to their nests--in Syria, in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, in Pakistan, even in Iran--wrecking their infrastructure (and the infrastructure of their sponsors, if they resist) and inflicting maximum casualties. And then our forces should immediately leave, without apology, without any nation-building nonsense. Then, repeat as necessary. Keep moving. Keep attacking. Keep the intiative.

And when the national sponsors of the various thuggish Islamic jihaist groups call for emergency sessions at the UN over this or that incursion, there must be a new incursion even before the diplomats have time to assemble on the first one. Let these phony diplomats (jihad by the tongue) scream until they hyperventilate. [Our diplomats should be playing offense, too, but that is another story.]

The only thing the enemy jihadists should be worried about is "where are the Amerians going to attack next?" Instead, we sit around and worry about "where will the jihadists attack next?"

After 9/11, President Bush came up with exactly the right concept in his "with us or against us" strategy. But he almost immediately stopped playing to win. The aggressive policy of going after the jihadist nests was well within his presidential authority. But he instead deferred to the UN and the EU in a useless attempt to build coalitions and to garner support from the left. What a waste. What a quagmire of appeasement. Neither the UN nor the EU (nor the left in general) is on our side in this fight to protect our civilization.

Hugh posted above: "A poster at Jihad Watch recently took issue with some comments I made by saying, "No politician can stand before the people and say they want to pull out of Iraq so that the Muslims will slaughter each other. "

I don't expect any politician to say that, so baldly. I never did."

Hugh posted in another thread (Fitzgerald: Folly to move out?): "He doesn't get to my point, the point about how sectarian and ethnic fissures are not to be worried about but welcomed, and the details of how, and why, and where that would help us that have been posted here, several hundred times, over the past three years."

Yes, perhaps a politician should not state his case so bluntly or baldly if he believes in that strategy but even if he were to use Hugh's proferred speech, many voters would accuse him of "wanting to pull out of Iraq so that the Muslims will slaughter each other" and that is the talking point that he would have to defend. In the end, the verbose approach might make very little difference to critics. It is too detailed for a sound bite. Still, I wonder why it should be perceived as vulgar or wrong to advocate for the disunity of your opponents. Is it not better that they fight themselves than us?

The conservative columnist Diana West, practically wrote the elements of a speech Bush could give to the nation, explaining such a change of course in Iraq. Here it is, in two parts:

"....Over the past few years, then, the United States has supported fledgling democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian Authority....

"With their devotion to Islamic tradition, then, these new democracies have, in effect, peacefully voted themselves into the same doctrinal camp as the many terror groups that violently strike at the non-Muslim world in the name of jihad for the sake of a caliphate -- a Muslim world government ruled according to sharia.

"So be it. What I mean by that is, it is neither in the national interest nor in the national will for the United States of America to attempt to reshape such a culture to conform to our notions of liberty and justice for all. It is neither in the national interest nor in the national will to attempt to reform a belief system that animates this culture to conform to our notions of freedom of worship. It is, however, in our national interest, and must become a part of our national will, to ensure that Islamic law does not come to our own shores, whether by means of violent jihad terrorism as practiced by the likes of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or through peaceful patterns of migration, such as those that have already Islamized large parts of Europe.

"The shift I am describing -- from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive -- means a national course correction. Rather than continuing to emphasize the democratization of the Muslim Middle East as our key tool in the war on terror, I will henceforth emphasize the prevention of sharia from reaching the West as our key tool in the war on terror...."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2006/08/17/what_president_bush_should_say_to_us_part_1

[Part 2 talks about securing our own borders and redeploying our troops to Kurdistan.]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2006/08/26/what_president_bush_should_say_to_us,_part_2

Basically, all Bush would need to do is read this whole thing off the TelePrompTer verbatim. We could then begin to disengage from Maliki in Baghdad immediately, and it would NOT be the unmitigated disaster that both mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans think it would be.

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,

While having great respect for you, I would ask you to please consider a few points.
People always speak of "costs", but do not look at what we have purchased in reality. For example, we are learning that the Russians have been busy beavers since the Cold War in learning how to destroy our tanks and military equipment. Iraq has been the most wonderful live fire exercise in exposing Soviet tactics and in response our equipment and surviving soldiers are evolving to become an even greater fighting force.
This lesson is not a lesson one wants to learn facing a Russian or Chicom army when the stakes are not a discussion of pulling out of Iraq, but an invasion of America if we fail in the deserts now.

The issues of NATO and others mentioned are being addressed and focused upon. Our government is huge and as you realize on any given day there are matrix threats, war games and implementation policy being conducted on a greater scale than even Iraq and no one notices.
In speaking with service members and wounded soldiers, I have found they are not that bothered by Iraq nor Afghanistan. The US forces now leading in Afghanistan have already neutralized the much touted "spring offensive" by the Taliban.
There are always problems, but considering that Clinton policy was to allow terrorists murder around 100 Americans a year as a trade off to keeping the war offshore which ended in 9 11. Policy does indicate that the terrorists are indeed coming here and require to be stopped over there.
I have written extensively of Iran as a Russian proxy has been attempting to get a Hamacuba and Hezbuealla off our coast as they are doing to the Judeans. This will then evolve as nuclear armed bases to strike at America. So yes the Islamocommunists are coming and one of the many policies of Iraq is intended to make Iraq a kill zone.

Due though to the American public abandoning President Bush, a new European policy is being implemented and coordinated in the Middle East. The "love thy Muslim" policy of trying to humanely deal with millions of furious Muslims at their horrid existence is moving into a phase of a new literal war now meant to kill vast numbers of many Middle East citizens and cement a new order out of the chaos and debris.

If the Middle East was just one policy of Sunni Islamofascists against Shia Islamocommunists after what America had as a noble act in trying to save them from themselves were let to fight it out, we as a people could have a clear conscience in we did all we could. That though is not what is being phased in by the Russians who are the most malevolent part of the Middle East strategy.
In papers, I have published they point out the National Bolsheviks intended to start an Iranian and Saudi nuclear exchange and with Iraq in turmoil would literally destroy the commercial oil supply for a decade.
This would leave Russia as blackmail control of all of Eurasia. The Chicoms would be their fodder to use against America and Europe would topple and be weaned away from America. This is NB published policy in attempting to drive America back to our ocean borders to later be "dispatched" at world leisure.

Please forgive the lengthy synopsis, but I know the White House knows this by actions I read in dispatches and because I have contacted them more than once. If this was just about the issues you spoke of then it is one matter, but America is dealing with these small fires so we do not get into a live fire with the ever malevolent Putin.
Your assessment is absolutely correct in dealing with Iran in Global Strike and Vice President Cheney has implemented this policy.
It all sounds heartless sometimes, but the policy makers are so adept at running the numbers that they know the dead already as they did in Vietnam. They use those numbers though to weigh actions and Iraq before in dead and wounded was deemed more humane than loosing American cities to sold Russian nuclear bombs.
Currently the numbers indicate it is more humane to implement kill zones in the Middle East as it is more humane than the murder which would evolve in a world war in Eurasia.
I know the media extolls it and at times our government looks like dolts, but the professionals who are working the scenarios are doing everything which you brought up in your fine article. The picture is all connected and I conclude there is not going to be stopping any of this. President Bush has delayed it, but demonic nature is working out.
We though as a people of a Republic need voices as yourself and Mr. Spencer to direct and influence our people. The time ahead is going to become even more difficult.

I apologize for the lengthy posting.

"Apparently what I have written a few hundred times hasn't been taken into account. Let me try again."

Hugh - of course I follow your argument and it does sound convincing - the logic is well thought through but it is just that an argument - the truth is no- one really knows what will be the result of a complete American withdrawal - maybe the sunnis and al-quada will win against the shia - maybe they will all get together and form an alliance - the truth is I have NO idea what would come out of the Iraq under such circumstances - and neither do you - hugh amigo!

Lame Cherry:

Your confidence in Bush & Co. is misplaced. If they knew what they were doing, why in the world would they leave our borders wide open going over 5 years after 9/11? Do they have a secret plan to convert the millions of illegals into an army to fight the resurgent russkies? I doubt it.

johnmac:

It's true that no one can know with certainty what will happen if we quit Iraq. But considering that Hugh accurately predicted sometime after the invasion was set but before Saddam was toppled (if memory serves -- HF can correct me here) that Iraq couldn't be democratized in the Western sense & would fall into a civil war, it certainly makes more sense to let his analysis guide our decisions than to "stay the course," as Bush kept saying until even he realized the majority of Americans were absolutely sick of hearing him repeat it.

Paul Edwards said

What is strategic is making Iraq as close as possible to being like a European country.

That is the current strategy in a nutshell, and it is a nutty strategy. Iraqi history is nothing like European history. None of the struggle to end serfdom, the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, and so on. Take a timeline of European history, lay it next to Mesopotamian history, and see how much of it lines up: it doesn't. Their religion is different, their values are different, their culture is different.

But in our hubris, we think that in 5 years we can overwrite millenia of history and culture with our own, and we can do it by getting rid of "a few radicals" at the top. Bing, bang, boom, everything falls into place. But the problem isn't the "few radicals", it is the entire culture.

The laws of Iraq do not discriminate against race or religion

Maybe the laws of Iraq do not discriminate against race or religion, but the lawmen of Iraq do. Shi'ite police/deathsquads go out and round up Sunni's, and then use powerdrills into their eyeball sockets. And Sunni deathsquads abduct Shi'a politicians and murder them. That piece of paper that we forced them to type up, promising to treat each other nice-like, is nice, but doesn't mean much to them.

Iran should not be bombed. It should be liberated.

Liberate them from whom? From themselves? Who is occupying Iran, other than Iranians?

I recommend toppling Syria and Lebanon after that, before getting to Sudan.

And what happens after we topple them? Would they become freedom-loving democracies, just like us? Just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you really think that whatever came after them would be more to our liking? Would we, after toppling all these governments, think ourselves obligated to stick around and "help" them, until they became European-style freedom-loving democracies?

Instead of going around the world toppling governments we don't like, and then spending trillions of our money helping them to realize our fanatsy of transforming them into us, how about this:

1) Withdraw aid and support to governments that are hostile to us, including those that we now pretend are our "staunch allies".
2) If a nation that is hostile to us begins amassing WMD's or other means of attacking us, then attack that country, anywhere in the world, regardless of whether we pretend they are our "staunch ally", and completely destroy those WMD's or those weapons or those training camps. Don't leave a single enemy combatant alive. Then leave, no reconstruction, no financial assistance. If they hold a military parade, attack it. If their leaders have a summit meeting, kill them.
3) Take steps at home to protect ourselves from enemy combatants. This involves immigration policy, border security, etc.
4) Reduce (and when possible, eliminate) interaction with nations that are hostile to us. This includes coming up with non-petroleum-based energy sources. On the other hand, be even more generous with nations that are on the front line of the jihad, and who are our true allies.

While I think each of these is common sense, I believe we are currently doing the exact opposite of each of these steps.

I could not disagree with the policy advocated above by a well-meaning person, the policy that the Administration is currently following, more strongly.

Pundits all over the news these days are moaning and groaning and gnashing their teeth over how we have "lost" in Iraq. What did we lose?

Our stated goal was to make sure they didn't have WMD's. They don't.

We wanted to "free" the Iraqis from the terrible dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the (Sunni-supported) Baathists. We did; he, and they, are gone.

We wanted to give the Iraqi people the "gift of democracy". They had their election. They voted for pro-sharia candidates, but they voted.

We crushed their armed forces in how many days?

If we "lost", it is only because our original goal all along, unstated, was to "make Iraq as close as possible to being like a European country". If that had been the stated goal, the war in Iraq would almost certainly have never happened. Such a goal would have been seen for what it is: unrealistic, to put it mildly. So we pretended our goals were something else, and we achieved each and every one of those goals, and yet we supposedly "lost".

We "won". We achieved our goals. Our mission is complete. Time to pull out and let the Iraqis lead their country as they see fit, under their religion, under their culture, under their values. That is their right, that is what they deserve.

special_guest--

Here's "Victory in Iraq" from Jan. 18, 2007:

"Winning in Iraq is important. And we need a return on our investment: 3,000 dead, nearly 25,000 wounded, about $700 billion so far spent or committed in future unavoidable costs, with estimates for the total ranging between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.

And winning can only be done if the definition of "victory" is first made clear.

What is the correct definition of "victory" for the United States? It is the Camp of Islam and Jihad rendered weaker than it was before. The Administration keeps saying that bringing "democracy" itself somehow weakens the appeal of what it inaccurately describes as "extremists who have hijacked a great religion," but since those "extremists" or merely the more religious and less secular have only increased their power whenever free elections have been held -- in Algeria, in Egypt, in the "Palestinian"-controlled territories -- the clash of theory and reality is never explained. How can the Camp of Islam be weakened if American efforts are directed at ensuring a united, stable, and prosperous Iraq?

And if that impossible goal were somehow attained after another few years of expensive and depleting American efforts and expense, and focus remains on Iraq while every other matter is somehow pushed to the back or the side, including that of Iran's steady nuclear project, how would this Iraq serve as a Model? How could an Iraq that was once the place of the Abbasid Caliphate be lost to the Shi'a? After all, that was where so much of that "glorious Islamic past" upon which Muslims like to dwell took place. It is a place so important to their sense of themselves and their rightful role in the universe, that if it were lost by the Sunni Arabs and came to be dominated by the Shi'a, those "Persians," those Rafidite dogs, this would be worse in the eyes of both the Egyptian press and Saudi clerics than Jews and Christians dominating Iraq. Yes, that's just how bad those Shi'a are.

How would the achievement of the stated goals of the Bush Administration in Iraq weaken the Camp of Islam?

The way to weaken the Camp of Islam, and thus to justify the incredible expense in men, money, materiel, and morale both civilian and military, is to allow a situation within Iraq to be created (and still better if that situation is entirely a creation of the people in Iraq -- not "the Iraqis" who do not exist – themselves) in which Muslims who would otherwise be waging jihad against us are divided and demoralized. This will weaken the Camp of Islam. Two of the three major fissures within Islam -- sectarian and ethnic -- are pre-existing conditions. Their origins can be found in the first century of Islam.

The ethnic fissure is that between Arabs and Kurds. The Americans did not cause the mistreatment of the Kurds by both kinds of Arabs, but a not-impossible Kurdish state would serve American interests in two ways. It could weaken both Syria and Iran, that have circumjacent Kurdish populations. And in the case of Iran, not only Iranian Kurds but other non-Persian minorities (Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis) might be inspired by an independent Kurdistan. And the very existence of an independent Kurdistan could have effects far beyond the immediate area for other non-Arabs, including Berbers in North Africa and black Africans in Darfur. They might be heartened by the example of a non-Arab Muslim people throwing off the Arab yoke. And in the "war of ideas" that some like to refer to, anything that reveals Islam to have been and to remain a vehicle of Arab imperialism, cultural, linguistic, economic, and political, is to be encouraged -- so that non-Arab Muslims will begin to view Islam in a new, more accurate, less attractive and more disturbing light.

The much larger fissure is that between Sunni and Shi'a. It goes back to the seventh century and the proper succession, after the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, to Muhammad. But it became a difference in ritual and in some doctrines as well, though not in the teachings about, and attitudes exhibited, toward non-Muslims. This too was not encouraged by the Americans. The war being conducted on Shi'a by Sunnis centuries ago led to the former adopting the doctrine of taqiyya (which is now essentially practiced by Sunni Muslims as well, relying on Qur'an and Hadith for justification), that is, religiously-sanctioned dissimulation about the faith. Sunni-Shi'a tensions, and Sunni discrimination against or persecution of the Shi'a, including deliberate campaigns of murder as in both Iraq and in Pakistan, will go on whatever the Americans do. These tensions can be seen in Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Bahrain, in Kuwait.

The "victory" in Iraq that would result from the continuation, and enlargement, even beyond Iraq's borders, of ethnic and sectarian hostilities and warfare within the Camp of Islam, is the only kind of "victory" that makes sense. And though it was made possible by the removal of the iron regime and mailed fist of Saddam Hussein, the conditions that cause those fissures were none of America's doing. All the Americans have done is try to prevent the very things that they should be deliberately not preventing, but exploiting.

A topsy-turvy strategy. A crazy quilt of plans and counter-plans that miss the essential point.

A mad world, my masters!"

[Posted by Hugh at January 18, 2007 01:07 PM]

A poster at Jihad Watch recently took issue with some comments I made by saying, "No politician can stand before the people and say they want to pull out of Iraq so that the Muslims will slaughter each other.

Can't do that! What? Some American Dhimmitician putting America FIRST for a change?! Oh no, we must face Meka and genuflect all day!

Barf!

PS. Saw this on LGF:

Q. Why are the moslems still in the Matrix?
A. They all chose the Blue Pill.

I do not pretend to have all the encyclopedic knowledge of Islam and world cultures that Spencer and Fitzgerald have.

But I do think I have enough common sense to know when we are stuck in a rut. I was a pretty good engineer at one point in my life; and one thing I was real good at was sensing when a development project had gotten itself into trouble and needed drastic revision.

And that is where I fear we are, with Bush's Iraq War policy.

Newt Gingrich, who was the architect of the 1994 Republican revolution that took over Congress in the U.S., gave an interview to the NY Post last week in which he said that Bush's "surge" plan has only about a 20% chance of succeeding.

If nothing else, we owe it to ourselves to look at alternatives.

And yes, there ARE alternatives besides just surrendering to Islamists vs. Bush's "stay the course."

Hugh, excellent piece, and I'm sure, it's not the first one in which you articulated the goal and the strategy that should have been followed in Iraq and beyond. Your goal and your strategy, which I have not heard repeated by any other pundit or "Middle East Expert", was laid out by you long before January 18, 2007, if memory serves. But it is worth repeating. Because it is not about "Bush bashing", it is not about helping one domestic political party at the expense of another, it's not about "cutting and running", it's not about "saving face" or showing how we "can take it"; it is about getting us into a safer and saner situation. We're still fine now, five years and almost 1 trillion dollars later, but if we continue down our current path indefinitely, danger awaits us.

I agree with Hugh on this. I feel Bush has failed becuase he never has made effort to name the enemy. How do ever plan to fight a war if you don't understand the nature of Jihad and of Islam in general. If you can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni or the various ethnic groups then you never can understand how dividing them and keeping them at war with each other will give us the advantage in dealings with them.

My policy is this: When muslims fight each other it is good for non-muslims just like when communist fight each other it is good for capitalism.

One other thing.

It is the Size of the Mistake. When a Mistake is this big, it is almost impossible for those who made it to admit, or concede in some fashion, that they made a mistake.

This Administration cannot concede that the very idea of transplanting "democracy" was an impossible task. Indeed, for a while it kept insisting that those who said this, and meant by this that Muslims do not, to the extent that they are Believers, accept the idea of locating political legitimacy in the expressed will of the people, who are mere mortals, and should in all things remain submissive to the will of Allah (and the will of Allah, which is the only legitimate source of political legitimacy, expresses itself in the Qur'an, as glossed by the Hadith and Sira).

It cannot openly admit tha the Sunnis and Shi'a have been in conflict ever since the first century of Islam.It cannot admit that the Sunni-Shi'a split can be observed as a theme that explains much of the violence within Dar al-Islam over the past 1300 or so years. It cannot admit that the Shi'a disaffection with Sunni rule goes back to the earliest days of modern Iraq, and was commented on by Gertrude Bell herself. It cannot admit that the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia have treated the Shi'a (almost all of them in the Easter Province, where the oil is located) with contumely, or that when Al-Zarqawi denounced the Shi'a as "Rafidite dogs" he was repeating what many Sunnis think of the Shi'a. It cannot admit, the Bush Administration, that the Shi'a have even been accused of collaborating with the Mongols in 1258, supposedly helping them to slip into Baghdad. It cannot admit that the depth and duration of the Sunni-Shi'a split could have been foressen (and it was all put up here, discussed many times, from early 2004 on, and possibly before -- I first began posting, at all, in November and December 2003). For to admit any of this, is to raise the obvious question: If there is this deep split, than how can the messianic idea of creating Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, possibly succeed?

So the Bush Administration, not knowing the depth of the Sunni-Shi'a hostility, was convinced mostly by some clever Shi'a in exile who wanted the Amercians to get rid of Saddam Hussein that all manner of things would be well (and then there was the egregious Bernard Lewis, assuring one and all that "democracy" is part of the Islamic tradition, when what he meant is that the caliphs did consult with others, which is a different thing, and further predicting that the liberation of Baghdad "would make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession."

How can that same Administration now admit that:

1) We were wrong about "democracy" -- democracy in the Western sense cannot come to Iraq or Afghanistan, and we were wrong not because of this or that tactical error, but because we were wrong about Islam, and its effects.

2) We were wrong about the Sunni-Shi'a split. We had no idea it was so deep, because we didn't do a proper investigation. Lewis and the Shi'a, many of them charming (Chalabi, Makiya, Renda al-Rahim, Allawi) or other Arabs (that nice lady who was Wolfowitz's girlfriend, and for all I know still is, and who allowed him to think that he "knew" all about Iraq, Islam, the Middle East, when he is nothing but a glorified weapons-systems analyst, as Richard Pipes noted, who has little understanding of history or of the influence of what might be called "culture" on the Iraqis).

3) Now what can the Administration do? Can it say it was wrong? No, it can't. In fact, the remarks of Stephen Hadley betray the real feeling of the Administration. Hadley said today that the Democratic critics would end the war in "failure" (apparently Stephen Hadley et al cannot concieve of having the Muslims in Iraq at each others' throats might actually be a good think for the Camp of Infidels, because he cannot conceive of thinking in terms of the Camp of Infidels and the Camp of Islam, and the ways in which the former might divide and demoralize and weaken the latter -- it's just not the way Bush and Rice and Hadlley and Cheney and the rest of the loyalists even allow themselves for one minute to start thinking, when it is the most obvious way to think, and would have been obvious to any Americans fighting in any previous wars. This is the crazed pass to which we have come.

So Hadley says to get out now would be to admit to "failure" and to make the "sacrifices" of all who had gone before a "waste." By thos logic, no American government engaged in hostilitites should ever change course, or end them, unless there is complete and total victory, because otherwise those men who have died or been wounded will have done so in vain. But it was in vain, it was stupid, and someone has to someow stop the runaway train of people who are deluded and ignorant -- deluded about Iraq, incapable of even beginnning to tell us just how the outcome they desire in Iraq, as opposed to the outcome I desire (which depends on the Americans getting out right away) will in any way lessen the threat of Islam, not only in Iraq, but in Western Europe and Thailand and Kashmir and Israel and around the world. This is what the Adminisetration can no longer do so, having used up those idiotic phrases about "cut-and-running" and "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" it is now reduced to saying "we can't fail" or "failure is not an option" or other phrases that mean nothing, and simply demonsetrate a contempt for the publlc that is intolerable.

They should be treated, these people, with the contempt felt for them now by many of those who have served in Iraq, and without necessarily understanding Islam or the Sunni-Shi'a split, do see a ridiculous waste of lives and money,and know that the generals who parrot the Administration line are not worthy of respect, even if outwardly it must be shown them.

The damage to military morale -- among those officers and men who think about things rather than accept them unthinkingly -- is great, and becoming ever greater. Soon enough some officers will be speaking out, I suspect, because it simply cannot go on like this.

Let’s make this even more palatable to some...

Let me give you analogy. In late May and early June of 1864 General U.S. Grant launched a series of silly front attacks at confederate positions. The frontal attacks were based on information that confederates were weak in the middle and a quick victory could be obtained and perhaps the end of the war. His information and gut feelings were just wrong. The attacks produced about 1800 men killed and about 13,000 casualties in total.

In his memoirs Grant stated “I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made.....At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.". It was a waste of life. It happens in wars. Even the man who ordered the attacks admitted it. What Grant did was simply flank the position and the war went on for about another year.

The point of the story is two fold. One Grant did not just keep beating his head against a wall hoping for the same results. Let’s view Iraq as a battle in the Greater Islamo-Western War. This battle like Cold Harbor was a failed attempt to tackle a problem that not only did the President not understand but many in the west in general did not understand. The assault was made on faulty assumptions and bad information. It was also a waste of life. Now we can continue to attack using the same false assumptions or change strategy more in line with a better understanding of the problem. I don't fault people for making mistakes. I don't fault them even if they were un-educated on Islam at the time of the invasion. I do fault them when they keep doing the same thing over again or worse fooling themselves into thinking they are winning. It is not working and we are not winning this battle.

This leads to the second point of the story. The union still won the war. We can lose the battle of Iraq and still beat the forces of jihad and Islamic expansion if we accept the knowledge learned and the failure of the current strategy. We can save the spirit of the army from an even worse defeat and fight again another day. We redeploy our forces to better protect our nation and we will be in a better position to take out direct threats to our allies and the nation itself. Perhaps an offensive into western Pakistan to clear out some un-wanted enemies or southern Sudan to block access to jihads into Africa depriving them of valuable resources as Hugh stated in this entry.

All this will only be done if we redefine what this war is. It is not a war against terror but jihad. It is an Islamo-Western or Islamo-Modern war (or whatever) but somehow Islam better be part of it. This will allow us to ask questions and prepare the homeland with new measures like restricted immigration and pushing for secular reform of Islam. To put our forces (both military and monetary) in position to do the most damage to jihad or Islamic expansion. The Shia and Sunni divide is just one of those weak points.

So it is time call off the Battle of Iraq. Chalk it up to the fog of war or whatever but we have bigger fish to fry. We need a new strategy but first we need a new definition of the enemy and a new name for this war. The excuse that the dead will have died in vain is not enough. It was not enough at Cold Harbor and it is not enough in the case of Iraq. General Grant was man enough to admit a failure and he is still a popular figure in American history. The question can G.W. or does G.W. even get we are losing the battle called Iraq or understand what this war is?

"We can lose the battle of Iraq and still beat the forces of jihad and Islamic expansion if we accept the knowledge learned and the failure of the current strategy."
-- from a posting above

But by leaving, we will not only not "lose the battle of Iraq" but, I maintain, will be able to finally reap the fruits of a victory, and get something out of it -- and that something is that by removing Saddam Hussein, the Americdans have set in motion -- they didn't mean to, but they did -- the possiblity of that sectarian strife, which may occur in any number of ways and levels, and not necessarily in full-scale civil war, nor necessarily, in quite the same way, affecting the Shi'a side (in the main, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon), and the Sunni side (especially Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, the Sunnis in Syria, and the "Palestinians").

We need a return on the investment. That return can only come when we get out. That is what the Administration just can't seem to get through its thick head, because Yesterday's Men, who still can't bring themselves to study Islam or to make sense of it (not one of them could conceivably answer the simplest of exams that could be concocted on the spot, even the most simple-minded of multiple-choice questions would show them up), and even those who attack them (the Baker Commission, the assorted scowcrofts and odooms) are just as ignorant, and silly, coming from another direction. An entirely new set of leaders and advisers is necesary, but the older ones cling to power, and instead of using their time to study these matters, simply refuse to think it matters.

Can victory be snatched from the jaws of defeat? Yes, but only by leaving. This seeming paradox just cannot, apparently, begin to be grasped.

Hugh:

A brand new NBS/Wall Street Journal poll gives these results
.
Withdraw Now 21%
Withdraw Within Year 37%
Stay as Long As Needed 39%
Unsure 4%

See:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

This is not as bad as you stated. Your numbers are not complete or clear. Where are they from? If 75% want out, and many want out very soon, exactly how soon do all of them want out?

We can do many of the things you say we should be doing even if we are in Iraq.

Having a large military presence on Iran's doorstep is not all bad.

It is not idiotic, it is a good strategy to be on offense instead of defense and if we fight them over there, they have to committ resources over there.

I love your writing, but am not convinved that you have any experience or talent in military strategy. Yes, I wish it were easier to wrap things up in Iraq, but it is an evolving work in progress. I am not convinced that any of your other options will be so easy and that they won't cost a lot of money and lives and will probably also show little in imediate results.

What do opinion polls tell us? Only that having begun with a great deal of support, the administration has steadily lost support, even among those, or perhaps especially among those, I am sure, who are most alarmed by Islam and by the need to do something about the islamization of Western Europe, and many other matters that are now being almost completely ignored with this manic attention given to Iraq.

I was writing exactly the same things I write now back at the end of February, and then much more intensely in March and April, 2004, about how it was now time to go. On February 20, 2004, it is true, I still thought that possibly a force of some 50,000 soldiers, in the western desert, might make sense, but a week or two later I had come to my own senses and was already arguing for a total American withdrawal -- Saddam Hussein had been captured, his sons killed, his colleagues killed or captured, and most importantly, the country had been scoured for weapons. That should have been the end.

Tell me -- would you have favored my advice then, in early 2004, having been taken then? Are you sorry it wasn't? Are you sorry it wasn't taken in May, 2004, or September 2004, or November 2004? Or in April 2005 or in August 2005 or in December 2005? Are you sorry that the advice on withdrawal was not taken in January 2006, or in July 2006, or in December 2006? What about the failure to take the very same advice, for the very same reasons, often deliberately couched in the very same phrases, in January 2007? Or in March 2007? What about in the future -- is there a point at which you think what I say might make sense?

And what does "military strategy" mean? Alone, it means nothing. That is exactly the problem with the generals and other high officers in Iraq. They have been given a task -- do this, do that. They try, as best they can, to fulfill the task. They will tell him, Bush says, "when the Iraqis are ready." What they are not allowed to tell him, or apparently are not even allowed to think about, is whether being in Iraq at all makes sense. They are not allowed to think about grand strategy. Nor are they allowed to think about, or learn much about, apparently, Islam -- the one subject that is practically verboten, in the preparation given to soldiers. I haven't been, in recent years, visiting relatives at Fort Jackson and Fort Bragg and not taking note of what they tell me, with considerable dismay.

What 'military strategy" must I know about? How to deal with I.E.D.s? I haven't a clue. How to prevent helicopters from being shot down? Ditto --a complete ignoramus. So what. I know about the One Big Thing -- Islam -- and then I have offered some evidence of knowledge about all the Many Little Things -- the sectarian and ethnic and economic fissures within the Camp of Islam, and how they will play out, and how they can be exploited, nowhere better than right in Iraq, and be exploited not by engaging in still more expensive and energetic action, but like General Kutuzov letting nature take its course, so General Winter could destroy the Grande Armee of Napoleon in the late fall of 1812. Like Kutuzov, I believe in exploiting what is already there, and letting it do the work for me, whenever possible.

I make no apologies for not having attended a service academy. Last I looke, all those bright young strategists who were pushing for the "serge" -- such people as Frederick Kagan -- have no more training in this than I do. And they haven't any traiing in Islam and, as far as I can make out, are not terriblly intellilgent. Plodding, unimaginative, not well-versed in history and without any sense of Islam on the march outside the Middle East, and no sense of the menace of Daw'a and demographic conquest, precisely because these "military strategists" and generals are just that -- mere "military strategists," mere generals. They are used to thinking of war and armies in only one way. They cannot grasp all the other instruments of Jihad.

The "military strategists" and officers who think only of war in Pentagon terms -- but a Pentagon without propoaganda, a Pentagon without thought as to how to diminish oil revenues, a Pentagon that does not have a War Room listinig all the ways that internal fissures within Islam can be exploited and encouraged (actually, in Iraq no encouragement is necesary or even at this point desirable), a Pentagon that is not keeping track of the Muslim populations in Western Europe, or encouraging European governments to halt and reverse such immigration, for the sake of their own and the West's survival.

None of that. Just war. Just boots on the ground. Just Humvees, and tanks, and helicopters, and "military strategists."

Thank god I'm not one of those.

Papa Bear said

it is a good strategy to be on offense instead of defense and if we fight them over there, they have to committ resources over there. I love your writing, but am not convinved that you have any experience or talent in military strategy.

You doubt Hugh's ability to compose a military strategy. I think the strategy can be analyzed on its own, impartially and based on the facts, without reference to whether its author attended a military academy, and I think the strategy's brilliance is obvious. But, I doubt you'd trust my opinion either.

So, how about what Sun Tzu said in the "Art of War", arguably the most quoted commentary on military strategy:

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
[...]
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
[...]
"Therefore the skilful leader subdues the enemy's
troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field."
[...]
"[A ruler can bring misfortune upon his army] by employing the officers of his army
without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers."
[...]
"Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions."
[...]
"We cannot enter into alliance with neighbouring
princes until we are acquainted with their designs."

We are engaged in a protracted and expensive war, far from our own supply lines, and close to the enemy's supply lines, laying siege to the enemy's center of power. We are relying on military action, rather than the more subtle ways of fighting and weakening an enemy. We are stretching our own military to the limits, expending all our resources in one place, when they might be better used in other places. We allow the enemy to choose the time and place of battle. We call our enemies our "friends" and our "staunch allies", we put our trust and safety in the hands of those who want to kill us. We do not understand what motivates our enemy, or what their goals are. We do not understand the internal fractures within the enemy, and how they could be used to our advantage.

I think Hugh's plan is better. Much, much better.

special_guest,

PE:"What is strategic is making Iraq as close as possible to being like a European country."

"That is the current strategy in a nutshell, and it is a nutty strategy. Iraqi history is nothing like European history."

Nor does Taiwan or South Korea. But they've been turned into European-style countries too.

"Their religion is different, their values are different, their culture is different."

The Bill of Rights and laws that THEY chose are almost identical to a European country.

"But the problem isn't the "few radicals", it is the entire culture."

Fine. So we need to set about changing their culture to match European culture. This is the first step in that process.

"Maybe the laws of Iraq do not discriminate against race or religion, but the lawmen of Iraq do."

No they don't. The security forces are under orders to obey Iraqi law, and failure to do so will cause them to end up in jail.

"That piece of paper that we forced them to type up, promising to treat each other nice-like, is nice, but doesn't mean much to them."

Wrong. The US didn't force them to write any such thing. It was what they came up with all by themselves.

PE:"Iran should not be bombed. It should be liberated."

"Liberate them from whom? From themselves? Who is occupying Iran, other than Iranians?"

Liberate them from their dictator. It is not physically possible for them to overthrow him themselves. They tried in 1999 and they got slaughtered by automatic weapons. Just like happened to the Iraqis in 1991. This is what happens with modern weaponry.

PE:"I recommend toppling Syria and Lebanon after that, before getting to Sudan."

"And what happens after we topple them? Would they become freedom-loving democracies, just like us?"

Lebanon will be reasonable. Syria will not, and needs to have a reformist dictator installed instead. Sudan I'm not sure about. Iran will be fine with democracy.

I've got more details here:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/01/war-plan.html

"Just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Yep, both countries took to democracy like a duck to water, and we now have allied democracies instead of enemy dictators. That's a DAMN good result.

"Do you really think that whatever came after them would be more to our liking?"

Yep. Some via democracy, some via a dictator we install.

"Would we, after toppling all these governments, think ourselves obligated to stick around and "help" them, until they became European-style freedom-loving democracies?"

Nope. Afghanistan and Iraq were once-offs.

"1) Withdraw aid and support to governments that are hostile to us"

We don't give aid to Sudan, Syria or Iran already. So that won't help.

"2) If a nation that is hostile to us begins amassing WMD's"

Assuming you find out about it. And assuming you only care about official state actions, not the population committing terrorism.

"4) Reduce (and when possible, eliminate) interaction with nations that are hostile to us. This includes coming up with non-petroleum-based energy sources."

You're talking about a pipe dream decades from now. My plan is in current reality, and most of the important stuff will be done in years, not decades. It's time for a blitzkrieg.

"We wanted to give the Iraqi people the "gift of democracy". They had their election. They voted for pro-sharia candidates, but they voted."

They in no way voted for Sharia.

"If we "lost", it is only because our original goal all along, unstated, was to "make Iraq as close as possible to being like a European country". If that had been the stated goal, the war in Iraq would almost certainly have never happened."

That's not the only unstated goal. The real unstated goal was to identify the enemy. Was it all Arabs and all Muslims, or just Arabs, or just Muslims, or just Arab Muslims, or something entirely different? The answer was the last one - something entirely different. Specifically, dogma, non-humanist behaviour, religious bigotry, racism, subjugation. These are the enemies.

"Such a goal would have been seen for what it is: unrealistic, to put it mildly."

There is no choice. You either convert them to be like us, or you commit genocide. You must do one or the other. The fact that there were Iraqi Arab Muslims IDENTICAL to US neocons should have given you pause for thought.

"So we pretended our goals were something else, and we achieved each and every one of those goals, and yet we supposedly "lost"."

Iraq is in no way lost. It has been an astounding victory.

"We "won". We achieved our goals. Our mission is complete."

It is sort of complete. Since you disbanded the old security forces (for good reason), you do have an obligation to stick around until the replacements are up and running, which they should be by November 2007.

"Time to pull out and let the Iraqis lead their country as they see fit, under their religion, under their culture, under their values. That is their right, that is what they deserve."

It is also what they are already doing.

I recommend the following as well:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/02/afghan-war.html
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/02/iraq-war.html

It explains the rest of the unstated reasons and rationale.

Paul Edwards, in a thoughtful response, said:

Nor does Taiwan or South Korea [share our history or values]. But they've been turned into European-style countries too.

I don't know much about South Korea, but Taiwan had Dr. Sun Yat Sen who created a democratic government in China; they laid the foundations for democracy themselves, on their own, with no one forcing them (as in Iraq and Afghanistan). The Kuomintang was pro-Western, and the West supported the Kuomintang in the civil war against the Communists. There is no such powerful pro-Western group in Iraq or Afghanistan; the Kurds are the closest analogy. Secondly, the Kuomintang took alot of the accumulated wealth of the Chinese government to the small island of Taiwan, and used that seed (and the initiative of the people to educate themselves and to work extremely hard) to build a strong economy. Iraq has petrodollars, from oil pumped by foreign companies using foreign-built technology; they have not shown the same initiative that the people of Taiwan have shown. They don't place the same value on scientific education and research. Afghanistan has a moribund economy, and there is no reason to think that will change.

The security forces are under orders to obey Iraqi law

I apologize I don't have time to look up the articles, but I believe it is well known that Iraqi police and military units are the ones that are doing the paramilitary attacks against civilians in their off hours. The police are the ones doing the murdering.

And assuming you only care about official state actions, not the population committing terrorism.

No, I include the population committing terrorism. For example, we all know that OBL is in Waziristan, but because Pakistan is our "staunch ally", we refuse to go in after him. I think that if they won't get him, too bad, it's our turn, and we won't make deals with the warlords living there the way the Pakistanis do.

[about coming up with alternative energy sources] You're talking about a pipe dream decades from now.

It wouldn't be a pipe dream if we were spending the approximately 1 trillion dollars on energy research instead of in Iraq and Afghanistan "helping" them. We could have come up with something. We still can, we still will, it'll just take much longer at the current miniscule rate of funding.

They in no way voted for Sharia.

Their constitution included clauses that said that all laws must be in conformance with sharia. U.S. diplomats forced them to change "the Qur'an will be the source of law" to "the Qur'an will be a source of law", but I don't think that externally imposed change will stop them from doing what they want to do. In Afghanistan, there was already a case of a man who left Islam, and was therefore arrested for apostacy, and he only survived due to Western pressure, and he had to flee the country.

There is no choice. You either convert them to be like us, or you commit genocide.

Well, no, there are many other choices between those two. I like the choice of live and let live; let them live their lives as they want, and stop them from imposing their way of life on us. The exception is when they are preparing weapons to attack us, then it's not live and let live anymore, it's kill or be killed.

Iraq is in no way lost. It has been an astounding victory.

That is a vast overstatement. If our goal was to get rid of WMD's, it was a victory. If our goal was to get rid of Saddam, it was a victory. But if our goal was for Iraq to be like a European country, it was a failure. If our goal was to weaken the forces of jihad, it was a failure (but it could still be turned around).

It is also what they are already doing [allowing the Iraqis to govern themselves].

I strongly disagree. The reason U.S. forces are still there, is because the Iraqi government is not able to govern the people in a way that we think they should. They are not able to protect the people, or protect the infrastructure, or get the economy working, or get the power grid working, etc. When the U.S. troops are no longer there to make sure everything is working, I think you will see a very obvious and very fast descent into something different than the current situation. It won't be a subtle change, it will be undeniable.

Paul Edwards can tell us that Iraq is an "astounding victory" all he wants. What does he mean? Does he mean it is an "astounding victory" for the Infidels? Does he think that the last four years, and the expenditure of American soldiers and Marines (3,220 killed, 25,000 wounded), of materiel (so low that many National Guard units are without equipment even to train on, because so much has been left in Iraq), of money (estimates now range from $750 billion to 1 trillion dollars, including the future costs of caring for those wounded for their lives), and morale (the young officers who quit the army, the rise in the desertion rate, the lowering of standards and rise in the maximum age, for Reservists and National Guard, as well as for the regular army, in order to fulfill quotas, the great disenchantment and disaffection, among the civilian army -- Reservists and National Guard -- who should never have been asked to serve more than one time, if that, in Iraq, if the words "Reservist" and "National Guard" are to retain their true meaning).

What "victory" is that? What "astounding victory" is that? The only "victory" that makes sense is a "victory" that brings not "democracy" to Iraq (that's not possible, if by "democracy" we mean Western-style democracy, with equality before the law for women and minorities, and guaranteed rights for individuals akin to those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and not "prosperity" (inshallah-fatalism prevents the Muslims of Iraq from doing much more than distributing, or fighting over, the unearned oil wealth -- as in all the other oil-rich Muslim states). The only "victory" that should count is one that results from a weakening of the Camp of Islam.

That weakening can come -- again and again I have discussed this at by-now utterly boring length -- through those fissures, sectarian and ethnic, both of which Iraq, almost uniquely, possesses and, because of other unuusual factors (though the Shi'a constitute only 10-15% of the world's Muslims, the only Shi'a-ruled state is right next to Iran, shares the longest and most porous border with Iraq, and therefore can continue to support the Shi'a who elsewhere -- in Pakistan or Yemen or Bahrain or eastern Saudi Arabia or even Lebanon -- have no immediate suppliers and supporters. This is not a bad thing; this is a good thing, because it means the Sunni Arabs cannot easily win.

And the other main feature of Iraq is its great signficance to the Sunni Arabs, and their refusal to acquiesce in its lose to the "Rafidite dogs" of Shi'a Islam. They just can't accept that the Land of the Two Rivers and site of fabled Baghdad of the Abbasid Caliphate, for five hundred years the most important place in High Islamic Civilization, the source of all that glory, real and imagined, by perfervid Sunni Arab imaginations mythologizing about the hyperglories of that hyperglorious past -- well, they just can't let Baghdad go.

And because of that, the war between Sunnis and Shi'a in Baghdad will never end, and will always attract men, materiel, and money from co-religionists outside Iraq, and always have effects on the relations of Sunnis and Shi'a as far away as Yemen, Pakistan, and for that matter, Dearborn, Michigan and London, England.

The "astounding victory" that you claim has already been achieved in Iraq cannot be achieved, until the Americans leave. You keep missing the point. You keep failing to understand the world-wide nature of the conflict. You keep thinking that the only kind of "war" that exists is that which involves armies, and you keep missing the point about exploiting the natural weaknesses of the enemy, not through greater exertion, but through less.

Why if you were in charge of the Russian army during Napoleon's invasion, perhaps you would have thought the best way to have the fight would be to just go out and fight them -- and not let General Winter do almost all of the fighting for you. Thank god Kutuzov understood, and fought, differently.

One little thing -- or one big thing -- I missed in Paul Edward's response.

It is this:

"Nor does Taiwan or South Korea [share our history or values]. But they've been turned into European-style countries too."

In other words, after coming to this site, for months or possibly years, Paul Edwards still does noot understand the main point of this site, the point of why we should be working to destroy the nuclear project of Iran, and why we should take advantage of the natural consequences of the removal of Saddam Hussein, and why it makes no sense to keep supporting Pakistan with tens of billions of dollars when Pakistan continues not only to protect Al Qaeda, but to actively nurture and supply (oh, possibly not Musharraf, but practically everyone else in the army except Musharraf,and he does or can do, nothing about it) the Taliban, and to re-invade Afghanistan by proxy.

No, Paul Edwards, like Condoleeza Rice prating about "occuppied Japan" and "occupied Germany" and how scoffers scoffed there too just as they now do about "occupied Iraq" (what crap she allows herself to utter), wants us to believe that the examples of Taiwan and South Korea show us what can be done about Iraq.

What is missing from this? The main thing. Practically the only thing. The thing which explains why Iraq can never be like "Taiwan and South Korea" and only someone who has been paying no attention to this site, or not taking in any of what it offers as a pedagogic undertaking, could possibly ignore.

What is that thing that is missing?

Islam.
Islam.
Islam.

Hugh

When I state:

"We can lose the battle of Iraq and still beat the forces of jihad and Islamic expansion if we accept the knowledge learned and the failure of the current strategy."

What I mean is the failure of democracy with a bill of rights and with seperation of religion in majority muslim nations. That was and is the stated objective for being in Iraq today. Of course the objective keeps changing and the real reasons no doubt is because the arabians want us to protect them from the persian horde. By getting out that would be a new strategy and with a new objective so thus yes you are right that would be a victory. I agree with that.

My statement above is aimed at all those who keep saying: "If we leave Iraq we will lose the war against terror!" or "Iran will become a super power" or "What about the oil" or "You are cruel! What about all the Iraqis who have put their hopes in America" or "You are an Islamophobe" or "You are a left wing cut and run liberal" or "Coward!"....etc....

I heard my fill of these arguments this weekened. I had all these responses for just saying Iraq was a failure. They were all conservatives and all Bush supporters. I told them I am a republican but then they called me a rino!

God help us all...

"My statement above is aimed at all those who keep saying: "If we leave Iraq we will lose the war against terror!" or "Iran will become a super power" or "What about the oil" or "You are cruel! What about all the Iraqis who have put their hopes in America" or "You are an Islamophobe" or "You are a left wing cut and run liberal" or "Coward!"....etc....

I heard my fill of these arguments this weekened. I had all these responses for just saying Iraq was a failure. They were all conservatives and all Bush supporters. I told them I am a republican but then they called me a rino!

God help us all..."
-- from a posting above

Change as follows:

They were all [not very intelligent or well-infomred ] conservatives and all [inflexible and blindly loyal] Bush supporters."

special_guest, "I don't know much about South Korea, but Taiwan had Dr. Sun Yat Sen who created a democratic government in China"

Democracy only came recently to Taiwan, about 1999. China was never democratic. Regardless, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of you having to have the same history as Europe in order to have a democracy like Europe.

"no one forcing them (as in Iraq and Afghanistan)."

Ok, here you have two fallacies:

1. The unproven belief that democracy can't be installed by force of arms, despite exactly that having been done in Japan, Germany, Panama, Grenada and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. That it is actually "force" at all. It was actually Saddam that was forcing the Iraqis to be a dictatorship. Democracy is basically the lack of force. All America has done is stop anyone from forcing the Iraqis to do anything.

"The Kuomintang was pro-Western, and the West supported the Kuomintang in the civil war against the Communists."

So there was an anti-communist group in China.

"There is no such powerful pro-Western group in Iraq or Afghanistan"

There was an anti-Saddam group in Iraq, ie the majority of the population, and an anti-Taliban group in Afghanistan, ie the majority of the population. Neither group of people has gone to war with the US. They have both cooperated with the US. They have turned out to elections, they have joined the security forces, and they support those security forces. That's actually everything that was required. Whether or not they hang pictures of Bush in their homes is irrelevant.

"island of Taiwan, and used that seed (and the initiative of the people to educate themselves and to work extremely hard) to build a strong economy."

You're now saying that Taiwan is not identical to Iraq. I never said it was. All I was doing was dismantling your theory that you need to have the same history as Europe in order to have a European-style democracy. You don't. Taiwan and South Korea prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, every country is different, and if you look for the differences you will see them. That is no proof that democracy can't work in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is working in both already.

"I apologize I don't have time to look up the articles, but I believe it is well known that Iraqi police and military units are the ones that are doing the paramilitary attacks against civilians in their off hours. The police are the ones doing the murdering."

If you know of such crimes being committed by the police, then report it to other policemen, the same as you would do in America. If you don't get the response you hope for, report it to Iraq's free media. Also write to the Iraqi government. Also let the international media know. There are corrupt police in Iraq, just as there are in America, and the procedure for dealing with them is the same. No organization is corruption-free. Even the US soldiers have committed crimes.

"No, I include the population committing terrorism."

Ok, if you care about terrorism, then you need to ensure the education system is to European standards.

"For example, we all know that OBL is in Waziristan"

That's a large place, and no-one knows that for sure. If they had his location, he would be hit with a JDAM.

"but because Pakistan is our "staunch ally", we refuse to go in after him."

It is not strategic to invade Pakistan at this point in history. A man hiding in a cave is of little strategic importance either.

"It wouldn't be a pipe dream if we were spending the approximately 1 trillion dollars on energy research instead of in Iraq and Afghanistan "helping" them."

1 trillion dollars will not give you alternative energy. It will liberate Afghanistan and Iraq though.

"We still can, we still will, it'll just take much longer at the current miniscule rate of funding."

You can't just throw money at science and get the result you want. They tried the same thing with curing cancer. It's not so simple.

"Their constitution included clauses that said that all laws must be in conformance with sharia."

No, their constitution said that no laws should violate the well-known principles of Islam, which is a meaningless statement. Their laws are in NO WAY Sharia. Their laws are not much different from a European country.

"U.S. diplomats forced them to change "the Qur'an will be the source of law" to "the Qur'an will be a source of law", but I don't think that externally imposed change will stop them from doing what they want to do."

I think they came up with that themselves, it wasn't something that the US forced on them. Regardless, they are empowered to do whatever they want, including changing the constitution. They have done no such thing. Sharia is not in force. Iraq is a pretty decent country.

"In Afghanistan, there was already a case of a man who left Islam, and was therefore arrested for apostacy, and he only survived due to Western pressure, and he had to flee the country."

Yes, that's Afghanistan, not Iraq. Afghanistan is legally more backwards.

PE:"There is no choice. You either convert them to be like us, or you commit genocide."

"Well, no, there are many other choices between those two."

Not if you want to eliminate terrorism.

"I like the choice of live and let live; let them live their lives as they want, and stop them from imposing their way of life on us."

The way some of them want to live is to indoctrinate children that the Quran is the word of God. So long as this continues, there will (probably) always be people who read it and follow it and start killing infidels. If you're not prepared to radically change the Muslims so that they stop teaching this, you need to kill them.

"The exception is when they are preparing weapons to attack us, then it's not live and let live anymore, it's kill or be killed."

There will always be some who are looking for an opportunity to attack infidels. You can't stop them without changing their culture. And bringing democracy to Iraq is part of that process.

PE:"Iraq is in no way lost. It has been an astounding victory."

"But if our goal was for Iraq to be like a European country, it was a failure."

No, the goal was to get it CLOSER to being like a European country. ie freedom and protection of human rights. There were other goals too, and they've all been achieved. I gave you the link already.

"If our goal was to weaken the forces of jihad, it was a failure (but it could still be turned around)."

No, this was achieved too. All those people that Osama had trained were loose in the world and could have done untold damage by attacking American civilians. Instead, they all came to Iraq to suicide against the US military. You can't ask for a better result.

PE:"It is also what they are already doing [allowing the Iraqis to govern themselves]."

"I strongly disagree. The reason U.S. forces are still there, is because the Iraqi government is not able to govern the people in a way that we think they should."

It's not true. The Iraqis are governing fine, and the US is not interfering. There are US troops in Australia too. So?

"They are not able to protect the people"

Every country has crime. Iraq's murder rate is lower than South Africa's. One day it will probably be lower than America's.

"or protect the infrastructure"

Same happens all over the world.

"or get the economy working"

Well there still is a war going on. You need to make allowances. Regardless, the economy is growing.

"or get the power grid working, etc."

It is working. What hasn't happened is that it hasn't expanded to meet demand, especially with all the new appliances people have been buying with their new prosperity. That will take 6 years more. That's just how long things take!

"When the U.S. troops are no longer there to make sure everything is working, I think you will see a very obvious and very fast descent into something different than the current situation."

The US troops are not there in sufficient numbers to "make sure everything is working". That is not their job. They are only there to assist, and that is what they are doing. The 27 million Iraqis are doing the bulk of the work. The 160k US soldiers are just helping.

Hugh, "Paul Edwards can tell us that Iraq is an "astounding victory" all he wants. What does he mean?"

An enemy dictator has been converted into an allied democracy. Arab Muslims have demonstrated they can have a democracy instead of a long line of dictators. We have the feedback from the Arab Muslims we need for victory in the War on Terror.

"Does he mean it is an "astounding victory" for the Infidels?"

Yep. And for the Iraqi people too.

"Does he think that the last four years, and the expenditure of American soldiers and Marines (3,220 killed, 25,000 wounded)"

Yeah, this major achievement has been done with the loss of about one month's worth of US road toll, which isn't much different from the normal peacetime casualty rate, and it's been done with a peacetime war budget, equipment has been upgraded, and the soldiers have combat experience.

"What "victory" is that? What "astounding victory" is that? The only "victory" that makes sense is a "victory" that brings not "democracy" to Iraq (that's not possible, if by "democracy" we mean Western-style democracy, with equality before the law for women and minorities, and guaranteed rights for individuals akin to those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)"

Wrong. They have that already.

"and not "prosperity" (inshallah-fatalism prevents the Muslims of Iraq from doing much more than distributing, or fighting over, the unearned oil wealth -- as in all the other oil-rich Muslim states)."

Wrong. The Iraqis have a reasonably strong work ethic, unlike the Saudis.

"The only "victory" that should count is one that results from a weakening of the Camp of Islam."

Wrong. The victory that matters is security of the free world. And Iraq has now become an ally of the free world instead of an enemy. It may not be as good an ally as say Poland, but it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be.

"And because of that, the war between Sunnis and Shi'a in Baghdad will never end"

You can predict the future, eh? Well done. And you support the slaughter of random Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad - you're a terrorist.

"The "astounding victory" that you claim has already been achieved in Iraq cannot be achieved, until the Americans leave."

Wrong. Astounding victories in Germany and Japan were achieved without American departure.

"You keep missing the point. You keep failing to understand the world-wide nature of the conflict."

No, YOU keep missing the point. This list of enemies is broader than "Islam". The fact that some Arab Muslims (such as the ITM brothers) are IDENTICAL to US neocons should have given you pause for thought. Instead, you shut down your brain.

"You keep thinking that the only kind of "war" that exists is that which involves armies, and you keep missing the point about exploiting the natural weaknesses of the enemy, not through greater exertion, but through less."

Yeah, I know all about your support of terrorism. Regardless, your tactic of supporting terrorism is useless. Too few people can be killed by terrorism, that the population is simply replenished. Even if it wasn't, the Shiites can easily forcibly expel all the Sunnis from Iraq, and then you've achieved precisely nothing. The way this war is going to be won is by changing Arab Muslim culture so that they are anti-religious-bigots or at least, non-religious-bigots. And that means forcing them to be tolerant, not setting them up for an expulsion and terrorism. Really, you are as low as Osama Bin Laden himself. There's no difference between his support of terrorism and yours. If you want to kill people, be honest about it and commit genocide cleanly. Don't just kill random people via terrorism.

"Paul Edwards still does noot understand the main point of this site, the point of why we should be working to destroy the nuclear project of Iran"

I do understand why we need to denuke Iran, and it is part of my plan which I posted earlier.

"and why we should take advantage of the natural consequences of the removal of Saddam Hussein"

Oh, I understand why YOU support terrorism. I just don't happen to agree.

"and why it makes no sense to keep supporting Pakistan with tens of billions of dollars when Pakistan continues not only to protect Al Qaeda"

No, YOU don't understand that Pakistan is losing its own soldiers arresting Al Qaeda and handing them over to the US, so your simplistic scenario is factually incorrect.

"but to actively nurture and supply (oh, possibly not Musharraf, but practically everyone else in the army except Musharraf,and he does or can do, nothing about it) the Taliban, and to re-invade Afghanistan by proxy."

The fact that he is unable to eliminate the Taliban, who operate in an area that has never been conquered, is an issue that needs to be dealt with eventually. But the Taliban are small potatoes. They have minimal capacity to do damage. There are more important tasks, such as liberating 70 million Iranians from state-slavery. Not that you care about liberating people. You're more interested in finding ways of committing terrorism against them.

"No, Paul Edwards, like Condoleeza Rice prating about "occuppied Japan" and "occupied Germany" and how scoffers scoffed"

Which is exactly what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq too. Turns out you were the one prattling, and far more disgusting, encouraging terrorism.

"there too just as they now do about "occupied Iraq" (what crap she allows herself to utter)"

You're the one uttering crap.

"wants us to believe that the examples of Taiwan and South Korea show us what can be done about Iraq."

I didn't say that. Afghanistan and Iraq are experiments in progress. So far the results are excellent, although they certainly have room for improvement. But as a first draft, they are a phenomenal improvement from what used to be there.

"What is that thing that is missing? Islam."

Go and read the ITM blogs and tell me what is missing from it.

http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

This should have been your primary source of research. Understanding these Arab Muslims. It was my primary source of research. And is what I used (along with the other Iraqi blogs) to develop the list of enemies. Which isn't Islam, but instead dogma, religious bigotry, non-humanist behaviour, subjugation, racism and some other stuff.

special_guest, Islam being A source of legislation was I think part of the Transitive Administrative Law (TAL). The US may have had a hand in drafting that, I don't know. But it's irrelevant, because it was only temporary. It was replaced by a permanent constitution created by a democratically-elected Iraqi government, and approved by the Iraqi people via referendum. The US's hands are clean. Not one thing, not a sausage, has been forced onto the Iraqi people. What you see now is Iraqis in their natural state. And we now have freedom of speech opened up so that we can negotiate with them about what is required to live in peace with them.

"Go and read the ITM blogs and tell me what is missing from it.

http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

This should have been your primary source of research. Understanding these Arab Muslims. It was my primary source of research."

Really? Was that blog your "primary source of research"? Not the Qur'an, not the Hadith, not the Sira? Not "The Arab Mind Considered" by John Laffin? Not "Islam and Dhimmitude"? Not "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam"? Not "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance"? Not "Onward Muslim Soldiers" or "The Origins of the Koran" or "Why I Am Not a Muslim" or the biographies of Muhammad by Sir William Muir, or Arthur Jeffery, or Tor Andrae? Not the recent biography of Muhammad by Robert Spencer, the one that relies entirely on what the Muslim sources themselves say?

None of that? Not "The Political Language of Islam" by Bernard Lewis? Not Snouck Hurgronje on the Acehinese? Not Joseph Schacht on Muslim Law? Not Antoine Fattal on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islamic rule? Not the valuable anthology of Muslim (and Western scholarship) on Jihad, compiled by Andrew Bostom, called "The Legacy of Jihad"?

Your main source of research is a single blog, by a perfectly nice Iraqi living in Baghdad, one who is most unrepresentative in thought, word, and deed, a complete secularist and what's more the son of a very forward-looking father and with a handful of friends who think as he does? On that basis you are going to make high policy, or judge a policy that has already cost 3,220 lives and 25,000 wounded, and $750 billion dollars? On that basis?

Do you think I don't follow all the goddam blogs, and that I haven't noticed that in the list of the ones that started out, almost all of them have simply stopped altogether, and that "Iraq the Model" is practically the only one still going? And why should I think that American policy should be based on what an Iraqi wants for Iraq - a most unrepresentative Iraqi, one who if he were here would probably be attending the St. Petersburg meeting of apostates.

I'm not about to collapse into sentimental gush about this or that singular creature, any more than I would have formed policy based on the winning ways of Ahmed Chalabi, or Kanan Makiya, or Rend al-Rahim.

Good God.

No, this was achieved too. All those people that Osama had trained were loose in the world and could have done untold damage by attacking American civilians. Instead, they all came to Iraq to suicide against the US military. You can't ask for a better result."
-- from a poster above

This is false. There are all kinds of Muslim terrorists all over the place. Many of them never have set foot in Afghanistan, nor were trained by Osama bin Laden. The ones who were in the Moscow theatre. In the Beslan school. In the Madrid subway. In the London subway. The man in Chapel Hill who on his own tried to kill Infidel students. The dozens and dozens of people rounded up in this country, and charged, and sentenced for involvement in terrorism.

And there is no fixed number of terrorists. Their numbers are endlessly replenishable from the ranks not only of fanatical Believers, but of less fanatical ones, who become over time more militant in their faith - and all kinds of things can set off such militancy, including personal problems over which Infidels have no control and can do nothing to prevent. People who have a pre-existing grid, or prism through which to view the universe, and who readily blame Infidels for whatever setbacks or even perceived insults in life that they receive, do not need to run around a camp in Afghanistan.

But in any case, your notion that it is just wonderful that all kinds of suicide bombers have congregated in Iraq to kill American soldiers is bizarre. Why is that a good thing? Why shouldn't we hope that these suicide bombers, presumably those of al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization devoted to killing "Rafidite dogs" (which is what they call the Shi'a), should concentrate solely on that, and not have to also attack and maim and kill American soldiers. Why shouldn't the Shi'a be attacked and, in turn, attack the members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, without Americans taking casualties from both sides, like some kind of good samaritan who gets between two parties in a bar-room ball, and tries to prevent them from harming each other, but in the meantime is stabbed repeatedly by each of them, and not accidentally, but because each of the parties also hates the good samaritan for their own reasons.

But what takes the cake is this:

"The unproven belief that democracy can't be installed by force of arms, despite exactly that having been done in Japan, Germany, Panama, Grenada and now Afghanistan and Iraq."

Do you not see something absurd, in your list of six examples of "democracy" that you think can be "installed by force of arms" the mini-states, where in any case the returns are not in, of Grenada, for god's sake, and Panama? Are you serious? Why not through in Andorra and Monaco while you are at it?

In any case, this business of likening the Muslim peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan to the totally destroyed countries, absolutely conquered and their wartime regimes crushed, with both Tokyo and Berlin bombed-out cities, and other cities -- Dresden and Cologne, Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- and many others reduced to nothing or close to nothing. That never happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Islam prevents the peoples in these countries from accepting or even quite understanding Western-style democracy. The Shi'a were enthusiastic about those elections not because they were sudden converts to democratic theory, but because they knew that by voting they could obtain power without having to fight the Sunnis -- and the Americans were there to guarantee that the ballot-box results would be followed. The Sunnis barely participated, and for the opposite reason: they realize they are outnumbered 3-1 by the Shi'a Arabs (of course, at the same time, being completely illogical, they also remain convinced that they constitute 42% of the population of Iraq).

As many people have repeatedly pointed out, Japan and Germany had regimes and ideologies that were totallly discredited. The ideology of Iraq -- Islam -- has not been, and cannot be, totally discredited. It is the source of the widespread hostility, instead of gratitude, toward the Americans. No real friendship will ever be offered the American government, save by a handful -- a few percent -- of the people, at most, and those will be the westernized, secularized sort, the ones who may still call themselves "Muslims" but essentially are Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims.

You are not more absurd when you write such things than Condoleeza Rice or George Bush. But you are just as absurd.

And that is fairly absurd.

Hugh, "Was that blog your "primary source of research"? Not the Qur'an, not the Hadith, not the Sira?"

It was both. It was finding out why these Muslims were not following the Quran, in the same way that Christians don't follow the bit in the bible that says to stone your own children to death if they are disobedient.

"Your main source of research is a single blog"

It was one of several blogs. Others are the Mesopotomian, Road of a Nation, Healing Iraq (before Zeyad turned) and Iraq at a Glance. Also SandMonkey (Egypt) and Religious Policeman (Saudi Arabia).

"by a perfectly nice Iraqi living in Baghdad, one who is most unrepresentative in thought, word, and deed"

Yeah, and that is the challenge. To make him representative. In the same way that Christians who support burning heretics at the stake are no longer representative of Christians.

"a complete secularist and what's more the son of a very forward-looking father and with a handful of friends who think as he does?"

Yep, that's what we're after.

"On that basis you are going to make high policy, or judge a policy that has already cost 3,220 lives and 25,000 wounded, and $750 billion dollars? On that basis?"

No, that is judged on the basis that we've converted an enemy dictator into an allied democracy.

"Do you think I don't follow all the goddam blogs, and that I haven't noticed that in the list of the ones that started out, almost all of them have simply stopped altogether"

Not sure where you're getting your statistics on "almost all".

"And why should I think that American policy should be based on what an Iraqi wants for Iraq"

Because he's an ally and is trying to protect America while also protecting himself.

Knowing you, you'd be happy to see him killed in a terrorist attack simply because he's a Muslim, and the only "plan" you have is to somehow get Muslims to kill each other via terrorism and hope that works. It won't work, and it isn't working. And it's despicable that you even have such a plan. You're no different from Osama Bin Laden.

Hugh,

PE:"No, this was achieved too. All those people that Osama had trained were loose in the world and could have done untold damage by attacking American civilians. Instead, they all came to Iraq to suicide against the US military. You can't ask for a better result."

"This is false. There are all kinds of Muslim terrorists all over the place. Many of them never have set foot in Afghanistan, nor were trained by Osama bin Laden."

My statement is not false. I didn't say there weren't others. I just said that there were ones trained by Osama, and they came to die in Iraq. A side-benefit of the war.

"The ones who were in the Moscow theatre. In the Beslan school. In the Madrid subway. In the London subway. The man in Chapel Hill who on his own tried to kill Infidel students. The dozens and dozens of people rounded up in this country, and charged, and sentenced for involvement in terrorism."

And to collapse all these spontaneous terrorists, you either need to commit genocide against all Muslims, or all Muslims who aren't like Ali Fidhal, or you need to convert all Muslims to be like Ali Fidhal. Liberating Iraq is part of doing the latter. Your only alternative has been to encourage inter-Muslim terrorism, which is doomed to failure as well as being despicable.

"do not need to run around a camp in Afghanistan."

They are more dangerous if they can organize like they were able to do in Afghanistan.

"But in any case, your notion that it is just wonderful that all kinds of suicide bombers have congregated in Iraq to kill American soldiers is bizarre. Why is that a good thing?"

Because they are going after hard targets instead of soft targets. They could kill a lot more Americans if they went after soft targets.

"Why shouldn't we hope that these suicide bombers, presumably those of al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization devoted to killing "Rafidite dogs" (which is what they call the Shi'a), should concentrate solely on that, and not have to also attack and maim and kill American soldiers."

Even if you want that, the Iraq war has opened up that ability. And the terrorists are also taking on Iraqi security forces as well, so the Americans don't have to suffer.

"Why shouldn't the Shi'a be attacked"

Because they are innocent humans. I know terrorists like you have no empathy for innocent civilians being blown up, but nevermind.

"in turn, attack the members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq"

Which they are.

"without Americans taking casualties from both sides"

Americans are not taking casualties from Shiite civilians. Regardless, they are transitioning security duties to Iraqis as fast as they can already, which is the right thing to do.

"like some kind of good samaritan who gets between two parties in a bar-room ball, and tries to prevent them from harming each other"

Preventing harm coming to innocent civilians is a concept unfamiliar to you, being a terrorist and all, but it is something that the US soldiers are familiar with. Don't pretend to be doing all this in the interests of American soldiers. The American soldiers themselves know that they are doing a noble deed.

"each of the parties also hates the good samaritan for their own reasons."

The Iraqis don't speak with one voice, and you're a racist to think that they do. Many Iraqis are very grateful that the US liberated them, and they trusted America, and formed long queues to join the new security forces, even under American occupation etc.

PE:"The unproven belief that democracy can't be installed by force of arms, despite exactly that having been done in Japan, Germany, Panama, Grenada and now Afghanistan and Iraq."

"Do you not see something absurd, in your list of six examples of "democracy" that you think can be "installed by force of arms" the mini-states, where in any case the returns are not in, of Grenada, for god's sake, and Panama? Are you serious? Why not through in Andorra and Monaco while you are at it?"

What are you talking about? Go and look up www.freedomhouse.org and look at Grenada and Panama. They are listed as free countries. If you have an issue with them, take it up with Freedom House.

"In any case, this business of likening the Muslim peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan to the totally destroyed countries, absolutely conquered and their wartime regimes crushed, with both Tokyo and Berlin bombed-out cities, and other cities -- Dresden and Cologne, Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- and many others reduced to nothing or close to nothing. That never happened in Iraq or Afghanistan."

No two countries are identical. You argument that everything needs to be identical in order to produce a democracy is complete bunk. I listed the 6 countries already, all of which are unique, and all of which have democracies installed by force of arms.

"Islam prevents the peoples in these countries from accepting or even quite understanding Western-style democracy."

And you know this how? Iraq is not far removed from a western-style democracy already. And it has been accepted by the Iraqi people. Enthusiastically. A far higher turnout than occurs in America.

"The Shi'a were enthusiastic about those elections not because they were sudden converts to democratic theory"

They approved a constitution that guaranteed equal rights for all Iraqis.

"but because they knew that by voting they could obtain power"

This is the normal reason for people to vote in any country.

"The Sunnis barely participated"

Rubbish. There was an 86% turnout in Anbar for example:

http://www.ifes.org/publication/d2046fde59cd1eeda675eb611bfd4d9e/Council%20of%20Representatives%20Election%20Composite-Update20FebV3.doc

"As many people have repeatedly pointed out, Japan and Germany had regimes and ideologies that were totallly discredited. The ideology of Iraq -- Islam"

The ideology of Iraq was Ba'athism. And it had been discredited exactly the same as Nazism. So yet another one of your bunk comparisons.

"has not been, and cannot be, totally discredited."

Nor was Christianity in Nazi Germany. In fact, Christianity wasn't even discredited by atrocities committed by Christians for centuries, such as burning heretics at the stake.

"It is the source of the widespread hostility, instead of gratitude, toward the Americans."

This ingratitude by some, even a majority of, Iraqis, is exactly what needs to be dealt with, to find out why they are different from the ITM brothers, and to convert them to be the same as the ITM brothers. And you're not going to solve that problem by asking them to commit terrorism against each other, even if you could succeed in getting them to do that.

"No real friendship will ever be offered the American government, save by a handful -- a few percent -- of the people, at most, and those will be the westernized, secularized sort, the ones who may still call themselves "Muslims" but essentially are Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims."

Tell me why it is a few percent instead of the majority, and what is stopping that few percent from growing into a majority. If there is some insurmountable barrier preventing that from happening, then the only alternative is genocide, not terrorism, designed to leave just that few percent standing. Personally I don't think there is any such insurmountable barrier. I think it is a simple case of education. And now that Iraq has been cracked open, we can begin that process.

Mesdames et messieurs -- simply hopeless.

Paul Edwards

"Personally I don't think there is any such insurmountable barrier. I think it is a simple case of education. And now that Iraq has been cracked open, we can begin that process."

Are you going to go to Iraq and teach them?

greatcometof1577,

PE:"Personally I don't think there is any such insurmountable barrier. I think it is a simple case of education. And now that Iraq has been cracked open, we can begin that process."

"Are you going to go to Iraq and teach them?"

It is not strategic for the West to impose something on the education system of Iraq at this point in history, in my opinion. We should see what they come up with of their own free will, and we should see what effect total freedom of speech has on them, and we should use that freedom of speech to make our case (including through sites such as this). This is a long process. At the moment we're just trying to make sure that Iraqi law, which protects freedom of speech, is not changed by insurgents. Let's get that bedded down first. And get rid of corruption from the security forces, that sort of thing too.

"At the moment we're just trying to make sure that Iraqi law, which protects freedom of speech..."
-- from a posting above

It does? Try publishing something the tiniest bit critical of Muhammad. Or that praises the the signers of the St. Petersburg Declaration, or that suggests that Iraq make peace with Israel, or that apostasy from Islam should not be punished. Try a thousand other topics I could list right here, from A to Z, beginning with little Aisha and her toys, and ending with comments on selling bottled water from the well of Zamzam.

From an article by Eleanna Gordon at NRO (National Review Online), August 2005:

"[T]here is the shocking stipulation that the state only guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and peaceful protest "as long as it does not violate public order and morality" (article 36). This will make it too easy for a supreme court or a parliament dominated by fundamentalists to restrict the political space of their opponents on the tenuous grounds of "morality." This exception could also be used to muzzle political organizations and parties by constraining their freedom of speech.

By the same token, although there may be justifications for restricting freedom of assembly in the name of "public order," it is hard to see why that should apply to peaceful protests, let alone to the press or personal expression. This is exactly the kind of language that has been used in many pseudo-democracies in the Arab world to shut down political opposition."

Article II of the Iraqi Constitution declares that:

“Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”

Any idea as to what, as far as "free speech" goes, the "undisputed rules of Islam" happen to be?

Hugh,

PE:"At the moment we're just trying to make sure that Iraqi law, which protects freedom of speech..."

"It does? Try publishing something the tiniest bit critical of Muhammad."

Plenty of such websites, including Jihadwatch, are available in Iraq already. The fact that Jihadwatch isn't available in print, in either Iraq or US, is just an indication of who has printing presses available.

"Or that praises the the signers of the St. Petersburg Declaration"

I don't think Iraqis are actually interested in such a thing. But show me any evidence of someone trying to publish such a thing and being prevented from doing so by the Iraqi government.

"or that suggests that Iraq make peace with Israel"

The Iraqis have actually elected a politician, Mithal Al-Alusi, who has basically said that already.

"or that apostasy from Islam should not be punished."

That's basically part of their constitution - freedom of religion.

"Try a thousand other topics I could list right here, from A to Z, beginning with little Aisha and her toys, and ending with comments on selling bottled water from the well of Zamzam."

Show me any evidence of any of these topics being suppressed by the Iraqi government in violation of Iraqi law.

"This exception could also be used to muzzle political organizations and parties by constraining their freedom of speech."

Maybe. Show me any instance of the Iraqi government using the morality clause to restrict freedom of speech.

"By the same token, although there may be justifications for restricting freedom of assembly in the name of "public order," it is hard to see why that should apply to peaceful protests"

I've even seen people in Iraq protesting in pro-Saddam marches. It doesn't get much freer than that.

"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

"Any idea as to what, as far as "free speech" goes, the "undisputed rules of Islam" happen to be?"

Nope. It's meaningless as far as I can tell. I have trouble seeing any law in Iraq that makes it any different from a typical European country. I haven't seen the Iraqi government violate anyone's human rights at all. Maybe that will change at a later date, and we can discuss it again later. But at the moment, Iraq appears to be a free country. Mission accomplished.

"Iraq appears to be a free country. Mission accomplished."
-- from a posting above

Oh, okay. In that case, let's get out.

You know perfectly well that Jihadwatch is picked up because it is very difficult to monitor the Internet, especially if the government does not possess the kind of power, say, that the government of China does (see how it pushed Google around). And you know perfectly well that the Iraqi Constitution, for what it is worth (and it is probably worth about as much as the Soviet Constitution) is not the highest authority. The highest authority is the Shari'a, and just as in the United States, laws that are held to be unconstitutional (i.e., that contradict the Constitution) are thereby overturned, so in Iraq any kind of serious criticism of Muhammad or Islam would be stopped in its tracks.

You know perfectly well that Mithal al-Alusi is virtually alone in calling for a different relationship with Israel, and you know that just for visiting Israel, to punish him others killed his two sons. You also must know that he is practically alone (does he still sit in the Iraqi Parliament? I'm not so sure) and that, furthermore, he was a signatory of the St. Petersburg Declaration. In other words, he is one of the bravest men in all of Iraq, and to pretend that his position is easy, or that he represents more than a handful of people -- the best people among the Muslims in Iraq -- is misleading.

You dare to write "I don't think Iraqis are interested in such a thing" as the St. Petersburg Declaration? Well, if they aren't interested in such things, and in coming to grips with the problem of Islam, and how it explains the failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, of their own societies, then there is no hope for change, no hope for amelioration in what Elie Kedourie correctly described as one of the most unpleasant and violent societies on earth -- see "The Chatham House Version" p. 386 for some acute observations on Iraq from the end of the mandate (1932) to the end of the monarchy (1958). And since 1958, and the death of the Prince Regent and of "strongman" Nuri es-Said, things have gotten much much worse.

You are asked above the following:

"Any idea as to what, as far as "free speech" goes, the "undisputed rules of Islam" happen to be?"

And here is your astonishing answer:

"Nope. It's meaningless as far as I can tell. I have trouble seeing any law in Iraq that makes it any different from a typical European country."

Apparently you are in Iraq. God help us if you are in the military, or work for the State Deparment, or are some kind of "consultant" who is supposed to be helping the American effort. If so, then I am beginning to understand more about the squandering of American resources in Iraq, and why it continues.

Incredible.

Paul Edwards

"I have trouble seeing any law in Iraq that makes it any different from a typical European country."

Once again go to Rome and scream "death to Jesus" then go to Basra and scream "death to Muhammad." It will be a neat to see how things work out for you. I wish you the best.

"I haven't seen the Iraqi government violate anyone's human rights at all."

The key word is "I".

"Maybe that will change at a later date and we can discuss it again later"

Time is relative to the observer.

"But at the moment, Iraq appears to be a free country. Mission accomplished."

I thought G.W. already said that???

Hugh,

PE:"Iraq appears to be a free country. Mission accomplished."

"Oh, okay. In that case, let's get out."

When the Iraqi security forces are ready to keep that victory secured, the US will leave. I hope that is done by November 2007, and that the US liberates Iran in December 2007, leaving sufficient forces in Iraq to prevent an external military invasion or a military coup.

BTW, here is an Iraqi publishing something that appears to be critical of Islam:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/09/when-will-we-be-ready-to-accept.html

Note to the Poster In Iraq:

Could you please list here the last five books or articles about the history of Iraq that you have read, and in particular what you have read about the Sunnis and Shi'a, and their relations in the history of modern Iraq (i.e. from roughly 1920 on). Could you also list the last five books you read on the subject of Islam and of Islamic history. Once you have listed them, perhaps we can discuss their contents here. It should be useful for everyone.

Thank you.

Dear lord.....

"When the Iraqi security forces are ready to keep that victory secured, the US will leave. I hope that is done by November 2007, and that the US liberates Iran in December 2007, leaving sufficient forces in Iraq to prevent an external military invasion or a military coup."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.......

Thanks for the laugh. Let me ask you a question if democracy is so important then why not invade Saudi Arabia and install a Democracy there?

Hugh, "You know perfectly well that Jihadwatch is picked up because it is very difficult to monitor the Internet"

I expect that the Iraqi government can easily block the site if it wants to.

"And you know perfectly well that the Iraqi Constitution, for what it is worth (and it is probably worth about as much as the Soviet Constitution) is not the highest authority. The highest authority is the Shari'a"

No it isn't. There's nothing in Iraq's system of governance that has anything to do with Sharia. Don't resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

"and just as in the United States, laws that are held to be unconstitutional (i.e., that contradict the Constitution) are thereby overturned, so in Iraq any kind of serious criticism of Muhammad or Islam would be stopped in its tracks."

What are you talking about? That is a problem for the Iraqi government if it tries to pass a law that makes criticism of Islam illegal, not the reverse. They haven't even passed such a law. The criticism of Islam would be made by an individual, using their protection of freedom of speech. So far there is no Iraqi law that I know of that prevents Iraqis from saying whatever they want about Islam, and no evidence of the Iraqi government trying to prosecute someone for violation of such a non-existant law.

"You know perfectly well that Mithal al-Alusi is virtually alone in calling for a different relationship with Israel"

Him plus the people who voted for him. So what? You said it couldn't be done. I only need to show you one example to prove that statement incorrect. The fact that public opinion isn't what you personally would like is irrelevant.

"and you know that just for visiting Israel, to punish him others killed his two sons."

Yeah, criminals did that, not the Iraqi government. What he did wasn't illegal. Other people get punished by criminals just for being Shiite. What criminals do is irrelevant.

"You also must know that he is practically alone (does he still sit in the Iraqi Parliament?"

Sure does.

"I'm not so sure) and that, furthermore, he was a signatory of the St. Petersburg Declaration."

Well there's another of your impossibilities just gone by the wayside. Not only is he allowed to praise it, he's allowed to SIGN IT and still be a MEMBER OF THE IRAQI PARLIAMENT, not just an individual.

"In other words, he is one of the bravest men in all of Iraq, and to pretend that his position is easy, or that he represents more than a handful of people -- the best people among the Muslims in Iraq -- is misleading."

I didn't present such a picture. You're the one being misleading suggesting that I presented such a picture. All I said was that the Iraqis have their freedom of speech and human rights protected by law. You came up with a list of things that Iraqis supposedly couldn't say, with not a shred of evidence to support it, and instead, there is evidence to show that they can say at least some of those things. The other stuff is probably untested.

"You dare to write"

Yeah, I'm very brave.

""I don't think Iraqis are interested in such a thing" as the St. Petersburg Declaration? Well, if they aren't interested in such things"

Most Americans aren't either.

"and in coming to grips with the problem of Islam, and how it explains the failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, of their own societies, then there is no hope for change"

Wrong again. They're ALREADY changing, and were changing well before that declaration.

PE:"Nope. It's meaningless as far as I can tell. I have trouble seeing any law in Iraq that makes it any different from a typical European country."

"Apparently you are in Iraq."

No, I'm in Australia. I just spend all my time reading about Iraq etc.

"God help us if you are in the military, or work for the State Deparment, or are some kind of "consultant" who is supposed to be helping the American effort. If so, then I am beginning to understand more about the squandering of American resources in Iraq, and why it continues."

It's not being squandered. Liberating Iraq was actually the best-spent foreign aid that America could give anywhere in the world. Not only did it convert an enemy into an ally, not only did it bring human rights to 27 million people, but it gave us the vital information required to win the War on Terror.

greatcometof1577,

PE:"I have trouble seeing any law in Iraq that makes it any different from a typical European country."

"Once again go to Rome and scream "death to Jesus" then go to Basra and scream "death to Muhammad." It will be a neat to see how things work out for you. I wish you the best."

Go to a black area in America and scream "death to niggers" and see how far your freedom of speech in America gets you. I wish you the best.

PE:"I haven't seen the Iraqi government violate anyone's human rights at all."

"The key word is "I"."

Fine. Show me evidence of the Iraqi government violating someone's human rights. Until then, the feedback I am seeing is that Iraqis are even free to march down streets holding pictures of Saddam, with no apparent fear of government reprisals.

PE:"But at the moment, Iraq appears to be a free country. Mission accomplished."

"I thought G.W. already said that???"

Freeing the Iraqi people was achieved in 3.5 weeks, when the law of the land suddenly changed to protect human rights and freedom of speech. The rest of the time has been spent ensuring that that victory remained secured without needing US forces in the long term. That meant establishing new security forces which the Iraqi people could trust. Which meant disbanding the old ones. Creating new ones nominally takes 12 years. The US military has made gigantic progress.

Hugh, "Note to the Poster In Iraq"

I assume you're talking about me.

"Could you please list here the last five books or articles about the history of Iraq that you have read, and in particular what you have read about the Sunnis and Shi'a, and their relations in the history of modern Iraq (i.e. from roughly 1920 on)."

I haven't read any. I have spent my time psychoanalyzing Iraqis to find out why they are behaving differently. What the difference is between Ali Fidhal and Al Sadr. Between Sarmad and Riverbend. And psychoanalyzing Australians too, to find out why some supported liberating Iraq while others supported institutionalized rape. Different schools? Different races? Nope. Even families are split down the middle. Zeyad fell out with his uncle immediately after liberation when he waved at the US soldiers. Why was that? Which book answers that question? Which book predicted that 50% of Iraqis would feel liberated while 50% would feel humiliated?

I have read numerous articles regarding Arab/Muslim psyche. I have been reading non-stop in fact. But I like to see debates, which you don't get from a book. You get it right here.

"Could you also list the last five books you read on the subject of Islam and of Islamic history. Once you have listed them, perhaps we can discuss their contents here. It should be useful for everyone."

Discuss what? It's listed in Jihadwatch already. I don't dispute any of it. I dispute what to do about the problem.

greatcometof1577, "if democracy is so important then why not invade Saudi Arabia and install a Democracy there?"

Good question. The first mistake is about democracy being important. What is important is having a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government. The Iraqis actually had that under Paul Bremer. Long before they had democracy. They will probably never have a government as good as Paul Bremer. I would have been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer, as in fact the Puerto Ricans seem pretty happy under US administration.

So, are we going to get a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government by invading Saudi Arabia and implementing a democracy? Nope.

Is it wise to attack a nominally allied government like Saudi Arabia when we have enemy governments undefeated? Nope.

In order to protect the US and the rest of the free world, we need to take down enemy governments with scary weapons. And it ideally needs to be done without creating a hostile alliance. Attacking Saudi Arabia would be counterproductive, at this point in world history.

Most of the Saudi population are actually enemies, and either need to be forcibly converted into neutrals, or they need to be killed, or they need to be jailed. Possibly Saudi Arabia will suffice as a gigantic jail for the moment. There's no rush to deal with Saudi Arabia. We can debate what to do about the Saudis when it's closer to being their turn. We'll have more feedback from Iraq and other countries by the time that takes place.

"Fine. Show me evidence of the Iraqi government violating someone's human rights. Until then, the feedback I am seeing is that Iraqis are even free to march down streets holding pictures of Saddam, with no apparent fear of government reprisals."

Shia Death squads? Various agents? Who is really running the Iraq government? Here are just a small sampling of stories I found by doing a simple google news search....

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2374380.ece

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/03/05/10108885.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-station17mar17,1,3557677.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/030507dnintbasraraid.1ce97dcc.html

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006773774

The point is Iraq does not exist anymore. It is Shiaistan, Sunniland, and Kurdistan.

I retired (attorney) several months ago. With so much free time on my hands (and, when not playing golf), I set out to answer some questions that had been burning within since 9-11. Q. #1 Why do they hate us so much? #2 Is staying the course really the right policy in Iraq and is it possible to think democracy can thrive there and be a "beacon of hope" for the rest of the Middle East?

To answer # 1 I set out to read the following:

a. M. Oren, Power Faith and Fantasy, a History of the US and Middle east for past 200 years; The Looming Tower, Al Queda and the Road to 9/11, L Wright; America Alone, M Steyn; and Infidel, Ayan Ali Hirsi. The Truth About Muhammed, R Spencer.

I also found JihadWatch.com and it is my main source for ongoing developments and absorbing ideas of all those who post their thoughts on this most important topic.

My reading gave me the answer to #1 rather quickly. I conclude that Islam is indeed a religion of hate and IT is the source for the hate that caused the destruction of 9/11 and so much more death and destruction; not our support of Isreal, not the depradations and culture of the west, not fringe elements and the hijacking radicals of Islam. It is the very religiong itself. I think I even shocked myself by arriving at this conclusion since such a position was not "on my radar".

In looking for answer to # 2, I began to conclude, on my own, that perhaps the whole war in Iraq is a big mistake , but for none of the popular reasons sumitted by the cut & run gang from the left. I wondered- Is Islam itself consistent with Western Democracy? It was a scary thought. Have I been so blind for so long and how can the truth be ignored for so long by so many. I have been supportive of my president and his policies for so many years. I was shocked to my foundation and belief system to think to realize the truth. It was an epiphany of sorts.

Then I found a group of Hugh's essays on this question and was glad to see someone else conclude what I actually did not want to. I am now convinced of the need to withdraw from Iraq and put an end to any notion of success for the "democracy project of Irag". Where once I was lost, now I am found. This war has to end- we need an entirley new vision towards this most extreme problem and reject any policies that are based on a belief that Islam and true democracy
can co-exist.

The threat of the slow, creeping expansionism that is Islam is indeed the most serious threat to all free peoples of the world. The threat is huge, real, and so misunderstood ( including my own misunderstanding for such a long time). It has changed my entire view of politics and, my world. There is no greater issue and no greater threat to our future than the insidious monster that is Islamic Jihad. I am inwardly stunned of the silence of our institutions ( governemnt, academia, media) on this issue.

Yesterday I told my wife (she very liberal, me staunch conservative) of my recent readings and conclusions. I told her also, with all sincerity, that I was so committed to looking for single candidate running for office in 2008
that would adopt a position recognizing Jihad as the biggest threat to our future, and should any politician, even Hillary Clinton (ahhhh!) see the light and call Islam for what it is, and use it as the reason for withdraw from Iraq, I would also vote for that person! Not likely she or any other liberal would ever show such courage but the point here is that on this issue , and for the time being, I do not care about political party affiliation when it comes to my vote.

This is bigger than the threat of global warming ( not that I believe it is a bona fide threat- but that's for another forum) bigger than any tax or economics issue (including an impending social security disaster), and even a nucleur North Korea.

However, I am not so optimistic that any existing politician has the courage to state the truths as found on the pages of this website and in the literature mentioned above.

I am also dismayed to conclude that we Americans are ill-equipped to deal adequately with the impending threat.

With so much reading and learning in such a short period, the answers to 2 questions begat a hundred more.

The most pressing one, and I've seen no discussion of it anywhere, is the inherent constitutional problems that will derive from any governmental policy that identifies the religion of Islam as the root cause of so many foriegn policy and national problems.

We can probably anticipate scorn and contempt against any politician from either party should he/she actually marshel the courage to publicly identify Islam for what it is, and to suggest that we leave Iraq for the reasons stated in Hugh's essay and take the many other steps that will be needed to address this issue.

While the threat of more Jihad within the US and the slow infiltration of our insitutions by Muslims is scary on its own, the thing that is even scarier though, is the knowledge that regardless of whether there are millions new fervent converts who recognize how close the Jihad threat really is, our system of government is not equipped to deal with the radical solutions that will be needed. In fact, it is our very constitution that protects and facilitates their goal of our domination.

The solution will require the drastic and historical measure of adopting a new consitutional amendment and/or perhaps having to tweak two existing. To identify the religion of Islam as the most immediate threat to our security and well being and adopt policy on that belief is discrimination (5th & 14th amendents) on its face and violates the freedom of religion clause ( perhaps others).

The six flying imans case is illustrative. Unfortunately, under existing law, they have a good case. I cringe at the thought of those frauds being handed fat settlement checks and seeing an anouncement by the airlines containing an apology and a new "non-discrimination" policy. But, I am not optimistic about a favorable outcome. The law and the consitution is on their side. Any other future jihadist that seeks to access public facilities will be able to do so unimpeded becuase our very constitution prohibits us from identifying potential threat based on race or religion and protects them.

To fight the fight that will surely come, such protections cannot stand. The rights involved cannot be modified by legislation no matter the intent. ONLY a consitutional amendment will allow military, security, and enforcement agencies to procure the superior right to identify Islam for what it truly is.

This is going to be a very tough fight. I believe it will become the issue of our time.
I am not saying it cannot be done. But it will be a very long tedious battle.

greatcometof1577,

PE:"Fine. Show me evidence of the Iraqi government violating someone's human rights. Until then, the feedback I am seeing is that Iraqis are even free to march down streets holding pictures of Saddam, with no apparent fear of government reprisals."

"Shia Death squads? Various agents?"

I didn't ask you for evidence of criminals committing crimes, I asked you for evidence of the Iraqi government ordering human rights to be violated.

"Who is really running the Iraq government?"

Maliki is his name.

"Here are just a small sampling of stories I found by doing a simple google news search."

And the first story had nothing to do with the Iraqi government ordering human rights violations. I didn't bother reading the rest, if you didn't even get the first one right. Try again.

"The point is Iraq does not exist anymore."

Yes it does.

"It is Shiaistan, Sunniland, and Kurdistan."

There is no Shia/Sunni area. There is nowhere to actually draw a line. There is a Kurdistan though. What relevance this has to do with the Iraqi government ordering human rights violations I don't know. If you have evidence of such a thing, why didn't you report it to the Iraqi police, the Iraqi media, the international media, etc etc? Iraq is an open society now, run by the rule of law. No-one is above the law. A massive change from the days when Saddam used to order the rape of Iraqi women. I'm sure that change made you very happy, right?

Hugh wrote: "...Bush and Cheney, who knew and still know so little about Islam, and who, in their obstinacy, and even in their embarrassment -- they just can't allow themselves to imagine that they have been wrong, or that they need to change course, because they can't allow themselves to admit to such, and would rather keep on, and sacrifice others, to a policy that does not make sense, than admit to this."

Wow, I sure wish I could read minds like you, Hugh! ;o)

Either you've found a way to divine motives or you hate Bush. Gee, I wonder which one it is???

Hugh, if you want to be taken as seriously as Robert is, you're going to need to be as fair and objective as Robert is. Not too hard to figure out, is it? ;o)

fishboy,

Hugh""...Bush and Cheney, who knew and still know so little about Islam, etc etc"

"Wow, I sure wish I could read minds like you, Hugh!"

Exactly. It is amazing how many people think that 5 years after 9/11, Bush is completely ignorant of Islam and not one of his advisors has mentioned that Osama is quoting directly from the Quran and is basically a true Muslim.

Even if Bush's plan is to eliminate Islam from the face of the earth, it is STRATEGIC for him to avoid mentioning that, and to instead pretend that Islam is a religion of peace, while setting about destroying it. And to destroy it is strategic to divide Muslims on pro-democracy/pro-dictatorship lines and help the former Muslims kill the latter Muslims. He can deal with the former at a later date. And he needs to deal with all enemies, not just Muslims, and he needs to concentrate on weapon systems in the hands of enemy governments. That's the biggest risk. He's doing everything exactly right, regardless of whether or not he intends to wipe out Islam.

But people prefer to believe the "Bush's entire administration is incompetent, and I'm far smarter than all of them" argument. The thought that Bush might actually know what he's doing hasn't even crossed their minds. Even after I've explained exactly why he's doing the right thing, saying what Bush can't say for strategic reasons.

Every time I call Fitzgerald a "fool" he cuts my post. But I only do so in order to maintain the conversation at his attack level upon me and every other person who disagrees with him. He calls them and me (as I too support the government's policy) idiots," "stupid," "madman," "mad engineer," "silly and etc." Does he mean that Dr. Rubin, Dr. Glasov, Dr. Pipes, Melanie Phillips, Michelle Malkin, Brigitte Gabrial, Michael Yon and the entire Joint Chiefs (and their voluminous support groups) are all stupid, and on and on?

The issue in this continuing Fitzegerald fanatical diatribe is not his analysis, but as always his grandiosity. That is, like most Muslim irratioanal posts, they attack Mr. Spencer's factual presentations as islamophobic, hate literature and so forth when none that I've seen have remotely achieved the educational and writing status of the man they slander.

Although the analysis stinks, and can obviously be sundered as Mr. Andrews did in reminding Fitzegerald that the government is supposed to operate on rationale, not on periodic polls (in the midterm election the Democrats did not come close to achieving the historic average of gains by parties out of power). I don't argue analysis with Fitzegerald any longer because his thoughts are boring. I could just as easily get the same low caliber of reasoning from "Moveon.org."

If Fitzegerald was a percent of the quality thinker of those he besmirches, and not habitually rabid about his competition's intellect. To offer a smidgen of psychological interpretation as quid pro quo (Fitzegerald's use of "madman," maybe Fitzegerald is jealous because some of his advisaries have written a book or two, or three, four or more and his antics are born of projections of internally recognized lack of real self experience.

Let me say that I think JihadWatch is one of the best and informative sites on the Web. Almost all of the writers are right on target and completely in control of any tendencies to besmirch their opponents, even jihadists. Robert Spencer, albeit agreeing with Fitzegerald's take on the war generally (but without imposing the ridicule methodology applied by Fitzegerald), without hyperbole is a hero of western civilization, and he deserves both a Pulitzer and American Freedom award given out by Presidency. His fortitude and perseverence are uncomprising against the enemy. I've written such a review on Amazon in support of his latest book. But I only read Fitzegerald out of mistake when failing to see his name in lights on the marque of his every article.

Read this fast, as Fitzegerald has a thin skin and doesn't like criticism of his person as he he gives such affronts to those of us who disagree with him. He can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Jesse Collins
Author: Etiotropic Trauma Management Series (ETM)

I'll leave it up, in the same spirit, and for the same reason, that Naseem's posts are left up.

"I would have been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer, as in fact the Puerto Ricans seem pretty happy under US administration."
-- from a posting above

Apparently, to the poster, who has yet to reply to the request that he supply a list of his most recent reading on Islam, there is no difference between him and the people in Iraq. He liked the administration of Paul Bremer, and declares that he, an American, would have "been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer."

For good measure, he adds that "the Puerto Ricans seem pretty happy under US administration." Let;s take that second point first. Obviously not all Puerto Ricans are delighted with their status, but many are content and for obvious reasons. There is local autonomy -- a locally-elected governor, for example. At the same time, there are large financial benefits to Puerto Rico that result from its remaining in its present status. Citizens of Puerto Rico can also travel to, and settle freely within, the fifty states. Statehoood would be financially more onerous, and independence even more so. Why tinker with a good thing? But I assure you -- if Puerto Ricans were Muslims, they would be killing Americans right and left and demanding not only that the Infidel Americans leave, but would be trying to spread Islam all over the Caribbean.

You simply do not understand, and lack the wit and imagination to try, the influence of Islam on the minds of men. You see only the exterior, and think they are just like us. It's a common mistake. It's Bush's mistake: he thinks that if brought "freedom" or "democracy"(defined narrowly as elections) and "prosperity" that they will be just like us, only Muslim. It's nonsense. The "prosperity" will fade, unless America keeps pumping money in, until the oil wealth really kicks in again, because the nature of Muslim societies is such that even in the richest ones, there is not as yet a single real economy -- inshallah-fatalism explains why. Oh, there are plenty of big buildings and grandiose projects -- see Saudi Arabia-- but let's see if populations unused to real work, and entirely dependent on the revenues and rents of OPEC royalties, can begin to look like those European countries you keep comparing them to. Possibly, in a small city-state such as Dubai, with a gigantic concentration of oil wealth, some local Arabs will begin to put in the kind of work necessary, and the many Iranians who are there as well -- but on any larger scale, one sees no signs of anyting other than continued total dependence on oil.

But let me get to your astonishing, Podsnappian belief that the whole world, Paul Edwards, is just like you:

"I would have been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer."

Would you, now? Can you imagine that just possibly the Sunnis of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baquba, and Tikrit were not so delighted to live under Paul Bremer, who dissolved the Sunni-run army? Can you imagine that the Kurds, who are still eager for independence, even if far more well-disposed toward Americans than any of the Arabs, would be delighted to remain in Iraq under the rule of Paul Bremer? And what of the Shi'a -- do you think they would, having at long last achieved their goal of having power potentialy in their hands, would allow it to remain in the hands of Jack Armstrong, All-American boy (as Bremer was long ago described at this website)?

Apparently you cannot see, just like Podsnap, why the whole world cannot be just like you,, think like you, want the same things that you want. Well, Muslim Arabs don't. And that is something that even the lowliest soldier in Iraq has noticed and come back to report -- at least, the soldiers who have their wits about them, and take in the real situation, as opposed to parroting the Administration and its party line.

Just For the Record:

Request:

"Could you please list here the last five books or articles about the history of Iraq that you have read, and in particular what you have read about the Sunnis and Shi'a, and their relations in the history of modern Iraq (i.e. from roughly 1920 on). Could you also list the last five books you read on the subject of Islam and of Islamic history. Once you have listed them, perhaps we can discuss their contents here. It should be useful for everyone.

Thank you.'

[Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2007 11:00 PM]

Answer:

"I haven't read any [books on the history of Iraq]. I have spent my time psychoanalyzing Iraqis to find out why they are behaving differently. What the difference is between Ali Fidhal and Al Sadr. Between Sarmad and Riverbend. And psychoanalyzing Australians too, to find out why some supported liberating Iraq while others supported institutionalized rape. Different schools? Different races? Nope. Even families are split down the middle. Zeyad fell out with his uncle immediately after liberation when he waved at the US soldiers. Why was that? Which book answers that question? Which book predicted that 50% of Iraqis would feel liberated while 50% would feel humiliated?"

I have read numerous articles regarding Arab/Muslim psyche. I have been reading non-stop in fact. But I like to see debates, which you don't get from a book. You get it right here.

'Could you also list the last five books you read on the subject of Islam and of Islamic history. Once you have listed them, perhaps we can discuss their contents here. It should be useful for everyone.'

Discuss what? It's listed in Jihadwatch already. I don't dispute any of it. I dispute what to do about the problem.

[Posted by: Paul Edwards at March 19, 2007 11:27 PM]

I presume this man is either in the Military or has been hired by them as some kind of counter-insurgency "expert" -- the kind who leaves Islam out of the equation, and the history of Iraq out of the equation, and thereforee never questions the actual utility of the venture in Iraq (because he's so busy with his "counter-insurgency laws" based on Malaya and Greece and the Mau Mau in Kenya that he can't quite come to grips with the great difference that Islam makes, nor, not allowing himself to think beyond the confines of the Administration's "war on terror" does he come to see that Iraq is only one theatre in a war not against "terror" but against all the instruments of Jihad, that a "successful" outcome -- defined by the Adminstration -- is in fact not what is desirable if the goal, the correct goal, is defined as dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, of using up its resources (men, money, materiel), of using up its attention(look at the utter inattention given to the islamization of Western Europe, to the threat in Asia (southern Thailand, Kashmir and India), to the threat in black Africa (the incredible Saudi missionary efforts in West and Central Africa -- including uranium-rich Niger, and the dismay in East Africa over the West's complete failure to protect Christians in Sudan until after 1.8 million had been killed).

And now we have the height of absurdity, an example so perfect that it deserves to be immortalized, and used by history teachers everywhere when they plea for their programs, for more teachers, and more support.

Here is someone, presumably in Iraq, and presumably being relied on by the American military, who has read nothing, he forthrightly tells us, on Islam or on Islamic history or even on the history of Iraq. He doesn't need to. He's busy engaged in studying the "Arab mind" -- by that he means Raphael Patai's book, no doubt, which has been all the rage among those who think in the Pentagon that they "need to know something" and so all lemming-like rush off to read the same one or two books. Patai is not bad, but completely misses the influence of Islam on that mind. He hasn't read, I'll wager, the much along with Patai books that don't so much deal with "the Arab mind" as with Islam, such as "The Psychology of the Musulman" by Andre Servier (put on-line by an intelligent reader of JW who had been alerted to it) and John Laffin's "The Arab Mind Considered" which, despite its title, is more Islam-aware than is Patai's book.

So history doesn't matter. The way in which Sunni Arabs have treated Shi'a Arabs in Iraq, and the way in which Shi'a Arabs have been in rebellion even in the days of Gertrude Bell, are as nothing to this "expert" who has been figuring out why "some Australians" are against the war, and some are for it, and this or that Iraqi thinks this way, and that one that way.

Oh God. No history. Pop psychoanlysis.

There are intelligent people, and not-so-intelligent people, in every field. In universities. In law firms. In businesses. In the government. In the military, and in the military in Iraq.

And there is always a need for more of the former, and less of the latter.

On the question of pulling out of Iraq for the reasons stated in Hugh's essay, does anyone know of any other forum on the web that discusses this issue?

Another good site, about Islam, is www.newenglishreview.org.

Hugh,

PE:"I would have been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer, as in fact the Puerto Ricans seem pretty happy under US administration."

"Apparently, to the poster, who has yet to reply to the request that he supply a list of his most recent reading on Islam"

I said I read this website, amongst others. That is where I get my information from about the history of Islam, but I'm not particularly interested in the past, I'm more worried about the present. The history of Christianity is pretty irrelevant when judging modern-day Christians too.

"there is no difference between him and the people in Iraq."

There is no difference between me and those Iraqi bloggers (and others) who were quite happy living under Paul Bremer. That begs the question - what did we all have in common? That is what I sought to answer (and succeeded in doing so), but you didn't even think to ask the question.

"He liked the administration of Paul Bremer, and declares that he, an American, would have "been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer.""

I'm Australian, not American. And the Iraqis who were happy living under Bremer were Iraqis, not American, too.

"You simply do not understand, and lack the wit and imagination to try, the influence of Islam on the minds of men."

You fail to understand that some Muslims are not one single bit different from an American neocon. And that collapses the whole "Islam is the enemy" argument. You're the one lacking the wit and imagination. You needed to isolate the enemy in the face of this incontrovertible evidence of Muslims who were identical to American neocons.

"You see only the exterior, and think they are just like us."

No, I psychoanalyze the interior, and KNOW that SOME are just like "us". You're the one who looked at the exterior.

"It's Bush's mistake: he thinks that if brought "freedom" or "democracy"(defined narrowly as elections) and "prosperity" that they will be just like us, only Muslim."

Some already were, even before freedom was brought to them. The first thing Bush needed to find out was just how many of them were just like us. Just how many appreciated western-style freedom. There was only one way to get that information - a war of liberation. Which was done. No-one predicted the actual result - a 50/50 split between liberated and humiliated. Then the process began of trying to explain that difference. Well, the process began for some of us. Others such as yourself didn't even think to being the process.

PE:"I would have been perfectly happy living under Paul Bremer."

"Can you imagine that just possibly the Sunnis of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baquba, and Tikrit were not so delighted to live under Paul Bremer, who dissolved the Sunni-run army?"

None of those groups speak with one voice. You lacked the imagination to look further into the problem.

"Can you imagine that the Kurds, who are still eager for independence, even if far more well-disposed toward Americans than any of the Arabs, would be delighted to remain in Iraq under the rule of Paul Bremer?"

Kurds don't speak with one voice either.

"Well, Muslim Arabs don't."

Muslim Arabs don't speak with one voice either. Some were quite happy living under Paul Bremer.

"And that is something that even the lowliest soldier in Iraq has noticed and come back to report -- at least, the soldiers who have their wits about them, and take in the real situation, as opposed to parroting the Administration and its party line."

Soldiers don't speak with one voice either. They've come back with very mixed reports. Their reports basically indicate that there is a hell of a diversity in Iraq.

"I presume this man is either in the Military"

Your presumptions are wrong also. I did all my research off my own bat. I have wanted to liberate the world ever since I was a child. I incorrectly assumed that others shared the same goal, and it wasn't until the Iraq war that I found out that that wasn't the case, so I went to investigate it.

"or has been hired by them as some kind of counter-insurgency "expert" -- the kind who leaves Islam out of the equation"

I don't leave Islam out at all. Islam represents multiple enemies - dogma, religious bigotry, subjugation, non-humanist behaviour. It is those things that are the real enemy. Communism is similar. And Nazism. And Christians who burn heathens at the stake too.

"and the history of Iraq out of the equation"

The history of Australia is irrelevant to my philosophy, so the only thing I needed to find out was why Iraqis were hung up on history.

"and thereforee never questions the actual utility of the venture in Iraq"

I know they're all ants to you, since you're a terrorist sociopath, but freeing 27 million slaves was a long-standing utility, quite apart from defeating an enemy government.

"he can't quite come to grips with the great difference that Islam makes"

Much like the difference Communism made. That's what happens when you get hooked on a dogma.

"nor, not allowing himself to think beyond the confines of the Administration's "war on terror""

Wrong. I've been trying to defeat my enemies, not just in Australia, but in the entire world, and liberate the entire world, and have been trying to do this ever since the age of about 14. I'm 39 now.

"does he come to see that Iraq is only one theatre in a war not against "terror" but against all the instruments of Jihad"

On the contrary, it is you that has a narrow view. My war isn't just against terror, it includes defeating Australian rapists etc etc. All my enemies. Anyone who would attack an innocent person instead of being either a neutral or protector of them.

"that a "successful" outcome -- defined by the Adminstration -- is in fact not what is desirable if the goal, the correct goal, is defined as dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam"

The camp of Islam HAS been divided by Bush - into those who support freedom and those who support dictatorship. This is the correct way to divide it, at least for now. But because you're a sociopathic terrorist, you prefer to have Sunnis killing random Shiites and vice versa.

"look at the utter inattention given to the islamization of Western Europe"

That needs to be attended to as well. But the solution there is to first collapse it in the Middle East. Not just in Europe, but in America and Australia too.

"He's busy engaged in studying the "Arab mind" -- by that he means Raphael Patai's book, no doubt"

No, the place to find out the real deal was via the Iraqi blogs, not some book written by a self-proclaimed expert. The answers were in the blogs. Also they were available in a couple of other places. No PC bullshit. The real deal. You can find 2 of them here:

http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2006/07/brilliant-analysis.html

http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2007/03/treasure-trove.html

Paul Edwards

"I didn't ask you for evidence of criminals committing crimes, I asked you for evidence of the Iraqi government ordering human rights to be violated."

This is getting old. Don't you get it. The criminals are part of government. The Shia death squads are part of the police. The stories I gave you were a quick example of such. If you had read the rest of the stories it would have all made sense. I will make it simple it give just one of them...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/030507dnintbasraraid.1ce97dcc.html

It appears critical reading is hard for you. Trust me I can find hunderds of stories like this if I take my day off.

"Maliki is his name."

Oh yes Maliki is great guy! A shia extreamist! You do realize he has been having meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Kissing and holding hands and talking about their mutual love for each other. They bound by their common faith. The are bound by their common dislike for non-muslims and the sunni fakes. The only reason they play the game with us is to suck cash and weapons from us. After all we are inferior non-muslims. We must pay the tax.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12479

You know I should have read this part of one of your post when Hugh asked you:

"Could you please list here the last five books or articles about the history of Iraq that you have read, and in particular what you have read about the Sunnis and Shi'a, and their relations in the history of modern Iraq (i.e. from roughly 1920 on)."

You responded...

"I haven't read any. I have spent my time psychoanalyzing Iraqis to find out why they are behaving differently."

This explains everything. Why continue this discussion. Lets us know when you have made an attempt to study the history of these people and get back to us. Do a little reading it might help and stop the psycho nonsense. It has been proven to be an un-scientific method and has been replaced by sociobiology.

E.O. Wilson (Vol. 8, Academic Questions, 06-01-1995) stated...

"Which brings me to anti-science. I know less about postmodernism than most of you here, but let me give you my impression of how it relates to science. Postmodernist critics present a Disney World representation of science, a fantasy of what science is, and how scientists work, and why they work, a distortion embellished variously by obsolete theories of psychoanalysis and the battle cries of political ideology."

As far as I am concerned Psychoanalysis is dead.

Paul Edwards

Greatest line from E.O. Wilson in this article (Vol. 8, Academic Questions, 06-01-1995) was...

"feeling good is not what science is all about. Getting it right, and then basing social decisions on tested and carefully weighed objective knowledge, is what science is all about."

As best as I can tell Mr. Edwards is you have not been doing that. You have not supplied evidence for anything you have said however I can find plenty of evidence backing me up. Just do a search of the archives of Jihadwatch. The theory Hugh puts foward is strong. It is based on past and recent history. It is backed by Islamic religious teachings. Most of all it is backed by evidence on the ground in Iraq now. Iraq is in a civil war now and all the claims you make don't and will not change that.

Also you keep saying you want to free the Iraqi people but of what? If you really wanted the Iraqi people free you must first free them of their oppressive religion or change that religion.

William Eaton (US Consul to Tunis) wrote in 1799 on Islam..

"Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives…The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind"

Old Eaton was right. Thus if we were really wanted improvement we would do away with the religious nature of the Iraqi government and make it secular. That is not the case now. Just look at the main Shia political parties.

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; Islamic Dawa Party; Iraqi National Congress ; and Islamic Fayli Grouping in Iraq

None of these are secular by any means. Until you do away with "live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot" then no real reform can be done in any majority muslim nation.

Al E. Baba

There are rumblings from a few people but in truth no. It is sad because it will happen anyway. What people like Mr. Edwards and other blind Bushites don't get it the American people and infact NO people can sustain a military campaign without results or some end game. That has been shown in history. What he wants done will take 100s of years for us to accomplish and worse he wants it done in a short time span.

Why does Hugh want us out of Iraq? It is simple and best put forth by Sun Tzu one of the greatest military strategist in history when he states...

"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."

More Sun Tzu that supports Hugh

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans, the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces, the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field, and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."

"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."

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

"In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack - the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle - you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?"

"Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain."

"We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors."

"The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom."

"If our soldiers are not overburdened with money, it is not because they have a distaste for riches; if their lives are not unduly long, it is not because they are disinclined to longevity."

"No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution."

No one in the intelligent past would have found anything remarkable in the notion that one needs to know what moves the minds of men -- and in the case of Muslim men, above all else what moves them is Islam -- and to know the history of a place, ancient and modern, the history of its people or peoples, their manners and customs and desires and motives.

And this is essential. What is not essential, what is comically insufficient, is the effort of someone who, though not a native speaker of Arabic (and attuned to all of its complexities), not someone who has bothered to find out much, if anything at all, about Islam or the history of Islam, who has found the mere history of Iraq apparently to be so irrelevant as to be safely ignored (but how does he know it can be safely ignored, if he has completely ignored it?), and who tells us proudly that, as part of the war effort, he is busy being paid to "psychoanalyze" not only Iraqis but Australians and their reactions to the war in Iraq.

I have decided to post below a kind of florilegium of quotes, quotes that he would have come across, and might even have thought about, had he not regarded mere "history" as so irrelevant to the important task at hand -- so much less important, apparently, than his attempt at popular pschoanlyzing.

Here they are. You, reader, after reading them, be the judge. Do you agree with him, that such stuff is mere "history" and the people who made and continue to stick to the policy in Iraq would not have benefited from reading history, and coming across such quotes? Or do you agree with me, and find that such material is in fact directly relevant, gives one the long view, allows one to see into the heart of things.

For that matter, when you read John Quincy Adams on Islam [google "Islam" and "John Quincy Adams"] or when you read Churchill's quote about Muslims and Islam in "The River Wars" [google "Churchill" and "Islam" and "the River Wars"] do you find this material useful, helping you to comprehend the immutable doctrines of Islam and the behavior of Muslims today, or do you agree with Paul Edwards, that he doesn't need to know about history to study Iraqis, in Iraq, or even, perhaps, to agree with the late and unlamented Henry Ford, when he said, with typical can-do-no-nothingness that might be good for building cars, but is no good for the construction of a sane and effective domestic or foreign policy, that "History is Bunk."

Here are the quotes, from both Iraqis and English (rulers and scholars, including the formidable Elie Kedourie, a Baghdadi Jew who then was educated, and made his celebrated academic career, in England):

#1. The Commander of the British Forces that wrested Mesopotamia [Iraq] from the Turks, 1917:

"To the People of the Baghdad Vilayet... our armies have not come into your Cities and Lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators. Since the days of Hulaku your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of Strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken into desolation and you yourselves have groaned in bondage. ...It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance that you should prosper ...But you, the people of Baghdad, ... are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised again. O! People of Baghdad. ... I am commanded to invite you, through your Nobles and Elders and Representatives to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the Political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army so that you may unite with your kinsmen in the North, East, South and West in realising the aspirations of your race."

[Source: Atiyyah, Ghassan: Iraq : 1908 - 1921 : A Socio - Political Study. - Beirut : The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1973 p. 151.]

#2. Gertrude Bell, 1920:

“In the light of the events of the last two months there's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anything that I or anyone else suspected. It will have to be fundamentally changed and what that may mean exactly I don't know. I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern - and failed. I personally thought we tried to govern too much, but I hoped that things would hold out till Sir Percy came back and that the transition from British to native rule might be made peacefully, in which case much of what we have done might have been made use of. Now I fear that that will be impossible.”

[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]

#3. Gertrude Bell, 1920:

“We as outsiders can't differentiate between Sunni and Shi'ah, but leave it to them and they'll get over the difficulty by some kind of hanky panky, just as the Turks did, and for the present it's the only way of getting over it. I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil.”

[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]

#4. King Faisal of Iraq, 1933:

"Regrettably, I can say there is no Iraqi people yet, but only deluded human groups void of any national idea. Iraqis are not only disunited but evil-motivated, anarchy prone and always ready to prey on their government." – King Faisal I, writing in his memoirs shortly before he died in 1933.
________________________________________

#5. “There are only two political parties in Iraq: the Sunni party and the Shia party.” – Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister, 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950.
________________________________________

#6. In "The Chatham House Version" the great scholar Elie Kedourie comments dryly on the description by the far-less-great scholar Majid Kadduri (in his own book, "Independent Iraq") of “the wise leadership of Faisal, who inspired public spirit in every department of government”:

“If this [Khadduri's description of Faisal] were in any way true, there would be no accounting for the degraded and murderous politics of Iraq from the end of the mandate to the end of the monarchy.” [i.e., from 1932 to 1958, when first Qassem, and then the Ba'athists, took over].

“The fact is, of course, that this kind of language is most inappropriate to Iraq under the monarchy or afterwards.”
.........
“Lack of scruple greater or lesser, cupidity more or less unrestrained, ability to plot more or less consummate, bloodlust more or less obsessive: these rather are the terms which the historian must use who surveys this unfortunate polity [modern Iraq] and those in whose power it was delivered."

-------------------------------------------

Do you think such material, had it been thoroughly read in context, and digested, might have helped cause American policymakers to be a bit more realistic and less messianic in their ambitions for Iraq? Do you think Richard Perle would not have so excitedly declared in 2003 that he wouldn't be surprised if a boulevard were named after George Bush in Baghdad? Or that Wolfowitw would estimate that the "cost" of the Iraq War might be "$20 billion," and therefore so much more of a bargain, than the cost of the sanctions program --when the cost now, at a minimum, has been estimated at between $1 and $2 trillion dollars, if the costs incurred for the treatment of the wounded, and the macroeconomic costs (see the paper of Stiglitz and Bilmes, and if you wish, forget the macroeconomic costs and take the lower figure, and if you like, reduce even that to something we can all agree on as an absolute base -- say, $750 billion)? Or that Bernard Lewis would confidently predict that when the Americans overturned the regime the spectacle of rapture and gratitude in Baghdad "would make the liberation of Kabul seem like a funeral procession"?

They forgot, or didn't know, with their fixed certainties, and deep and dependence on Bernard Lewis as sole oracle of all things having to do with Islam and also, for some reason, about Iraq-- no Kelly, no Kedourie, no Schacht, no Vajda, no Jeffrey, no Goitein, no von Grunebaum, no Snouck Hurgronje. A false choice was offered: on the one hand there was the usual crew of appeasers and hirelings and simply ignoramuses (and they were and are appeasers, and hirelings, and ignoramuses), people who cannot conceive of Islam being the problem. These were the espositos and william-polks and scowcrofts and the djerijians, who wanted nothing done to upset anyone. idiots (and appeasers and idiots they are): Jo, enough about Iraq or Islam. There was the belief that Harold Rhode, so uncritically worshipful of Bernard Lewis, see Douglas Feith -- so dependent on Harold Rhode, see Cheney, who was so certain about so many things, and similarly thought Lewis the last word on everything to do with Islam, and Iraq -- not a hint of any consulting with the live J. B. Kelly, or the writings of the dead Kedourie. or for that matter with others, including Bat Ye'or -- it was then, either Lewis, or the likes of such apologists for Islam as Esposito, or just as bad, those disturb ingly naive or pro-Arab "old Iraq hands" -- William Polk comes swimmingly to mind, with their preaching about the need to "solve the Arab-Israeli" -- sorry, now updated to the "Israel/Palestine dispute," with their predictable appeasements and continued ignoring of Islam, of Islam as a threat in Western Europe, in Asia, in black Africa, everywhere that those susceptible to the call of Jihad (that is, everywhere there are Muslims) may be present in numbers sufficient enough to threaten (everywhere), to intimidate (in many places) or to persecute and even murder non-Muslims (everywhere in Musilm-ruled lands). Bernard Lewis has been able to forget, or didn't know -- look at his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords, and his minimizing of the menace of Islam and the mistreatment of the dhimmis, quite unlike his two coevals S. D. Goitein and Gustave von Grunebaum) and failed completely to realize what, had he not been so enthralled, as he so often is, by a highly-presentable representative of the Muslim world (in this case, it was Ahmed Chalabi, but in other cases, he has been deeply impressed by Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, and perhaps most deeply impressed with the fact that Crown Prince Hassan appeared to be deeply impressed with him) would almost certainly happen once the despotism of the Sunni Saddam Hussein was removed? And wouldn't a knowledge of Islam told them something about the prospects for real "democracy" as opposed to the vote-counting (that the Shi'a were happy to participate in, and voted for whomever their leaders told them to vote lemming-like for?). In other words, isn't a knowledge both of Islam and of the history of Iraq essential, so as not to engage in the kind of folly that is being engaged in.

The Americans, had they informed themselves, would then most likely either have

1) left Saddam Hussein in place, if indeed there was no real reason to suspect his possession, or his being able to acquire, weapons of mass destruction or,

2) if there was indeed sufficient reason to believe [we still do not know that, do but those of us who were long willing to believe that the government was reasonable in fearing the existence of WMDs or of the ability of the regime to acquire them -- I was one of them -- are looking more abashed every day] that he either had or was attempting to acquire, or could soon start acquiring or making, such weapons.

What are the most important things to study to figure out what makes sense, for the wellbeing of Infidels, at this moment, in Iraq, given the instruments of Jihad as we can now identify them, and the behavior, ignorant and often pusillanimous, of much of the Western world?

It is history. The history of Islam, both doctrine and practice. The history of Iraq, especially of Iraq since 1920.

Not "psychoanalysis." Not the "generally applicable rules of counter-insurgency" such as "insurgencies tend, on average, to last 10 years." Islam. Iraq. History.

Paul Edwards extraordinarily admits that he has ignored history – the history of Islam, as presented by Western scholars who have analyzed it -- in his attempt to discover why it is that “Iraqis were hung up on history.”

Here is how he puts it:

1. "The history of Australia is irrelevant to my philosophy, so the only thing I needed to find out was why Iraqis were hung up on history."

If "you needed to find out...why Iraqis were hung up on history" you had only to study Islam, and the writings of Western scholars on Islam, and the way in which Muslims live in the past, that supposedly glorious Islamic past, in a way that non-Muslims do not, because Islam is past-centered. It is fixed, it is immutable. The example for all Muslims is Muhammad, uswa hasana (the Model of Perfect Conduct), a phrase used only three times in the Qur'an (twice in relation to Abraham), al-insan al-kamil (the Perfect Man). It is to a seventh-century Arab that Muslims are to look, to him, and to the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs (and here is where the Sunni-Shi'a split begins among the Arabs -- and later it the Persians who will accept Shi'a Islam, and the Empire of Persia that will become the center of Shi'ism), and even to the Companions.

As Ibn Warraq noted in his brilliant essay (mentioned often here and easily to be obtained on-line by googling “Ibn Warraq” and “Islam” and “Fascism”), comparing Islam and Fascism, both are belief-systems fixed on past glories. Compare Mussolini on "Mare Nostrum" (the Mediterranean) and the greatness of Rome, or for that matter, Hitler on the supposedly bottled-up greatness of the Aryan or Germanic peoples, and his dithyrambs, and that of his ideological collaborators, on the past greatness of Deutschland, and even more than Germany, of the Germanic peoples, with that natural energy and life-force, so different from the Slavs and Latins and everyone else.

You didn't have to psychoanalyze anyone to comprehend that living in the past is essential to Islam. And that helps to explain something it is clear to me you don't quite get: the significance of Iraq and Baghdad to Sunni Arabs everywhere. Because they live in that Muslim mythology, and because Baghdad was for 500 years the most important city in Islam, at the time of Islam's greatest glory (for Arabs Constantinople doesn't count -- it was the center for their oppressors, the Ottoman Turks, not for Arab Islam), they simply cannot allow it to be controlled by those "Rafidite dogs" the Shi'a.

So here is perfect example of how you would have known all along – by studying the belief-system of Islam and its psychology (the kind of thing that the advanced and westernized people in Baghdad with whom you are rightly so impressed, such as Mithal al-Alusi or Ahmed Chalabi, but neither one of whom should be taken as the basis for a sensible American policy – based not on mingled admiration and pity for the extraordinary (often members of a very small intellectual and moral elite) few, but on the attitudes and behavior of the many. It’s a pity it has to be that way, but in war, and in a war for the West – not merely a war for or in Iraq, a much more ruthless attitude is called for. One must be cruel only in order to be kind – and I prefer to be kinder to any American soldier, now being called upon quite unnecessarily to risk his life, even if I may sense that I have more in common with Mithal al-Alusi, in some ways, than I might with that particular soldier.

And so, I suggest, should you. Keep only the interests of Infidels in mind, and do not be swayed by the most delightful blogger at "Iraq the Model" or the most exquisitely charming of reciters of Mutannabi.

"I have wanted to liberate the world ever since I was a child."
-- Paul Edwards, above

No further questions, m'lud.

I was amused to discover, at Paul Edwards's blog, the following put up just today. In reading it, please pay particular attention to paragraphs 4 and 5:

"2007-03-20

Afghan and Iraqi Polls
There is a poll just out in Iraq, which has some disturbing results in it.

47% think the war was right versus 53% who think it was wrong.
Back in 2004 the results were 49% versus 39%.

A whopping 59% think the US controls the country versus 34% who think the Iraqi government does.
Back in 2005 the results were 24% and 44% - ie totally reversed.

A whopping 78% oppose the presence of coalition forces. That means forget about bases. Get out as quickly as possible. Although thanks to the schizophrenic Iraqis, only 35% say they want the coalition to leave immediately, despite the fact that 69% think the security is worse with the US forces present. Honestly, we need to get out before we accidentally get into a war with the Iraqi people.

The Iraqis are evenly divided on whether it is OK to attack the people who brought them freedom! But the great news is that 88% disapprove of attacking the Iraqi government forces versus 12% who think it is acceptable. That's all we need. All we need is for the Iraqis to support their own forces. The coalition can get out faster than you can say "is it December 2007 yet?".

I hope that when the US forces have gone that people will stop thinking that they are being controlled by the US. I wonder if there is anything Maliki can do to let the people know that he is not being told what to do by the US? Although the Iraqis already acknowledge that the Iraqi security forces are in charge of security, so I'm not sure removing the US forces entirely will make any difference.

One good thing is that 94% think separation on sectarian lines is bad.

Another good thing is that there are no people refusing to answer the poll questions, so they obviously realise they are free to express their opinion.

Now compare all that to the polls in Afghanistan. From this one we find:

88% support the current government versus 3% supporting the Taliban.

88% versus 11% think it was good that the US arrived.

And only 5% support Osama Bin Laden.

And from this one we find:

87% trust the Afghan National Army

86% trust the Afghan National Police.

86% support equality regardless of gender/ethnicity/religion.

These are very positive numbers. I'm so glad that Afghanistan was liberated rather than nuked. We can work with these people. But we can't have permanent bases there either. Only 5% of the Afghans support that. Let's see if Iran is more open to that. But only after they've held elections without any US forces present. I don't think bases are particular important in these countries though. We can get air strikes in Iraq from either Kuwait or Turkey, and we can get air strikes in Afghanistan from Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan. More options would be nice, but not necessary, and we certainly don't want to force these people to do anything. It is extremely important to get out ASAP so that people know we're not invading any of these countries. That will give the subsequent countries that are liberated more confidence so that they know they can trust us and defect. It's a pity Iran needs to be liberated faster than we can get troops out of Afghanistan or Iraq, but that's the way the wars went.

Anyway, things could have been a hell of a lot worse than this. As it is, the essentials we need are already there, in both countries. They support their security forces and they voted in large numbers for their government. All we need to do is get out of their hair as soon as possible. No problem! We should train up locals with laser designators so that we don't even need to provide special forces, and they can instead call in air strikes from other countries. And the next step after that is setting them up with a minimal air force so that they can drop their own bombs. But they should still have the ability to call in US air strikes in case their own air force has been caught up in a military coup or something. It's all happening. The forces are nearly in place. Probably the locals should go overseas if they want the US or coalition to train them as well. Unless the polls change so that the locals are happy to have foreign troops in their country. But even if the local government wants the troops but the local people don't, I think we need to seek alternate arrangements. We can't risk sparking a pointless war with the locals when we're not trying to force them to do anything.

[# posted by Paul Edwards @ 19:35]

Again, here are Paragraphs 4 and 5:

A whopping 78% oppose the presence of coalition forces. That means forget about bases. Get out as quickly as possible. Although thanks to the schizophrenic Iraqis, only 35% say they want the coalition to leave immediately, despite the fact that 69% think the security is worse with the US forces present. Honestly, we need to get out before we accidentally get into a war with the Iraqi people.

The Iraqis are evenly divided on whether it is OK to attack the people who brought them freedom! But the great news is that 88% disapprove of attacking the Iraqi government forces versus 12% who think it is acceptable. That's all we need. All we need is for the Iraqis to support their own forces. The coalition can get out faster than you can say "is it December 2007 yet?".

Apparently, Edwards has agreed to agree with me, but is doing it off-site, at his own blog. Now, in response to a single opinion poll, he throws all of his arguments (I didn't have time to deal with all of his statements, but not one of them could have withstood criticism)to the winds, and now proclaims that "[h]onestly, we need to get out..."

He writes this because he is afraid that the Americans will accidentally get into a fight with an entity he calls "the Iraqi people."

My reasons for wanting us to leave are quite different. But that's okay. As long as he wants out, I'll pocket the result, just as I would be happy to pocket the result if it came about because MoveOn.org were agitating for it. They don't know what an American withdrawal would necessarily do to Iraq, and to the countries around Iraq, and to the Camp of Islam.

I do.

greatcometof1577,

PE:"I didn't ask you for evidence of criminals committing crimes, I asked you for evidence of the Iraqi government ordering human rights to be violated."

"This is getting old. Don't you get it. The criminals are part of government."

Maliki is not a criminal. He has not committed any crime, or at least, there is no evidence that he has committed a crime, including ordering a crime. He leads a national unity government.

"The Shia death squads are part of the police."

And there are murderers in the US military too. So? Any organization can have criminals in it. When you find them, you charge them and jail them. That's the way it works.

"http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/030507dnintbasraraid.1ce97dcc.html"

Ok, this is article is certainly disturbing. But still not proof that Maliki ordered crimes committed. Let's see what happens at the trial - whether the torturers were ordered to do so by Maliki. Highly unlikely. If he did, he needs to be prosecuted himself. Iraq is a free country now so that is possible.

"Oh yes Maliki is great guy! A shia extreamist!"

He is not an extremist. He heads a national unity government. The Sunni and Kurds had no problem with him.

"You do realize he has been having meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

And the US president had meetings with Josef Stalin and various other despots. So? Sometimes you need to talk to these people. They can't always be ignored.

"The are bound by their common dislike for non-muslims and the sunni fakes."

Tell that to the Sunni Arabs and Kurds who supported his candicacy as PM.

"Lets us know when you have made an attempt to study the history of these people and get back to us."

I'm interested in the present.

"Do a little reading it might help and stop the psycho nonsense. It has been proven to be an un-scientific method and has been replaced by sociobiology."

You can call it whatever you want. The Iraqi bloggers needed to be analyzed to find out why they supported the war while others opposed. This was the crucial question of our time - what was causing even families to be split - poles apart? I answered that question, while you had your head stuck on "all Muslims are the same - see the history".

"feeling good is not what science is all about. Getting it right, and then basing social decisions on tested and carefully weighed objective knowledge, is what science is all about."

"As best as I can tell Mr. Edwards is you have not been doing that."

I have been doing exactly that.

"You have not supplied evidence for anything you have said"

Wrong. I provided the website of an Arab Muslim who contradicted your theory. I provided the name of a politician who contradicted the supposed inability to speak out in favour of peace with Israel. Etc etc.

"however I can find plenty of evidence backing me up. Just do a search of the archives of Jihadwatch."

Backing you up on what point? I don't dispute Islam's bloody past. Or Christianity's for that matter. The question at hand is how to explain why some Muslims are enthusiastic allies while some are enemies. That's all the evidence you need to know that it's too simplistic to say that Islam is the enemy.

"The theory Hugh puts foward is strong."

No, it flies in the face of the fact that we have Muslims who are the equivalent of US neocons.

"It is based on past and recent history. It is backed by Islamic religious teachings."

And stoning your own children to death if they are disobedient is backed by the bible. So?

"Most of all it is backed by evidence on the ground in Iraq now."

The evidence in Iraq is that there is a diverse range of opinions.

"Iraq is in a civil war now and all the claims you make don't and will not change that."

Iraq has sectarian violence. So did Northern Ireland. Iraq also has great diversity. The problem is more complicated than your simple placards. The answers were in the Iraqi blogs.

"Also you keep saying you want to free the Iraqi people but of what?"

subjugation.

"If you really wanted the Iraqi people free you must first free them of their oppressive religion or change that religion."

The Iraqi bloggers have already done that. You should have investigated exactly what they had done.

"Thus if we were really wanted improvement we would do away with the religious nature of the Iraqi government and make it secular. That is not the case now. Just look at the main Shia political parties."

Tell me which Iraqi law is not secular. Do they stone adulterers to death or what?

"None of these (parties) are secular by any means."

They may have religious names - Germany has the Christian Democrats in power too, but there is no evidence of religious laws in either country. Your theory is too simplistic.

"What people like Mr. Edwards and other blind Bushites"

I'm no more a blind Bushite than Bush is a blind Edwardsite. You just don't understand the concept that two people can indepdently come to the same idea.

"don't get it the American people and infact NO people can sustain a military campaign without results or some end game."

There is an end game. Secure Iraq's democracy using locals instead of coalition forces. It's already being done. It just takes longer than it takes you to order a Big Mac.

"That has been shown in history. What he wants done will take 100s of years for us to accomplish and worse he wants it done in a short time span."

What I want done in Iraq has already been done, except the transition to local forces hasn't been completed yet. I may want something else done in Iraq at a later date, but not now.

I wasn't going to bother with this curious specimen again, but he keeps bringing up Mithal al-Alusi, as if that brave man, who visited Israel in 2004, and whose two sons were killed in an attack meant to kill al-Alusi in February 2005, as if Al-Alusi represents a large body of opinion. He says that Al-Alusi was attacked not for political reasons, but merely by thugs. This is nonsense, and he must know it. It was not an attempted kidnapping, to hold someone for ransom, as the criminal gangs do. It was a shoot-to-kill attack, done because others could not stand what Al-Alusi (who has been mentioned admiringly at JW several times) stood for.

And then this same poster, Paul Edwards, tells us that Al-Alusi has plenty of support. Nonsense again. When his own party was running in late 2005, it received a grand total, in all of Iraq, with 27 million people, about 4,500 votes. That al-Alusi was permitted to sit in Parliament, as the sole representative of a very small party of secularists, is simply a tribute to the esteem in which he is held by that very small group, and also of course by the Americans. But to pretend that Al-Alusi is in any sense politically powerful (morally powerful he may be), with those 4,500 votes his party garnered, is absurd.

Robert Spencer, who had some previous email dealings with Edwards, informs me that Edwards describes himself as a would-be "Mutazilite." No doubt it has something to do with his project of liberating the whole wide world. Make of that what you will.

Hugh, "No one in the intelligent past would have found anything remarkable in the notion that one needs to know what moves the minds of men -- and in the case of Muslim men, above all else what moves them is Islam"

Wrong. Muslims don't have a unified mind. Muslims are extremely diverse.

"who has found the mere history of Iraq apparently to be so irrelevant as to be safely ignored (but how does he know it can be safely ignored, if he has completely ignored it?)"

For the same reason I know that the history of Australia can be ignored. We are not responsible for what has preceded us. The problem is people living in the past. That's the problem that needs to be addressed. One of them, anyway.

"and who tells us proudly that, as part of the war effort, he is busy being paid to "psychoanalyze" not only Iraqis but Australians and their reactions to the war in Iraq."

I didn't say I was being paid. I'm not. I said I did it off my own bat, which I did.

"Do you think such material, had it been thoroughly read in context, and digested, might have helped cause American policymakers to be a bit more realistic and less messianic in their ambitions for Iraq?"

They weren't messianic. They didn't know what to expect. The only way they could know what the Iraqis wanted was to liberate them and ask them. No-one predicted the 50/50 split of Iraqis between liberated/humiliated. Because no-one understood them. The answer wasn't in history or anywhere else. The answer was only available via secret ballot and other aspects of an environment of freedom.

"Do you think Richard Perle would not have so excitedly declared in 2003 that he wouldn't be surprised if a boulevard were named after George Bush in Baghdad?"

Some of the Iraqis want to do exactly that.

"Or that Wolfowitw would estimate that the "cost" of the Iraq War might be "$20 billion,""

It might have been. No-one knew what the percentages were going to break down as. Some experts, not much different from you, were predicting that 100% would stick in their heels and resist to the last man.

"ignoramuses), people who cannot conceive of Islam being the problem."

Islam is just one of the problems. You're the ignoramus who can't see that it's much more complicated than that. There are more enemies than just Islam, and some Muslims are allies. You have totally failed to identify the enemy.

"And wouldn't a knowledge of Islam told them something about the prospects for real "democracy" as opposed to the vote-counting (that the Shi'a were happy to participate in, and voted for whomever their leaders told them to vote lemming-like for?)."

The same thing happens in Australia. Our leader (John Howard) tells us to vote Liberal, and 50% of the population do. So?

"In other words, isn't a knowledge both of Islam and of the history of Iraq essential, so as not to engage in the kind of folly that is being engaged in."

No, analysis of actual Iraqis is required, to explain the 50/50 split between liberated/humiliated, that no-one predicted. What was the massive difference between these two groups, both Muslims, both with the same Iraqi history, both with the same Islamic history? The fact that these vast differences existed was proof that the problem had nothing to do with either history. Why can't you see this?

"The Americans, had they informed themselves"

Show me where, prior to March 2003, your informed opinion showed that there would be a 50/50 split in Iraqis.

"1) left Saddam Hussein in place, if indeed there was no real reason to suspect his possession, or his being able to acquire, weapons of mass destruction or"

Replacing an enemy government with an allied or neutral government is a strategic thing to do, even if you can't understand the most basic principle of security.

"It is history. The history of Islam, both doctrine and practice. The history of Iraq, especially of Iraq since 1920."

No, it's the current that matters.

"Paul Edwards extraordinarily admits that he has ignored history"

The same way that I ignored Australian history when forming my own philosophy. I instead based everything on my own derivations of the Golden Rule. The question was - how many Iraqis did the same thing, and can we make all of them do the same thing? Australians and Americans don't live in the past, so why should Iraqis be any different? And the Iraqis are divided on that issue.

"If "you needed to find out...why Iraqis were hung up on history" you had only to study Islam, and the writings of Western scholars on Islam, and the way in which Muslims live in the past"

Muslims don't speak with one voice.

"that supposedly glorious Islamic past, in a way that non-Muslims do not, because Islam is past-centered. It is fixed, it is immutable."

No it isn't. It's much more complicated, as the Iraqi bloggers and poll results showed.

"The example for all Muslims is Muhammad, uswa hasana (the Model of Perfect Conduct)"

And you will find the vast majority of Iraqis behave nothing like Mohammed, showing that you're wrong again and again and again. It's more complicated than that. You need to look further.

"You didn't have to psychoanalyze anyone to comprehend that living in the past is essential to Islam."

Wrong. You needed to psychoanalyze why for some Muslims at least, the exact reverse was true.

"And that helps to explain something it is clear to me you don't quite get: the significance of Iraq and Baghdad to Sunni Arabs everywhere. they simply cannot allow it to be controlled by those "Rafidite dogs" the Shi'a."

The Sunni don't speak with one voice either. The Sunni have actually voted in representatives that are happy to live with a Shia Prime Minister.

"So here is perfect example of how you would have known all along – by studying the belief-system of Islam and its psychology (the kind of thing that the advanced and westernized people in Baghdad with whom you are rightly so impressed, such as Mithal al-Alusi or Ahmed Chalabi, but neither one of whom should be taken as the basis for a sensible American policy – based not on mingled admiration and pity for the extraordinary (often members of a very small intellectual and moral elite) few, but on the attitudes and behavior of the many."

Sure, that's the challenge - to convert the majority of Muslims to be the same as al Alusi or the Iraqi bloggers. That's the whole point. You need to find the forces that created Al Alusi and then harness them. Or you need to commit genocide. Either way, you need to go to Iraq to do it. So, we went to Iraq.

"It’s a pity it has to be that way, but in war, and in a war for the West – not merely a war for or in Iraq, a much more ruthless attitude is called for. One must be cruel only in order to be kind – and I prefer to be kinder to any American soldier, now being called upon quite unnecessarily to risk his life, even if I may sense that I have more in common with Mithal al-Alusi, in some ways, than I might with that particular soldier."

Most of those US soldiers WANT to risk their lives to help the Iraqi people, and they believe they are helping the Iraqi people. Don't pretend to be caring for them. If you truly care for them you will listen to what they are saying. And they are saying they want to stay to help the Iraqi people.

"And so, I suggest, should you. Keep only the interests of Infidels in mind, and do not be swayed by the most delightful blogger at "Iraq the Model" or the most exquisitely charming of reciters of Mutannabi."

I have the interests of the innocent infidels AND the innocent Iraqi bloggers in mind. I want to protect BOTH.

PE:"The coalition can get out faster than you can say "is it December 2007 yet?".

"Apparently, Edwards has agreed to agree with me, but is doing it off-site, at his own blog."

What are you talking about? In THIS blog, do a search for "December" and you can see that I said exactly the same thing right here. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

"Now, in response to a single opinion poll, he throws all of his arguments"

I haven't thrown out a single argument, much less all of them.

"now proclaims that "[h]onestly, we need to get out...""

Yes, there are other things to do, such as liberate Iran. As soon as security has been handed over to the Iraqis, due November 2007, the US should move to Iran, ie in December 2007. This is part of my war plan which I posted a couple of months ago and have already provided the link here. It is nothing new.

"He writes this because he is afraid that the Americans will accidentally get into a fight with an entity he calls "the Iraqi people.""

Yes, that's correct.

"My reasons for wanting us to leave are quite different."

Yes, you're a sociopathic terrorist who wants to see random Sunni and Shiites killed as if that is going to help the infidels.

"But that's okay. As long as he wants out, I'll pocket the result"

I want to ensure that sufficient forces are left either in-country or nearby to respond to any external invasion or military coup though.

"They don't know what an American withdrawal would necessarily do to Iraq, and to the countries around Iraq, and to the Camp of Islam. I do."

No you don't. No more than you predicted the 50/50 split in Iraqi attitudes towards liberation. You simply can't kill enough Muslims via terrorism to achieve your goals anyway. Even if the Iraqi Shiites expell all Arab Sunnis, you will achieve precisely nothing other than lower the population of one country and increase the population of another. All being swamped by natural growth from reproduction anyway.

Hugh, "I wasn't going to bother with this curious specimen again, but he keeps bringing up Mithal al-Alusi, as if that brave man, who visited Israel in 2004, and whose two sons were killed in an attack meant to kill al-Alusi in February 2005, as if Al-Alusi represents a large body of opinion."

Lie, I said no such thing.

"He says that Al-Alusi was attacked not for political reasons, but merely by thugs."

Lie, I said no such thing. I said he was attacked by criminals, and what criminals do is irrelevant. There are criminals in every country. People who will assassinate Bush too.

"This is nonsense, and he must know it."

And you must know when you're lying through your back teeth too.

"It was not an attempted kidnapping, to hold someone for ransom, as the criminal gangs do. It was a shoot-to-kill attack, done because others could not stand what Al-Alusi (who has been mentioned admiringly at JW several times) stood for."

They'll kill Maliki for what he stands for too, if they get a chance. There have been numerous such attacks. Alusi was one of many.

"And then this same poster, Paul Edwards, tells us that Al-Alusi has plenty of support."

Lie. I said no such thing. I simply said he was free to express an opinion which you said was not able to be expressed in Iraq. You didn't even have the decency to admit you were wrong about that.

"When his own party was running in late 2005, it received a grand total, in all of Iraq, with 27 million people, about 4,500 votes."

Where did you get that figure from? According to this:

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraq051215results.html

it was 32,200. You can't win a seat with so few votes.

"That al-Alusi was permitted to sit in Parliament, as the sole representative of a very small party of secularists"

There was a much larger party of secularists there too - Allawi's.

"But to pretend that Al-Alusi is in any sense politically powerful (morally powerful he may be), with those 4,500 votes his party garnered, is absurd."

And to expect to get away with the lie that I said he was politically powerful is even more absurd.

"Robert Spencer, who had some previous email dealings with Edwards, informs me"

So, you went running to Robert when all your arguments were demolished, to see if you could find some ad hominem attack to get me with?

"Edwards describes himself as a would-be "Mutazilite.""

As does Ali Fidhal of Iraq the Model fame. And if you had an ounce of decency, you would have joined him too.

"No doubt it has something to do with his project of liberating the whole wide world."

No doubt? I wanted to liberate the whole world since I was about 14. As you should have too if you weren't such a sociopath. I joined Ali Fidhal when I was 37.

"Make of that what you will."

Ditto.

And that about wraps up Paul Edwards.

There you have it! The truth about President Bush! The real truth ! He is not 'stupid' and if he had not moved so decisively and bravely against the Musbots, not one person in 10,000 here would be aware of what a huge threat to civilized human life these twisted followers of the twisted and pro-murder Queeron bible that these antichrists obey without a hint of rationality! Without Bush, we would be sucking up all that 'war deceit' by the buckets full! God bless our Commander and Chief, the pick of the giant minority, and loyal Chief Justices! Just try to imagine where we would be if Gore had won! See? I'm right! Think! Now lets support this great man by backing his wonderful plan to build a permanent base right in the center of the enemies bread basket, all those oil well and what a wonderful place to defuse Muslim dangers very quickly.

Actually, there is one last little thing that I forgot to mention. Did you know that Paul Edwards happens to be God? Yes, he does, and he tells you all about it at his blog-spot -- what better place, after all, to announce to the world that you happen to be God, or at least the most likely candidate to be God?

Here is what I discovered at his website. True, it is from December 2005, and here we are in March 2007. But I don't think if someone is God back in December 2005 he would cease to be God in -- well, in not even a year-and-a-half. Call me old-fashioned, call me a stick-in-the-mud, but that's just my take on it.

Voila, mesdames et messieurs! Bon appetit!

And now, h-e-r-e-'-s Paul!:

2005-08-12

Pulling Rank

Why did I declare myself to be God? Because there seems to be no other choice. My message is not getting out simply by logic alone. I was forced to pull out all stops to bring an end to the human rights abuses as quickly as possible. I believe that if I were widely accepted as God, most of the remaining wars would not need to be fought. So let me state my case. First of all, I want to tell you the model of the universe that I believe is most likely. I believe that this entire universe is a Virtual Reality computer simulation which I chose to run. ie the universe is here for my entertainment. It is probably only a few decades old. All the history and human memory are part of the computer simulation. Since I chose to run this software, I am God. But there is an administrator who I call the Environment Controller who intervenes as necessary. I think the Environment Controller is another part of me.

I grew up with authoritarian parents, who basically demanded that I goose-step to their dictates or face corporal punishment. If I were playing with a ball, they would say "stop playing with the ball and get in the car", expecting me to be as obedient as the family dog. I instead always bounced the ball one more time, refusing to be treated like a dog, and I would subsequently get beaten. At the time I didn't have the words to describe this. But after 37 years, I finally came up with the definition of who I was - I FIGHT SUBJUGATION. My parents were trying to subjugate me. This is part of human nature. Although I hated this at the time, and swore I'd never speak to them again as soon as I turned 18 and got human rights, I don't actually blame my parents anymore. Why? Because I believe that I DELIBERATELY chose these people as parents because I DELIBERATELY wanted to turn myself into an anti-subjugator, so that I would fight for the human rights of others who are languishing under a subjugating government, as the Eastern Europeans were.

During my childhood, I was constantly being picked on by other kids. I couldn't understand why they were doing this, while still calling themselves Christian. There was something seriously wrong with the way the bible was being taught if it kept producing monsters intent on mindless violence. I used to endure a lot of suffering at the hands of others before I resorted to violence myself in order to fix the problem. I didn't have the words for it at the time, but these people were naturally trying to subjugate me. No-one had ever taught them "fight subjugation". I wish I had the words "stop trying to subjugate me" and that they had been taught the meaning of that from the bible etc.

Although I had been raised as a Christian, when I went to Fiji at the age of about 12, I became an atheist. I saw no evidence of a God, especially one looking after me. Again, I believe this was deliberate. I wanted myself to get the feeling of being all alone with no-one looking out for my rights. I instead started looking out for other people's rights. I wished I could use the western armies to liberate Eastern Europe so that we could find out if they REALLY wanted communism or not. Basically I wanted to free the hostages. I wrote to the USSR asking what they were doing in Afghanistan, and received a whole lot of propaganda back.

I was watching my watch as I turned 18. Counting the seconds to when I would get my human rights. I jumped for joy when I got them. I wanted everyone in the world to have that same feeling of freedom. But how could I get it implemented? The oppressed people were still being held captive by the USSR, protected by nukes. In the meantime I set about trying to protect myself economically, so that I could be in a strong position to protect others. As soon as I figured out the best way to protect others! Australians were already protected - we have social security so that no-one fears starving to death. So the focus of my attention was the rest of the world. I realised that the maximum benefit would come from toppling dictators. Because then the resources of that country would stop being squandered on a dictator and instead be distributed amongst the people.

When China had the Tianamen Square massacre, for the first (and only) time in my life, there was a protest that I wanted to attend - against the Chinese embassy in Sydney. Then the unthinkable happened - the USSR collapsed. What joy that was! And for the first time in my life I found a charity that I actually wanted to donate to. The Red Cross had a Romanian appeal after the Romanians threw off their dictatorship. I figured if the Romanians were willing to put their life on the line for freedom, that I could at least help pay for the bandages for the wounded. Then Desert Storm came. I had hoped that the Russians would have joined us and establish the New World Order that Bush talked about. Unfortunately, there was something in the Russian psyche that was preventing them from joining us.

While I was waiting for Russia to calm down, I was busy tackling a different problem - Microsoft's monopoly. I led by example, writing public domain code so that commercial enterprises could pick it up and polish it off, as described here. I even created my own operating system, PDOS. Unfortunately, most people preferred to implement the GNU Virus Licence which is an attempt at something akin to communism - restricting the ability of businesses to pick up the code and fix it in a manner that allows them to make a profit.

Meanwhile, back on the security front, I cheered as NATO liberated Kosovo from communist dictatorship, and then as Serbia itself threw off its shackles. Basically I was overjoyed whenever the western military went into action. It makes the world a better place - ending state-slavery. I assumed that most Australians felt the same way, as the vibes I received from my workmates during Desert Storm were along the lines of "Up and at 'em boys". There was bipartisan support and the polls showed something like 90% in favour, even for our own troops to be used. There was only one dissenting voice, from an independent who represented my electorate (and I voted for him!). I rang him up and complained that he wasn't representing our electorate and I never voted for him again.

It wasn't until Operation Iraqi Freedom that I saw something was wrong with Australia. We didn't get bipartisan support for the action, and the left-wing were genuinely up in arms about it. I devoted my life to trying to figure out "what went wrong". Why weren't 90% of Australians behind ending state-slavery in Iraq? To answer this, required me to find out what my underlying ideology was that was different from theirs. I teased this out in the Iraqi blogs, as I was able to question the whole world on where they stood on the use of calculated violence to end holocausts. I started off doing this surreptiously, because I wanted to see what the "free market" would bring up in the comments section. I probed the Iraqi bloggers by email so as to not disturb the comments. The commenters were good, but they were all missing the point. The main point being that under Saddam there was INSITUTIONALIZED RAPE. Opposition to the liberation meant the unconscionable fact of supporting the status quo - ie supporting the indefinite continuation of the rape of women instead of going to their rescue. I finally entered the public arena on 2004-03-23, on "The Mesopotomian". As an Australian atheist, I was able to take pressure off the poor American Christians who kept on getting accused of spreading "Christian values" by force of arms. But as an atheist, I could say that it wasn't Christian values being exported, it was something else. Something I shared in common with both American Christians and Iraqi Muslims. But could I isolate that common ideology? My final answer, after 37 years of searching, happened to come out in a message on the same Iraqi blog (even though this was not the blog that I frequented the most), numbered 666, and the date was 2004-09-11, ie the 3-year anniversary of 9/11. I was still an atheist at the time, and I was proud that it was an atheist that had managed to figure out the core ideology. By the way, this was the second time I had found somewhere worthwhile to donate money - the Iraqi blogs. Bringing a pro-liberation message to the world. And supporting the blogger-created "Iraq Pro-Democracy Party".

Shortly after I posted that crucially-important message, the unthinkable happened. God (or who I now call "The Environment Controller"), contacted me, shattering my entire worldview in an instant. There were 4 separate things that happened during this contact (the contact lasted about 2 days):

1. My brain was changed to introduce a feeling of enormous love - the feeling that God was protecting me.

2. I had a feeling that any decisions I made were being made safely, ie I wasn't alone in making them.

3. Long chains of logic were given to me, explaining various things. E.g. one chain walked me back through my life, explaining how the things I did wrong were due to faulty logic or the influence of my genes. Another logic chain suggested that we were already living in Heaven, and I was actually an aborted baby.

4. The Environment Controller (EC) demonstrated that he could physically control my body.

I was overwhelmed by this, especially because one of the logic chains was that there was a butterfly effect and that everything I was doing wrong was causing others to suffer. I went to the hospital to be sedated. Instead, I was incarcerated into a sort of mental ward. I was allowed out after a couple of weeks. One of the things the EC had told me was that if I didn't think the bible was clear or accurate, I should write my own. So I did. I then started trying to "sell" my new religion. My new religion was actually a sect of Islam, because I was mainly trying to save the Muslims from their current nihilistic path. Ali Fidhal, one of the Iraqi bloggers, had told me about this sect.

Then in July 2005, I was unable to concentrate at work because the only thing coursing through my mind was freedom. That is when I decided to announce that I was God, to try to shake things up. I was having trouble sleeping again. I went to see the doctor again, and they decided to incarcerate me again! I was sitting at the doctor's, and then realised that instead of sitting there waiting to be incarcerated, I should make a run for it and try to seek help via my blog. I ran to my car, and the police had just arrived and chased me. I managed to get into my car and lock the doors before they stopped me, and I took off in a hurry and managed to escape. But they caught me along the road. I had no choice but to surrender and unlock the door. They dragged me from my car, pushed me down onto the road, and then seemed to put all their weight on my head, scratching my face on the road. But after the handcuffs were on, they took the weight off my head. I was sent to the same mental ward again. It was to be another 2 weeks before I was finally able to be free again, and even then it was on condition that I not mention that I am God.

So, what is the evidence that I am God? Well firstly, you can judge by my life. I have spent my whole life trying to bring freedom to people, or when I was unable to do that, then I was trying to improve humanity by leveraging into the potential of public domain source code. Was there ever a time in my life when I wasn't trying to fix this world instead of waiting for the next one? I don't think so. As far as I can tell I have taken an optimal path through life, caring about other people's human rights. The poor Iraqi women who were being raped by their own government probably thought that God was ignoring their plight. That no-one cared about them. Well, it's not true. I was caring about them the whole time. I spend ALL my time working on geostrategy - trying to find a way to break through and rescue the oppressed. In fact I was unaware that others weren't doing the exact same thing. Too many people were surprised that I had wanted to free the oppressed even as a child. But in this universe I am only armed with my brain and my heart. You need to look hard if you want to see who I am.

Secondly, you can see my crucial message 666 on 9/11. It's too much of a coincidence that my whole life of searching should come to a climax on that date with that message number. Then there's the unverifiable stuff. The most important of the unverifiable stuff is the fact that I don't have "love of God" switched on in my brain. Why? Because I'm not meant to. Because I am God. I'm not meant to feel love of God, I'm meant to be showing others that I love them and that I am looking out for them.

Another thing I'd like to draw attention to is the "judgement" everyone was waiting for. You can find that here. Although in addition to that I would like to say that the US's actions since 9/11 have been exemplary, especially when the US soldiers kneeled down and then retreated when faced with an angry mob of UNARMED Iraqis in Najaf. It made me cry.

And another thing. If I were able to definitely prove that I was God, you would lose your freedom. To be totally free you have to believe that there is either no god, or that God doesn't sit in judgement. That way you have to make up your own rules about what is right and what is wrong. Which is exactly what I want. I don't want to be a dictator. However, while not proof, there is some EVIDENCE that may whet your appetite.

One of the revelations that was given to me was "If you don't like the bible - write your own!". This is what I have done with Mu'tazilah. This is another reason why I think that the Environment Controller has passed the reins to me. It is me, not the EC, that is the "real" god.

UPDATE: More evidence. What do you expect my highest priority would be at this point in time? Ending institutionalized rape in Iran now that Mr Bush et al have ended institutionalized rape in Iraq? Bingo.

UPDATE 2: Note that it is only a theory that I am God. Since I am not omniscient or omnipresent myself, I may just be a prophet - the second coming of Jesus if you will.

[# posted by Paul Edwards @ 08:30]

Well, evidently he believes he is God because he does not know what his left hand is doing - a God not devoid of ignorance, and, so, a God an ignorant person might identify with - an ignorant God for the ignorant masses. And what is the message this God brings? "See, ignorance is bliss, therefore, I will do what ever Jane Fonda did concerning a war where so many people are getting hurt - first of all, I shall contradict The President of the United States, and demand a total troop withdrawl.

I wish there was more discussion on this topic other than the hand grenade throwing between Hug and PE.

Hugh, I don't know why you waste time with this nut. Your arguments in favor of immediate withdrwal from Iraq and extremely well written and worthy of much more consideration. I see too little discussion and arguments on this issue ( pro and con) on the web- then again
I may not be looking in all the right places).

Does anyone know of any other bloggers disussing and analyzing this issue?