Robert Spencer has mentioned that someone with a reasonable knowledge of the worldview of Islam, of what Islam inculcates, would not have been a booster of the Iraq the Model (or Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations) Project. For one would have known that "democracy" in the Western sense is not possible -- that is, a democracy that would enshrine the rights of the individual (as expressed in the American Bill of Rights, or in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), insist upon legal equality for non-Muslims and for women, and, above all, be based on a system that would require the people in Iraq (not the "Iraqi people" in whom Bush so devoutly appears to believe) to locate political legitimacy in the expressed will of the people. (See the social-contract theories, see Hobbes, see Locke, see Rousseau, and go right up to Rawls, by which governments are legitimated by appeal to that will.)
The people in Iraq do not believe that it is the expressed will of the people that matters, but rather the will expressed by Allah in Qur'an (and glossed by the Sunnah). But Bush scarcely knew or knows a thing about Islam. His chief advisors on the subject have been, inter alios, a professor of law in Ohio. And how did Karen Hughes, our great expert in "reaching out" (something that in any case is completely contrary to what should be done) to the world of Islam, decide that this was just one more little topic, easily mastered, and that in no time at all, by meeting with Saudi ambassadors and suchlike, they'd get the hang of it?
But, you will say, didn't Kanan Makiya and Ahmed Chalabi explain that everything would be all right? Didn't Bernard Lewis think it would all work out fine? And what about all those predictions -- Paul Wolfowitz claiming the entire war and brief occupation, so very brief, would cost some tens of billions of dollars, or that other fellow, the one who said it would be "walk in the park"? What about Richard Perle, who was so sound when he was Henry Jackson's deputy but apparently not eager to study Islam himself? Instead he and the rest were willing to rely on those nice unrepresentative Shi'a-in-exile who were all over Washington. It is they who deserve the most credit for the war in Iraq. It is they who held out the promise of so much, in their desire to convince or inveigle the Americans into removing Saddam Hussein.
And Lewis himself, who has Arab visitors to his house to see his rarities in Princeton, always seems so impressed with those Arabs and Muslims who share one important characteristic: they all appear to be so impressed with Bernard Lewis. And so Ahmed Chalabi was seen as an Iraqi attuned to Iraqi reality, when Ahmed Chalabi in fact had been out of Iraq for 45 years. After all, he was a serious mathematician, with a doctorate from the University of Chicago to prove it. (And what has become of Waring's Problem, since it gave Chalabi, or he gave it, the slip?) And then there was Kanan Makiya, author of "The Republic of Fear" and stout oppononent of both Saddam Hussein and that other bully, this one in so-called intellectual matters, Edward Said. And there was also that charming Arab lady interested in rescuing the Arab world, who was, and perhaps still is, a great and good friend of Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz may have learned from her, rather than from quiet days and nights among the books, nights spent not only studying but taking in, assimilating, the material -- which requires the quiet that the hectic vacancy of Washington so seldom permits.
And then there was not only Islam, but history itself. Where was the study of the divide between Sunni and Shi'a? It was seen as something temporary, something that could and would be bridged. After all, were there not Sunni-Shi'a marriages? Were there not good Sunnis and good Shi'a -- precisely the kind one would find among the secularized and outwardly westernized elites in exile, the very people who knew each other and who presented themselves as "representative" Iraqis?
Lewis might have been dreaming, for all we know, of an Iraq that would be run by his friends and acquaintances, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya and Mithal al-Alusi and all the other unrepresentative representative men. How many votes did the slate of Ahmed Chalabi receive? Compare that result with the slate of Moqtada al-Sadr, or the parties controlled by people only a tad less unpleasant than Moqtada al-Sadr. And if the Sunnis were really to participate wholeheartedly in one of those purple-thumbed supposedly majestic exercises in voting, for whom would they vote? Mithal al-Alusi? Well, no, because when he ran, on his own, he received 4,500 votes in a country of 27 million.
The clash between Sunnis and Shi'a goes back to earliest Islam. The depth and duration of that hostility, which in history-haunted Islam can be so easily evoked, so easily brought up and made more real for those living in the present than the present itself, was simply ignored by these Iraqis-in-exile. Party, it was a function of their own ignorance. They really thought that the "problem" of Iraq was Saddam Hussein and the last thirty years. They didn't know Iraq's history. Had they spent time reading, say, Elie Kedourie (oh, but he doesn't count because he was Jewish and as an adult lived in England? So his meticulous and dry studies count for nothing? Is that it?), they would have seen the history of suppression of enemies, of endemic violence, of palace coups. Remember "strongman" Nuri es-Said? They would have read about that early revolt of the Shi'a tribes, who were unwilling to be ruled, as the British wanted them to be ruled, by a Sunni king and a Sunni elite (see "The Letters of Gertrude Bell").
Islam was not understood. Iraq was wilfully misunderstood.
Otherwise, the American government, the Bush Administration, knew -- and knows -- exactly what it is doing.
History, history.
I think there was yet another influence on GWB with regard to "understanding" Islam. I found an article on the Internet written by Bat Ye'or (the article was available on her website -- www.dhimmi.org -- but now I cannot find the article.) Anyway, the article was titled: "Dhimmitude and Marionism" (?) and in this article, Bat Ye'or writes: "Professor David Forte [a Catholic] influenced President Bush", convincing Bush that "Islam is a religion of love, peace, and tolerance"...and that "Islam was kidnapped by bin Laden."
So there's been yet another influence (of a stumbling block variety) in GWB's education with respect to the religion of Islam (and, ironically, by a Catholic).
"Otherwise, the American government, the Bush Administration, knew -- and knows -- exactly what it is doing."
If our Government knows exactly what it is doing I shudder. Its easier to believe they are ignorant. If they are not ignorant "like with immigration" then what exactly is the motive? The answer to that question would bring up a long list of possibilities, none of them good.
"David Forte" -- yes, that's the "expert on Islam," the law professor from Ohio, I was alluding to above. Look up his writings on Islam, and then weep.
Who knows if The Idiot in Chief and his assorted under-idiots now have seen the light re: Islam and Iraq Democracy Prject. Joe Biden said that this administration is not so much ignorant as cynical, not believing a surge in troop levels will improve matters in Tarbaby Iraq, but is, instead, just biding its time, leaving it to he next administration to wave in the helicopters to evacuate our troops and staff from the rooftops.
That would make sense to me.
Not looking bad is Dubya the Spinners modus operandi.
Oh no, I wasn't aware that David Forte was a law professor!
I finally found the Pdf file of Bat Ye'or (but only by going to Google, typing in: " forte site:www.dhimmitude.org " (without the quotation marks). Anyway, Google produces the pdf file. Oh, and the title is "Dhimmitude and Marcionism" (wrong title in my above post).
From that article: "Soon after September 11 a controversy over Islam developed in the United States. According to Professor David Forte, a fervent Catholic who allegedly influenced President Bush, Islam is a religion of love, peace, and tolerance. Islam was kidnapped by Bin Laden, who supposedly represents an insignificant minority sect of Islam. Forte called on the West to fly to the rescue of the true Islam that they must save from Bin Laden’s fiends. Though one cannot presume the individual feelings and opinions of millions of Muslims or generalize on the totality of Islamic civilization, it must be admitted that Bin Laden’s concepts are expounded in all the classical writings of Muslim jurists going back to the 8th century, constantly repeated and taught over the centuries. These precepts were the basis of relations with non-Muslims and they are still studied and reproduced today. As Father Henri Boulad,an Egyptian Jesuit and specialist of Islam wrote: 'Islamism is Islam.'"
There are Muslim countries that are more secular than others, and under Saddam Iraq was one of the more secular (Saddam was not going to let a bunch of mullahs tell him what to do), and there is a great deal of appeal in having some say about what type of government you want, so I can see why he thought it would be successful.
One should never lump all people's into categories such as all Iraq is as diverse as all America. The modern history of Iraq is one of carved up borders as set by British dominance which had nothing to do with Islam or the ethnic peoples.
Iraq being a communist state for all of it's butchery under Saddam was one of the most progressive and non Islamic states with only thug imams who have now risen to the surface keeping power under Saddam if they kept their mobs in check.
The Kurdish north is an Islamic state, but not an Islamic run state. It keeps itself viable in the secular out of the past in Saddam weeded citizens out gathered at Mosques and due to it's being attacked on all sides from Iran, Turkey and Iraq.
Mr. Spencer is correct in pure Islam can not be a representative government. I though would state that Iraq is indeed a democracy as it is a mob rule and mobs do indeed rule there as that is what a democracy is. A Republican form of government as America is supposed to be to the Parlimentarian representative body is what Iraq should be based in like the Swiss Canton.
It is important to equate the correct terms and their meaning as "democracy" holds not rights for the individual and in many cases that is what Islam is.
Iraq though as the Persian adage would convey is, Hands without salt. In it being a meal prepared by President Bush without no one comprehending the full measure of what was intended nor is intended.
Currently, al Qaeda is being flushed to southern Lebanon to be killed there and according to US military stats the violence has lessened considerably since the Army was allowed to kill terrorists being protected by the factionalized government. As the mob rule subsides and tribal and state rule gells a different Iraq will emerge and the press will flutter to new stories claiming disaster in Iran and the Israeli state.
I recall having read (I'd have to look up the source which I don't have time for right now) an explanation about why Saddam fooled everyone about WMD. I thought (back in 2003 or so) Saddam made claims about his WMDs so as to scare and threaten the West. That's what I thought. Then I read an expose about Saddam's nuclear, biological and chemical projects, and why he kept claiming that such weapons were in his possession (Saddam was so convincing that even his scientists would repeat the claims -- which all, of course, turned out to be elaborate fictions) -- Saddam reasons for doing so were to keep his REAL enemies (Iran) at bay. He feared that if the Iranians were to discover that he had no defenses, the Iranians would invade and rule Iraq. This interpretation (for me, anyway) was reinforced when Saddam was hanged. What were his last words? It was to curse the Persians -- his feared and life-long enemies. (not the West). Now, that, I thought was revealing.
Hugh,
I am not surprised that a group of self-styled neoconservative arrogant policy wonks, including the VP and SecDef, would fail to "know what they didn't know" going into Iraq, despite the irony. (See Rumsfeld circa 2003 re his often ridiculed statement about the three levels of "unknowns.") What I find astonishing is the inability of nearly all conservative bloggers four years later to grasp the idea that the Iraq adventure was doomed from the start due to the irreconcilable spiritual blood fued between Sunni and Shia.
I have repeatedly written to nationally-known conservative bloggers pointing out this knowledge gap, even those who have now admitted that their support of the invasion was a mistake, if only because we have now obviously failed. But, they can't seem to disenthrall themselves long enough to contemplate their fatal lack of knowledge of Islam.
My sense is that the only reliable predictor of human behavior is belief. If we understand what people believe, we will understand what they did, are doing, and will do. Thus, we knew and know that the Iraqi factions, believing each other to be infidels, would not accomodate one another in order to achieve peaceful coexistence, let alone democracy. Since the bloggers apparently believe that a peaceful political resolution is always possible, they can't acknowledge their four year-old mistakes about Iraq and Iraqis. It is a failing of nearly all of our most generally esteemed political columnists.
My sense from reading your probing and insightful writings over the years here is that you embrace the centrality of belief and its predictive nature, but I would be grateful to hear your take on this subject.
There are Believers, True Believers, Truest Believers.
There are beliefs that offer a Total System, as Islam does (and as the Nazis did, or Soviet Communism under Stalin) which offers more or less a Total Regulation of Life and a Complete Explanation of the Universe, together with that all-important Source of Evil (for Nazis, Jews; for Soviet Communists, capitalists; for Muslims, all non-Muslims). And then there are beliefs in, inter alia, such things as Science, Art, Progress, Decadence, Mystic Relations to God, Human Reason, and so on.
Surely the nature of the belief, the ampleness of what it purports to explain and to regulate, and the the way in which that belief is spread -- brainwashing from an early age? force and threats of force? initial mischaracterization until someone has already joined and can't get out, inducements such as preferment that may accompany Party membership and where the mouthing of belief may in time lead to real belief -- all of these and many other things must surely matter.
I don't believe in much of anything. But I can see that the Western world has produced things that the world of Islam cannot. And I don't much care for the habit of mental submission, don't much like what passes for art and science in the world of Islam. In fact, while there are things I find attractive about various non-Western socities, and I'm a sucker for the names of Chinese pavilions and gates -- the Palace of Cloudless Happiness, for example -- I can't find a thing about Islam that attracts me.
Can you?
caligraphy.
I like the music...Egyptian, Lebanese, Persian...I find it extremely captivating, mesmerizing...(although usually the lyrics suck).
I have a volume of Persian music (originally recorded in 1978) -- Dariush Talai (tar); Mohammad Musavi (ney); Mjid Kiani (santur) -- all brilliant musicians (I wonder/fear what happened to them)...
Here are my guestimates for the chances of various scenarios in Iraq:
1) Democracy takes hold, spreads to the region, Disneyland establishes a branch in Baghdad (MohammedWorld) and everyone sings Kumbaya: .000000000001%
2) Chaos in Iraq precedes breakup of country, dictators established in each sector, no big strategic threat: 40%
3) Chaos in Iraq with a regional melee, Iran emerges as the big winner, becomes strategic threat down the road: 40%
4) Iraq disintegrates, regional chaos, no end in sight, no winners: 19.999999999%
Hugh:
History history, we are making history.
One can argue that human nature cannot change or will not change.
One can argue that islam will never change.
One should argue that warfare and fighting probably does not either, and any kid who has been in sports knows what winning and losing is, and we're winning.
The fighting men of the West know how to kick ass, and thank God for that.
We might not prevail, but methinks we will.
"prevail...methinks we will.":
-- from a posting above
Of course we will.
But the trick is to do it with the least loss on our side, the right side. All unncessary loss is to be avoided; the exploitation of pre-existing weaknesses, not all of those weaknesses sufficiently recognized by our rulers, needs to be undertaken.
"the exploitation of pre-existing weaknesses"! Right on Hugh! As a side bar: I can hear China laughing at our inability to assess the enemy, just as we have done with them over the past 40 years. I can also see them waiting patiently to become even more strategically important on the world scene through the lack of our ability to correctly identify and exploit the weaknesses of our enemies! This failure will relegate us to the "has been seat" of world politics and world importance. All this will happen, maybe, just before we "truly" wake up and kick some serious butt and learn from that history, history, history!
I can dream can't I?
Dore Gold also has a new book "The Fight for Jerusalem Radical islam, the west, and the future of the holy city" he has it right except really just looking at the people in the time when they got along it was not islam that got along but the people at the time?
still reading?
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEM
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
Man I missed this song!!
Wonder if nancy has her burka yet?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
US reveals Iraq nuclear operation
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.
YEP VAL PHLAM SNOW CONE MAKER I WANT WILSON AND IS WIFE AND ALL IN THE CIA WHO TRIED THIS COUP AGAINST AMERICA PUT IN JAIL OR MAYBE EVEN SHOT BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR AFTER 9/11/2001 AND THIS IS CALLED TREASON ALL IN TE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO HELPED TOO!! YES THAT WOULD BE DICKI ARMITAGE AND POWELL I WANT THEM DRAGED INTO THE COURT TO EXPOSE THEM??
Yes histoy does matter!!
only 2 because I know how you hate that Hugh
Newt Gingrich is an ex Professor of History.
The following is cut from a recent article of his found at HumanEvents.com ( Robert is a contributer there too).
"This inability to recognize the evil of our enemy isn't just in our government. Remember the story I told you, about the terrorists who used two children to disguise a car bomb in Iraq? Do you know how the editors at the Associated Press chose to headline that story? Not "Terrorists Slaughter Children, Save Themselves." Incredibly, the headline was "U.S. Destroys Bomb Factory in Iraq."
Talk about burying the lead.
And another news report surfaced this week displaying how Western society is failing to confront the true nature of our enemies because of the insane demands of political correctness.
In Germany, a judge refused to grant a Moroccan-born German woman a divorce on the grounds that the Koran allows husbands to beat their wives.
The woman had filed for divorce because her husband regularly beat her and had threatened to kill her. She had police reports to back her up. But the judge set aside the German constitution in favor of "respecting" religious fanaticism.
As for what it means for the future of Germany -- and Western civilization for that matter -- one German elected official put it best: "When the Koran takes precedence over basic German law, than I can only say: 'Goodnight, Germany.'"
He talks about Churchill's difficulties in convincing his countryman of Hitler's threat in the 30's.
BUT...he goes on to blame democrats for not seeing the evil becuase they voted to impose "guidelines" last week.
IMHO Newt is a person courageous enough to call out Islamism for what it is. He recognizes the need to identify the real enemy and he is at least looking across the pond to see what their history could mean for the U.S. This is more than any current politician I have read about.
Newt is almost there. He is real close. I think he is looking for a "hook" to get into the race. He is a person who, if he can be convinced of the real danger, would run on that issue.
Hmmmm " The West is not confronting the true nature of its enemeis due to the insane demands of political correctness."
so close... he just needs a little push over the edge.
WE SUCCEEDED IN NAZI GERMANY AND BUSHIDO JAPAN BOTH OF WHICH HAD RADICAL PHILOSOPHIES AS EVIL AS ISLAM. HOWEVER THERE WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE COUNTRY BY DISMIISSING THE ENTIRE POLICE, ARMY AND BUREAUCRACY AS WELL AS TELL THEM THEY WOULD NEVER BE EMPLOYED AGAIN. THIS CREATED A HUGE POOL OF POTENTIAL TERRORISTS AND NO IRAQI FORCES TO CONTROL THEM. BREMER WAS AN IDIOT AND THIS WAS THE GREATEST OF HIS MANY MISTAKES.
HOWEVER THE BELIEF WE COULD NOT SUCCEED IN IRAQ IS ERRONEOUS.
WE FORGET HOW LONG IT TOOK TO CONVERT JAPAN AND GERMANY OR THE FACT OUR TROOPS ARE STILL IN KOSOVA WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY 6 MONTHS.
WITH ALL THE CRITICISM OF THE IRAQ WAR I HAVE NEVER HEARD A BETTER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED. IT COMPELLED THE TERRORISTS TO CONCENTRATE ON DEFEATING US THERE VERSUS IN THE U.S. IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD A MAJOR ATTACK ON US SINCE 9-11. THEY CANNOT HAVE A WESTERN STYLE DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS IT CANNOT COEXIST WITH THEIR ISLAM.
THEY HAVE NO FEAR OF THE DEMOCRATS A LA CLINTON WHO DID NOTHING AFTER REPEATED ATTACKS, IN EFFECT CAUSING 9-11 BUT THEY FEAR BUSH. THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO WEAKEN HIS OPPOSITION WHICH THEY EXPECT TO BRING BACK THE DEMOCRATS AND ALLOW THEM TO TERORIZE THE U.S. WITH IMPUNITY.
THE LOYALTY TO ONES TRIBE AND FAMILY OUT WEIGHS THE POWER OF THE MULLAHS. WE ARE JUST BEGINNING IN IRAQ TO SUCCESSFULLY USE THIS TO DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS.
THE CREATION OF JOBS IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO EMPLOYMENT AS A TERRORIST WHICH IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE ARE THE MAJOR EMPLOYERS OF PEOPLE POLITICALLY OR BY VIRTUE OF LACK OF SKILLS ARE OTHERWISE UNEMPLOYABLE. ARAB COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAVE 1/3 TO 50% UNEMPLOYMENT. WE MUST GIVE THEM HOPE FOR A BETTER LIFE ON EARTH VERSUS THAT PROMISED IN HEAVEN BY THE TERRORISTS IF THEY DIE IN THEIR CAUSE.
ABSENT SUCCESS WHAT ALTERNATIVE IS THERE TO STOP THE SPREAD OF RADICAL ISLAM. WE WILL NOT STOP THOSE WHO ARE EDUCATED FROM CONVERTING TO RADICAL ISLAM BUT WE CAN ATTEMPT TO STOP THE GENERAL POPULATION FROM JOINING THEM.
WE MADE MANY MISTAKES BUT NOW THE IRAQI POLICE AND ARMY, OR A LARGE PART OF THEM, ARE STANDING AND FIGHTING AND DYING IN MUCH GREATER NUMBERS THAN AMERICANS. A NUMBER OF TRIBAL ARMIES ARE NOW FIGHTING THE TERRORISTS. THERE IS A GROWING SPLIT IN THE MAJORITY SHIA PARTIES AND A NEW COALITION IS FORMING THAT MAY CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY IN GOVERNMENT THAT IS MORE SECCULAR AND INCLUDES THE KURDS AND SUNNIS.
WITHDRAWAL AS THE DEMOCRATS AND THE RADICAL LEFT WANT, IN NOT AN ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT FOR THOSE AMERICAN HATERS WHO WANT AMERICA BROUGHT TO HER KNEES AND HAVE NO CONCERN FOR THE TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT WILL THEN OCCUR IN THE U.S. THE DEMOCRATAS WILL HAVE NO RESPONSE EXCEPT TO BLAME IT ON BUSH'S IRAQ WAR RELYING ON THE MEDIA NOT TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHY THE ATTACKS DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER AND BUSH WAS GONE..
"WITH ALL THE CRITICISM OF THE IRAQ WAR I HAVE NEVER HEARD A BETTER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED"
-- from a poster, Mr. "LOGIC AND REASON," above.
1) Long ALL-CAP postings visually distract and even disturb. Such postings normally are banned. On this occasion, and only on this occasion, exception was made.
2) If you haven't found a "better alternative" to the "Iraq War" as a way to weaken the Camp of Islam, you haven't been reading intently here. Such an alternative has been laid out, in great detail, in hundreds of postings. Start by clicking on the "Articles" above.
"The fighting men of the West know how to kick ass, and thank God for that."
Sadly, we were not successful in kicking-assery of any size from 1945.
As WF Buckley said during at the height of Cold War:
"There is no difference between rifle and broomstick if one refuses to use rifle".
We resolutely refuse to use our big "rifles"
from 1945. And, somewhat surprisingly, no big wins since then.