General McCaffrey: "No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection"

Why is it the question is not who is funding Barry McCaffrey for this "finding" now, considering he is a paid for shill of NBC of the mainstream media, is an associate to Gen. Powell who got America into this mess in Gulf War I by stopping United States forces and is head of BR McCaffrey Associates (a company which is hired by foreign governments, but will not engage in activities so it has to be registered as a lobby firm).

Just who is Barry working for in his "assessment" for hire?

http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/index.htm

At this point, he said, about 27,000 fighters are being held, and at least 20,000 others have been killed, yet enemy combatants continue to produce new leaders and foot soldiers.

Do what Caligula did:
Kill the 27,000.
Saves on the food bill.

...and quit Iraq

And why is that?

ISLAM.

All we have to do is teach Muslims, Sunni and Shia, to respect life and people who are different from themselves (or who are the same as themselves). That's it. Simple. What's the problem??? Why is this taking so long????

this is off topic, but i really need a german version of islam 101 or similar for my upcoming lecture. please help!

ACHTUNG!
"Eurodhimmi";

Obviously you speak read English from your post above,so now do this...

Go back to main page here at JihadWatch...
then...
Look at the top of the page "tabs"...
then...
"Click" on "Islam 101" and...
translate it to GERMAN as you read in English!!!

Self government with out selfcontrol cannot work,

thanks, billybob, but i need an expert translation! the subject is too touchy to do an as-you-go-along translation. i was hoping someone knows of a website similar to this one!

In a better time, McCaffrey's "gloomy" pronouncements would have seen him held to account for his defeatist bleatings and pitiful hand-wringing over the fight in Iraq. In WWII such subversive drivel would have, as a minumum, earned him the scorn of his countrymen.

He states - "enemy combatants continue to produce new leaders and foot soldiers. The result, five years into the war, he said, is that "their sophistication, numbers and lethality go up -- not down -- as they incur these staggering battle losses." - .....and the Empire of Japan was a pushover? There is no Islamist savage alive today who is fit to shine the shoes of the typical Japanese Naval Marine of WWII when it comes to fanaticism, bravery, and willingness to die. And they enjoyed technological parity, if not superiority for much of WWII. We defeated them. We never doubted that we would. Losing was unthinkable then and should be at least as unthinkable now.

If the pusillanimous General McCaffrey was
in charge then, we would have surrendered well before the tide turned in our favor. There is no rational reason for the outcome in Iraq to be in doubt. Only an historical illiterate could allow his "vietnam experience" to crush his spirit and allow him to say things that encourage our enemies. I am disgusted with the likes of him.

I served my country in uniform for almost twenty-two years of active and reserve duty, most in the cockpits of fighter aircraft and I believe my attitude toward whiners like McCaffrey predominates within our military.

KEEP THE lecture short and sweet:

"ISLAM IST Eine THRILL-TÖTUNG-MASCHINE"

"We defeated them. We never doubted that we would"

....of course, back then, the military was supported by the citizens of America....in todays world, the citizens of America have become limpwristed appeasists unwilling to support the fight for the survival of their freedoms....

Just a little help there billy?

ACHTUNG! "Eurodhimmi";

Offensichtlich sprechen Sie Englisch von Ihr Posten ober liest, damit jetzt dies macht..

Gehen Sie zurück zu Hauptseite hier an JihadWatch.. Dann.. Schauen Sie oben auf dem Seiten"tabs". an. Dann.. "Klicken" Sie auf "Islam 101" und.. Übersetzen Sie es zu DEUTSCH, während Sie auf englisch lesen!!

Aufgestellt durch: billybob am März 28, 2007 04:33 PM

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

"If the pusillanimous General McCaffrey was
in charge then, we would have surrendered well before the tide turned in our favor. There is no rational reason for the outcome in Iraq to be in doubt. Only an historical illiterate could allow his "vietnam experience" to crush his spirit and allow him to say things that encourage our enemies. I am disgusted with the likes of him.

I served my country in uniform for almost twenty-two years of active and reserve duty, most in the cockpits of fighter aircraft and I believe my attitude toward whiners like McCaffrey predominates within our military."
-- from a posting above

What makes McCaffrey "pusillanimous"? That he won't get with the program? That he realizes the so-called "mission" isn't succeeding, on Bush's own terms, even if he as yet does not quite realize why that "mission" -- to ensure a unified, stable, happy, healthy "Iraq" is not only unattainable, but is the very opposite of what we should wish, if we are attempting, as we should be, to weaken the Camp of Islam, and not merely fulfill some notion, concocted by Bush and company, that is based both on a failure to identify the Camp of Islam as the enemy (instead we have that idiotic "war on terror"), and a failure to understand what is the key to modern Iraq, and which was put up here the other day under "A Florilegium of Quotes," an observation by an Iraqi political figure, who said that Iraq was divided between a Sunni party and a Shi'a party, and that was essentially it. Bush has never quite got that, never quite got that we don't have "friends" in Iraq and can't -- both the Sunnis and the Shi'a are our permanent enemy, whatever one may think of this or that plausible westernized smiling unrepresentative "representative." What would you have McCaffrey report? That things are going swimmingly? Would that satisfy you?

Then you write "there is no rational reason for the outcome in Iraq to be in doubt." I agree. But of course you and I differ completely on what that certain outcome will be. I claimm that certain outcome will have the Sunni Arabs never acquiescing in their loss of power and status and money, and the Shi'a Arabs refusing to ever give up their newly-acquired (thanks to the Americans deposing the essentially Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein) power and status and control of oil wealth. No matter when the Americans leave, that will happen.

Why? Because those who are Muslims, who grow up in societies suffused with Islam, who are taught that there are those who are victorious, and then there are the vanquished -- the victorious in the Qur'an and Sunnah being the Believers, and the vanquished the Infidels -- are incapable of thinking of the world in other terms. They do not have the spirit of compromise, they will not compromise. For them everything is a zero-sum game. And the many soldiers I have talked to, and who were keen enough to see what the problem in Iraq was, despite the fact that they had not been taught a thing, before leaving, about Islam, much less about the depth and duration of the various fissures inside Iraq that would have helped them to understand so much, might even have helped to save some American lives (but apparently the army is not about to teach its young soldiers about Islam, or about Iraq, because if it did, then many of them would more quickly realize that the Bush "mission" is impossible to achieve, and makes no sense. After all, even the 17-year-old Marine, used to not questioning anything, will after he has been on the receiving end of our "Iraqi friends" of all kinds, figure out that "divide and weaken" (not "divide and rule") the oldest principle of warfare, has its place in Iraq.

Finally, you tell us you served 22 years in the military. So what? Does that entitle you to be an expert on Islam, or on Iraq? Have you studied both intensively? Have you figured out just what it all means? I know plenty of people who have spent just as long in the military, with all sorts of decorations, who flatly believe that the "mission" is idiotic, and who have come -- reluctantly, and slowly -- to agree with me.

What do you think? Military service automatically should confer some kind of univesally-applicable expertise? Or that being a dedicated pilot means necessarily that you know exactly what will happen when the Americans leave in Iraq, and how the forces there are likely to act, and what effect this will have on co-religionists of both sides as far away as Pakistan, Yemen, and Lebanon, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, and how an American withdrawal will not only end the squandering of men, money, and materiel, and the flummeting morale, especially in the National Guard and Reserves and in the regular army, among the keenest officers who are least inclined to simply accept the party line, any party line, but will force the Muslims, at this point, to use up their men, money, materiel.

Military service confers no special halo of expert knowledge, save in the particular area in which one has such knowledge. You may know all about Islam, its tenets and attitudes, and all about the history of Sunni-Shi'a relations, and all about the history of modern Iraq, or why Iraq, the Iraq of the Abbasid Caliphate (roughly, from 750-1250 A.D.) looms so large in the Sunni Arab imagination, or you may know nothing or little of these things. But your service as a pilot here is irrelevant.

THw5kds, thanks very much for your comments, they refreshing in light of the fact some on this site openly advocate walking away from Iraq and Iraqis like this one;

(Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din) Muslims say God bless America (MUST SEE)

Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din proves Muslims can "get it" - we might not be able to help Iraq become a melting pot but the Al-Dins can, but only if we stay so the political debate can continue.

Leaving will ensure their voices will be silenced, and the Iraqi people will suffer under another evil totalitarian regime.

JL

Good people always suffer in war. If I have to choose, I prefer that the very small number of "good people" in Iraq -- of whom the poster above is so enamored that he thinks the United States should continue pouring in a few billion dollars a week, continue to diminish our stock of weaponry and supplies (how many National Guard armories remain dangerously low, unreplenished after leaving their war materiel in Iraq?), continue to insist that all kinds of people should go to Iraq, forced into active duty as the Marine Reservists just were, for the second or third or fourth time, continue to insist that the entire effort of this country that should be focussed right now on using what will weaken the Camp of Islam without any expense or effort on our part, so that we may take our breath, learn what needs to be learned, starting with our leaders or those "taking a leadership role," about Islam and Jihad (and so too, must the officers in the military, who have been taught nothing about Islam, and those who have learned something have done it on their own, in a spirit of inquiry and intelligent auto-didacticism).

You present us with an Iraqi, and his touching tape. So what? Politics and war are not about individuals but about the masses. And the great masses of Iraqis are not, and never can be, our genuine allies or friends. They cannot, that is, be like Mithal al-Alusi, or Kanan Makiya, or Ahmed Chalabi. Why? Because to the extent that they are Muslims, and it hardly matters whether Shi'a or Sunni, we to them remain Infidels. We may be exploited. We may be inveigled. We may be smiled at. Our aid may be pocketed. But we can no more, as Infidels, be regarded as true friends, by Muslims in Iraq, than we are by those who have received tens of billions of dollars in our aid, our so-called "staunch allies" Egypt and Pakistan, both of which are centers of anti-American opinion, and always will be.

You can't make policy on the basis of sentimientality, or because this or that individual has apparently plucked at your heart strings. That does not make sense when one is dealing with hundreds of millions, or billions of people, both those in the umma al-islamiyya and those they threaten.

It doesn't make geopolitical sense.

How many time has McCaffrey flipped on Iraq? A half dozen? And what about the opinion of the "16 other senior U.S. commanders" at the recent round of meetings?? Might be more optimistic so don't quote them?

I'm astounded at the recent posts here passed off as "an example of a patriotic dissenting discourse."

The immorality and cruelty of the walk away people is making me sick.

I watched that MEMRI TV click to which the poster above gives a link. What about it? The turbaned Shi'a cleric, who is touching in describing Iraqis as not knowing what to do with freedom, and who is grateful to the Americans -- at least, at the time of this taping he was. But we all know how Iraqi public opinion has changed, so that 98% of the Sunni Arabs, and about 70-75% of the Shi'a Arabs, now declare that they approve of attacks on American forces (only the Kurds disapprove, and by an overwhelming majority).

And what did MP Iyad Jamal al-Din say about Islam? He said it was a beautiful tolerant rleigion, but that the "Arab Islamic" form alone was intolerant and bad and encouraged people to be submisssive to the ruler. That isn't true. That is what he wishes to believe, and what we see is a wilful refusal to see what is wrong with Islam, but to attribute what this speaker senses is wrong with it to some "Arab" version. In other words, I suggest that this speaker is not only Shi'a but of Persian origin, as many Iraqi Shi'a are, and that he has found his own method of explaining away the political failures of Islam by attributing it to a quite fictitious "Arab" Islamic version that is in some unidentified away -- is a different Qur'an used? Are different Hadith invoked? A different biography, with different details, of Muhammad?

Not bad, but two minutes of this stuff -- and I have no idea what MP Iyad Jamal al-Din is saying today (and I suspect the poster above doesn't either, but if he does have some up-to-date information, he should post it right here).

I don't care very much about whether or not Muslims are happy. I certainly care far more about the fate of the West, and forcing Muslims into a condition, by depriving them of Western aid of all kinds, where they are forced to make a connection between the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of their own societies, and of Islam.

What you link to is a two-minute tape, showing a turbaned Shi'a cleric and member of the Iraqi Parliament, who is happy with "democracy" because, I suggest, it brought those who otherwise could never have obtained power -- the oppressed Shi'a of Iraq -- to power, and brought individuals who could never have sat in the Parliament, such as himself -- to be doing exactly that.

End of story. End of sentimental reason for keeping 160,000 troops, after four years, in Iraq.

Oh good grief!!

"You present us with an Iraqi, and his touching tape. So what? Politics and war are not about individuals but about the masses. And the great masses of Iraqis are not, and never can be, our genuine allies or friends. They cannot, that is, be like Mithal al-Alusi, or Kanan Makiya, or Ahmed Chalabi. Why? Because to the extent that they are Muslims, and it hardly matters whether Shi'a or Sunni, we to them remain Infidels."

Didn't you see where Al-Din says anyone can become a minister?? He is proof of that!

And how do you know what the masses think of him?? Or us? I already said that I have been told by people in Iraq that "most Americans would be surprised by how many Iraqis agree" with Al-din.

Are you pushing buttons for effect?

As for what Al-din is saying today that clip is very recent.

"Sentimientality" just because you say so doesn't make it so.

THw5kds's point stands;

"There is no Islamist savage alive today who is fit to shine the shoes of the typical Japanese Naval Marine of WWII when it comes to fanaticism, bravery, and willingness to die. And they enjoyed technological parity, if not superiority for much of WWII. We defeated them. We never doubted that we would. Losing was unthinkable then and should be at least as unthinkable now.

If the pusillanimous General McCaffrey was
in charge then, we would have surrendered well before the tide turned in our favor. There is no rational reason for the outcome in Iraq to be in doubt. Only an historical illiterate could allow his "vietnam experience" to crush his spirit and allow him to say things that encourage our enemies. I am disgusted with the likes of him."

And we are still in Japan, how many years has it been???

Walking away is a deal breaker for me, I can not, and will not agree that walking away is the right and moral course of action.

One last question, jihadwaatch has a picture of Oriana Fallaci on the left sidebar, what do you suppose she would say about walking away from the Al-dins in Iraq?

Jesse-

An army under the thumb of pacifists and appeasers is worse than useless. America has not won a war in 60 years. America is not 'allowed' to win.

I certainly care far more about the fate of the West,

those words are so true. the democrats are the surrender crowd, even if your motives are different, the results are the same. leaving before victory will only embloden the islamists, leave a vaccuum and create more unstablilty, with posibly iranian controling all oil in the area. oil prices sky rockets and who gets all the extra money, arbas with deep pockets to fund more islam around the world by the sword,(bomb belts etc)
the US and coalition need to hit iranian nukes sites and military sites.

IMHO Oriana Fallaci would prefer shia-sunni war with thousands of casualities on both sides to an American-muslim war with 10% American 90% muslim casualities. IMHO.

well, hugh, you and the general are welcome to your opinions, but you still both belong to the cheese eating appeasement monkey crowd. No, let's add to that, the "cut and run while spending no money on the despicable military" crowd. and, oh yes, the let's make sure America is defeated crowd. you seem to think the American people somehow voted to have their military destroyed in iraq. Not so. and the Dems will probably pay a steep price in 2008. enjoy your few months.

I would ceretainly tend to agree with jesse and THw5kds position if, and only if, they could define the goal of the "mission" and specifically define "the enemy".

WWII Japanese naval marine officers can not be compared to today's Islamists who don't wear uniforms and don't specifically make their true intentions known. poetcomic1 summed it up: The US has not won a war since WWII, for the reason I just stated and because of imposed morality by extraneous liberal forces.

Japan was limited in it's demographic sphere of influence in terms of territory and sheer numbers, well below the 1.3 billion plus Islamists currently in the world. Japanese religious ideology is also not rooted in the desire to dominate all others as Islam is, directly mandated from it's holiest scripture, the immutable living word of Allah, the Qur'an.

American pride is a noble sentiment, but sentiment and subsequently, morality, and war do not mix...period.

Hugh is absolutely right. If you want to get tough on the Islamists and enact some old fashioned Falllaci hell-fire, then pull out. Stop intervening between those who desperately desire to eradicate other sects of their shared ideology. They will do so much more damage amongst themsleves without the US impediment getting in their way.

I care not about the Islamists, for they certainly do not care about me or any of us actually, so morality be damned. To win a war, one must destroy their enemies. If by sitting on the sidelines, after stirring the pot, we accomplish more than by actively engaging on the ground, why not exploit that reality. Surely a 22-year veteran of the military can not or should not overlook that sound military strategy.

This is going to be a long, long war, fought on many fronts More than in WWII. It is in the best interest of the US to conserve our resources and choose our battles wisely. The current ground occupation in Iraq is not a good example of doing so.

I would ceretainly tend to agree with jesse and THw5kds position if, and only if, they could define the goal of the "mission" and specifically define "the enemy".

WWII Japanese naval marine officers can not be compared to today's Islamists who don't wear uniforms and don't specifically make their true intentions known. poetcomic1 summed it up: The US has not won a war since WWII, for the reason I just stated and because of imposed morality by extraneous liberal forces.

Japan was limited in it's demographic sphere of influence in terms of territory and sheer numbers, well below the 1.3 billion plus Islamists currently in the world. Japanese religious ideology is also not rooted in the desire to dominate all others as Islam is, directly mandated from it's holiest scripture, the immutable living word of Allah, the Qur'an.

American pride is a noble sentiment, but sentiment and subsequently, morality, and war do not mix...period.

Hugh is absolutely right. If you want to get tough on the Islamists and enact some old fashioned Falllaci hell-fire, then pull out. Stop intervening between those who desperately desire to eradicate other sects of their shared ideology. They will do so much more damage amongst themsleves without the US impediment getting in their way.

I care not about the Islamists, for they certainly do not care about me or any of us actually, so morality be damned. To win a war, one must destroy their enemies. If by sitting on the sidelines, after stirring the pot, we accomplish more than by actively engaging on the ground, why not exploit that reality. Surely a 22-year veteran of the military can not or should not overlook that sound military strategy.

This is going to be a long, long war, fought on many fronts More than in WWII. It is in the best interest of the US to conserve our resources and choose our battles wisely. The current ground occupation in Iraq is not a good example of doing so.

spinoneone,

Hugh is appealing to common sense, based on an inherent knowledge of Islam, it's adherents, and it's history, to gain a military advantage, not to appease the democrats. Your opinion is absolutely laughable.

The democrats are right on this one, although they have not a clue to the real reason that they are right. They are as ignorant as Bush and Co., and now quite frankly, you have proven to be on this issue.

I am truly embarassed for you for your offering above. I really am.

Oriana Fallaci was not a fan of useless warfare. In Western Euopre, as someone who had grown up in civilized Florence (fighting uncivilized Fascists and Nazis), in civlized Italy, and then having made a profession that often took her to the Muslim world, where she interviewed -- and came to detest -- such people as Arafat and Khomeini and their world-views. And it did not come naturally to her at first because she certainly started life with certain left-wing views. Her Greek lover Panagoulis was murdered by the right-wing Greek regime of the pinochetesque colonels. She was on the side of freedom, however, and also sufficiently well-educated and sure of herself not to be the mindless parroter of anything.

She saw Islam and Muslims up close. She found nothing to admire. She found, in the main, lies and nonsense, hate and hysteria. Beginning with vaguely "pro-Palestinian" views, she came to be a stout defender of Israel -- stouter, I should say, than the Israelis themselves. She became much more appreciative of the United States, and much more enraged at easy European expressions of cheap anti-Americanism, because she knew that Europe owed its freedom, and certainly Italy did, to the United States. In other words, she was full of common sense.

Oriana Fallaci thought the Americans should long before they finally did, have pulled out of Vietnam (which we supposedly "lost" but in fact -- Vietnam is becoming more capitalist every day, and is as friendly a place for Americans as one could imagine -- certainly far friendlier than Germany, or France, and certainly much friendlier than malevolent Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or of course those "Palestinians" whose cause she came to so despise and see right through.

Oriana Fallacia was so haunted by the possible loss of Europe, of Italy, of Tuscany. She would go into a rage, on the page and in life, over the mere thought of that mosque that Muslims wanted to put up in the most Tuscan of places, the Col di Val d'Elsa -- an equivalent in this country would be Muslims wishing to put up a giant mosque, bristling minarets and all, right by the rude bridge where the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard 'round the world, in Concord.

Knowing Islam, knowing Muslims, she would have laughed at the naivete of Bush and his "democracy" project. And she would have been furious, I am sure, at the inattention to Europe, and the ridiculous and sentimental inability of the Administration not to identify, and then exploit, the points of weakness or of division within the Camp of Islam that have been identified, and discussed ad nauseam, at this website, for more than three relentless years. And finally, some of it is filtering out into the Greater Ether. It should have happened long ago.

On March 13, 2003, when 90% of this country supported the war, Oriana Fallaci wrote of her considerable doubts in "The Wall Street Journal." She was particularly harsh on the notion of conducting war for "humanitarian" purposes such as "bringing democracy." Here are some excerpts:

They are also in Europe. They are in Paris where the mellifluous Jacques Chirac does not give a damn for peace but plans to satisfy his vanity with the Nobel Peace Prize. Where there is no wish to remove Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein means the oil that the French companies pump from Iraqi wells. And where (forgetting a little flaw named Petain) France chases its Napoleonic desire to dominate the European Union, to establish its hegemony over it. They are in Berlin, where the party of the mediocre Gerhard Schröder won the elections by comparing Mr. Bush to Hitler, where American flags are soiled with the swastika, and where, in the dream of playing the masters again, Germans go arm-in-arm with the French. They are in Rome where the communists left by the door and re-entered through the window like the birds of the Hitchcock movie. And where, pestering the world with his ecumenism, his pietism, his Thirdworldism, Pope Wojtyla receives Tariq Aziz as a dove or a martyr who is about to be eaten by lions. (Then he sends him to Assisi where the friars escort him to the tomb of St. Francis.) In the other European countries, it is more or less the same. In Europe your enemies are everywhere, Mr. Bush. What you quietly call "differences of opinion" are in reality pure hate. Because in Europe pacifism is synonymous with anti-Americanism, sir, and accompanied by the most sinister revival of anti-Semitism the anti-Americanism triumphs as much as in the Islamic world. Haven't your ambassadors informed you? Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam, as Spain and Portugal were at the time of the Moors. It hosts almost 16 million Muslim immigrants and teems with mullahs, imams, mosques, burqas, chadors. It lodges thousands of Islamic terrorists whom governments don't know how to identify and control. People are afraid, and in waving the flag of pacifism--pacifism synonymous with anti-Americanism--they feel protected.

Besides, Europe does not care for the 221,484 Americans who died for her in the Second World War. Rather than gratitude, their cemeteries give rise to resentment. As a consequence, in Europe nobody will back this war. Not even nations which are officially allied with the U.S., not even the prime ministers who call you "My friend George." (Like Silvio Berlusconi.) In Europe you only have one friend, one ally, sir: Tony Blair. But Mr. Blair too leads a country which is invaded by the Moors. A country that hides that resentment. Even his party opposes him, and by the way: I owe you an apology, Mr. Blair. In my book "The Rage and the Pride," I was unfair to you. Because I wrote that you would not persevere with your guts, that you would drop them as soon as it would no longer serve your political interests. With impeccable coherence, instead, you are sacrificing those interests to your convictions. Indeed, I apologize. I also withdraw the phrase I used to comment on your excess of courtesy toward Islamic culture: "If our culture has the same value as the one that imposes the burqa, why do you spend your summers in my Tuscany and not in Saudi Arabia?" Now I say: "My Tuscany is your Tuscany, sir. My home is your home."

The final reason for my dilemma is the definition that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair and their advisors give of this war: "A Liberation war. A humanitarian war to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq." Oh, no. Humanitarianism has nothing to do with wars. All wars, even just ones, are death and destruction and atrocities and tears. And this is not a liberation war, a war like the Second World War. (By the way: neither is it an "oil war," as the pacifists who never yell against Saddam or bin Laden maintain in their rallies. Americans do not need Iraqi oil.) It is a political war. A war made in cold blood to respond to the Holy War that the enemies of the West declared upon the West on September 11. It is also a prophylactic war. A vaccine, a surgery that hits Saddam because, (Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair believe), among the various focuses of cancer Saddam is the most obvious and dangerous one. Moreover, the obstacle that once removed will permit them to redesign the map of the Middle East as the British and the French did after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. To redesign it and to spread a Pax Romana, pardon, a Pax Americana, in which everybody will prosper through freedom and democracy. Again, no. Freedom cannot be a gift. And democracy cannot be imposed with bombs, with occupation armies. As my father said when he asked the anti-fascists to join the Resistance, and as today I say to those who honestly rely on the Pax Americana, people must conquer freedom by themselves. Democracy must come from their will, and in both cases a country must know what they consist of. In Europe the Second World War was a liberation war not because it brought novelties called freedom and democracy but because it re-established them. Because Europeans knew what they consisted of. The Japanese did not: it is true. In Japan, those two treasures were somehow a gift, a refund for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Japan had already started its process of modernization, and did not belong to the Islamic world. As I write in my book when I call bin Laden the tip of the iceberg and I define the iceberg as a mountain that has not moved for 1,400 years, that for 1,400 years has not changed, that has not emerged from its blindness, freedom and democracy are totally unrelated to the ideological texture of Islam. To the tyranny of theocratic states. So their people refuse them, and even more they want to erase ours.

Upheld by their stubborn optimism, the same optimism for which at the Alamo they fought so well and all died slaughtered by Santa Anna, Americans think that in Baghdad they will be welcomed as they were in Rome and Florence and Paris. "They'll cheer us, throw us flowers." Maybe. In Baghdad anything can happen. But after that? Nearly two-thirds of the Iraqis are Shiites who have always dreamed of establishing an Islamic Republic of Iraq, and the Soviets too were once cheered in Kabul. They too imposed their peace. They even succeeded in convincing women to take off their burqa, remember? After a while, though, they had to leave. And the Taliban came. Thus, I ask: what if instead of learning freedom Iraq becomes a second Talibani Afghanistan? What if instead of becoming democratized by the Pax Americana the whole Middle East blows up and the cancer multiplies?"

What about those last two sentences? Someone who wishes to quote them, and to argue, in defense of remaining in Iraq, who says see, Oriana Fallaci is with us, she's worried about Iraq becoming a "Talibani Afghanistan" and the "cancer" multiplying? To that I answer: no, I don't think so. I think she would see, once it had been pointed out to her, that the glib phrases about Iraq "being taken over by Al Qaeda" are silly, because no one is going to "take over Iraq," least of all Al Qaeda which not only is the sworn mortal enemy of the Shi'a (who are considered to be "Rafidite dogs" not only by the current leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but by Al-Zarqawi), and therefore already has 60-65% of the Iraqi population against it, but also the Kurds, who regard Al-Qaeda as an "Arab" group, and they make up another 20% of the population. And the 19% that is Sunni Arab itself consists of many people who -- as the tribal revolt against Al Qaeda suggests -- have their own interests, and refuse to be dictated to by Al-Qaeda, even if they will continue to oppose the Shi'a, and of course the Americans, those permanent Infidels.

She didn't live long enough to see the mess go on and on. But though on the left much of her life, she was also deeply grateful to the Americans for helping rescue Europe (see her comments above) and her opposition to the war in Vietnam, for example, was never something she regretted, for she thought it a colossal waste.

I have no doubt about which arguments, those made by me or those cobbled together by those who oppose me, Oriana Fallaci would have found more convincing, and more likely, in her own view, to lead to a weakening of the Cmap of Islam and above all, to a situation that would give Europe some breathing room to come to its civilizational senses.

Jesse

"The immorality and cruelty of the walk away people is making me sick."

The blind stupidity of the stay and die people is making me sick.

Jesse can you tell me who the enemy is? Can you explain how you are going to get the Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds to get along with each other? Can you explain even if we do make them all come together how that will help us non-muslims? Can you explain to me how you are going to get faithful muslims to accept a secular democracy? If it is not secular then how does that help us non-muslims?

If you had a ounce of understanding of basic military strategy you would understand the purpose of war is for OUR side to win. The strategy Hugh has outlined is sound. It is based on the old concept of divide and weaken. To play each side against each other. That is a WINNING strategy and will weaken our enemies and give us the advantage. We will be in a position of strength. They will be the beggers and we will be the choosers. Then we can aide who ever we feel best suits our purposes depending on the situation.

Many on this site dislike the battle of Iraq not because we are anti-war BUT because we want our military to fight for the American people not for a bunch of ungrateful muslims. We want to win the Islamo-Western War which is more important then Iraq. Just like we weakened and defeated communism we will do the same to Islamism.

Divide and Weaken....then one day conquer.

We broke it, we bought it, and we have to handle the wreckage caused, for whatever reasons, or lack thereof.

Until the jihadists' chaos is brought under reasonable control and handed to the Iraqis to work out, you can't bail on the ongoing mess, which would only weaken the image of the U.S.'s will and embolden the Mohammedan expansionists everywhere.

No matter how much easier it would seem, in the short run, to skip out, this is now a bloody front in the World War against Resurgent Islamic Imperialism, and this kind of new warfare needs to be learned, and learned how to be won, by our military.

It can be a harsh education about the true nature of Muslim beliefs and behavior for the wilfully-ignorant in the West, meanwhile.

I say get our of Korea, Japan and Germany, first.

greatcomet, you put in simple language the dead straight questions which the LGF crowd runs in circles trying to deflect with sentimentality, shallow phraseology and ad hominem. Its amazing how a bunch of thoroughly common sensical people who understand the threat of sharia expansionism are suddenly, cryptically blinded by the "iraq project" and start using terms like "the iraqi people" as if it was Vietnamese boat people. They will identify, mock and dismiss claims of CAIR and vast minority of jihadists at home, identify and understand the behaviour of Muslims in Thailand, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Israel, Europe, wherever...and YET they will use sentimentality and lose all their understanding and blind themselves into believing in the "mission" of establishing democracy. Its utterly amazing. Perhaps we need psychologists to figure this out.

memo to Hugh:

I have read Orianni Fallacci's books too. I thought very highly of the lady myself. And usually, my views are not far from yours. I grant you, she loved Europe and rightly despised Islam and its penetration of the European continent (I share the latter sentiment, believe me).

But I would have to disagree with you wholeheartedly on your views as to how she might feel on the topic of the US' 'inattention' to Europe.

Ms. Fallacci was FURIOUS WITH THE EU. Absolutely furious. And so are millions of Americans. Probably Bush is among these.

If it is true that the Bush Administration ignored what has been happening in Europe (and there is truth to that view), the blame for that would lie squarely on the European people themselves. European leaders virtually bent over backwards creating policies that would be guaranteed to bring about American disaffection towards their continent and they know it too. Ms. Fallacci herself was starting to feel some alienation towards Europeans. She called France and Germany "America's false friends" who made it their business to stab Americans in the back (which they certainly did). You can't expect Americans to embrace this sort of political behavior (it drives them away).

The sheer magnitude of the hostility towards America harbored by European people, their denial about the plausibility of global jihad, their desire to prove a "counterweight" to America, their spectacular ingratitude for the sacrifices made by Americans on their continent's behalf, their attempts to tie up the US miltary with lawsuits in the World Court (while ignoring REAL crimes against humanity in such places as the Congo and Iran all the while) have all conspired to drive any sympathies for these people right out of the hearts and minds of the American people.

Most Americans that I know are alienated towards Europe to the point where they find it all but impossible to care what happens to them or Europe.

As for Ms. Fallacci's finding this administration's attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East ludicrous, she might also feel that it's about time that somebody tried to do this--even if it is 100% guaranteed to fail in the short run. Being Muslim does not automatically mean being non-human and unreachable. Even in Islamia there could well be people, once they understand what freedom means, might decide that liberty is for them (it is happening more and more despite the ceaseless suicide bombings in Iraq and elsewhere). Putting liberty on the table in Islamia can plant seeds for the development of things far better than Islam. But we would never know if we never tried.

Jesse, THw5kds, others who support this idiotic venture....

Gen. McCaffrey maybe is clueless about why we should or should not be in Iraq BUT I don't doubt for a minute he is right about the situation there. I don't know how many times it has to be explained. Muslims are not westerners. They have a faith and a civilization which will never accept a secular democracy. They will accept a hate fill Islamic theocracy which may have some similar traits to democracy but that won't do us non-Muslims any good. This concept seems to pass right over your heads.

I am really getting tired of this "you don't support the war thus you’re not patriotic" crap. I am patriotic enough call the Arabian states and Pakistan my enemy. I am patriotic enough to call CAIR my enemy. I am patriotic enough to support all non-Muslim peoples who are facing jihad. I would give them weapons and money. I am patriotic enough to support energy independence of the Middle East. I am patriotic to accept the truth about Muhammad and Islam and why it is dangerous to our civilization.

No it you sirs that are not patriotic. You support a president who has called Pakistan and Saudi Arabia our friends even though they murdered thousands of Americans. You support a president and military plan that protects Sunni Islamism and Arabism in places like Saudi Arabia. You support a president who still allows U.S. agencies to meet with CAIR and makes the FBI go on Islamic sensitivity training courses. No it you who are un-patriotic.

Theodore Roosevelt said (Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918)

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

I am doing my job as an American. When will you do yours???

"We broke it, we bought it, and we have to handle the wreckage caused, for whatever reasons, or lack thereof.

Until the jihadists' chaos is brought under reasonable control and handed to the Iraqis to work out, you can't bail on the ongoing mess, which would only weaken the image of the U.S.'s will and embolden the Mohammedan expansionists everywhere."
-- from a posting above

Nonsense. We "broke" Iraq? Which Iraq are you talking about? The wonderful Iraq of Saddam Hussein? We "broke" a regime that killed 182,000 Kurds and possibly a half-million Shi'a, and destroyed as many of the Marsh Arabs, and their habitat, as possible? A regime that had been committing murder and torture for 35 years -- we "broke" and we "bought" it? Why, you sound as if you are echoing, with a slight variation, that comic Tom Friedman when he wrote, with his unerring sense of the mal-a-propos phrase, early on, some of his usual nonsense about how we had to observe "Crate-and-Barrel" rules -- "we broke it, we fix it." Utter nonsense.

As for this business about "breaking the American will" and supposedly encouraging what you call Mohammedan expansionists everywhere" -- do you read any of my 500-600 postings, over the past three years, going over and over, almost always deliberately choosing to use the same words, the same syntax, the same everything, until it gets into so many heads that it cannot be un-gotten, about how of course there will be some ululations lasting a week or a month or even two months, but once it is recognized that the Americans really are leaving, and are no longer going to stand between the Shi'a (and their militias) and their Sunni enemies, the full horror of what can happen to the Sunnis (or to the Shi'a, and there the horror will be found in Iran), will sink in, and if the Americans do any one of a number of possible things, about immigration, about Darfur, about taxes on gasoline, even a meeting of NATO ministers to consider Muslim security threats in Europe (the Turks may wish not to attend -- that's just fine) -- which would signal that the Americans are leaving not in retreat, but because at long last naive illusions about Islam and the "ordinary moms and dads" that Bush thought he was bringing "freedom" to, and somehow that this "freedom" -- in a way no one can quite explain -- would lead to a weakening of the Jihad-impulse from Thailand to Lapland, and all points in-between.

It won't take long at all. And as Sunnis and Shi'a do harm to each other in Iraq, and if we are lucky, there are effects to damage Sunni-Shi'a relations abroad, and also aid extended from the outside to co-religionists within Iraq, there will be no way for the situation in Iraq to "embolden" -- as you bizarrely predict --"Mohammadan expansionists."

Please do read some of the many articles on this subject that can be found by clicking on the bar at the top of the website. Or, if you have time, please google, for a few hundred relevant postings, "Posted by Hugh" and "Iraq" and "Light Unto the Muslim Nations." Or "sectarian and ethnic fissures." It is all there, at much greater length. It is so exhausting to go over the same ground again and again, answer the same points again and again. It cannot be that difficult to comprehend.

"As for Ms. Fallacci's finding this administration's attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East ludicrous, she might also feel that it's about time that somebody tried to do this..."
-- from a posting above

I posted above and will post again here, from the March 13, 2003 article by Oriana Fallaci in The Wall Street Journal, her skeptical comments on transplanting democracy to the stony and unyielding soil of the Muslim Arab Iraq.

Here it is:

The final reason for my dilemma is the definition that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair and their advisors give of this war: "A Liberation war. A humanitarian war to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq." Oh, no. Humanitarianism has nothing to do with wars. All wars, even just ones, are death and destruction and atrocities and tears. And this is not a liberation war, a war like the Second World War. (By the way: neither is it an "oil war," as the pacifists who never yell against Saddam or bin Laden maintain in their rallies. Americans do not need Iraqi oil.) It is a political war. A war made in cold blood to respond to the Holy War that the enemies of the West declared upon the West on September 11. It is also a prophylactic war. A vaccine, a surgery that hits Saddam because, (Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair believe), among the various focuses of cancer Saddam is the most obvious and dangerous one. Moreover, the obstacle that once removed will permit them to redesign the map of the Middle East as the British and the French did after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. To redesign it and to spread a Pax Romana, pardon, a Pax Americana, in which everybody will prosper through freedom and democracy. Again, no. Freedom cannot be a gift. And democracy cannot be imposed with bombs, with occupation armies. As my father said when he asked the anti-fascists to join the Resistance, and as today I say to those who honestly rely on the Pax Americana, people must conquer freedom by themselves. Democracy must come from their will, and in both cases a country must know what they consist of. In Europe the Second World War was a liberation war not because it brought novelties called freedom and democracy but because it re-established them. Because Europeans knew what they consisted of. The Japanese did not: it is true. In Japan, those two treasures were somehow a gift, a refund for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Japan had already started its process of modernization, and did not belong to the Islamic world. As I write in my book when I call bin Laden the tip of the iceberg and I define the iceberg as a mountain that has not moved for 1,400 years, that for 1,400 years has not changed, that has not emerged from its blindness, freedom and democracy are totally unrelated to the ideological texture of Islam. To the tyranny of theocratic states. So their people refuse them, and even more they want to erase ours."

That should answer your speculation as to what Oriana Fallaci thought about Bush's "democracy" project.

Finally, you write about bringing "democracy" to the MIddle East. But "democracy" has been in the Middle East since 1948, in the one non-Muslim state, Israel. And a variant on democracy (with a careful apportioning and assurances of minority group representation, what one might call Lani-Guinier style "democracy," can be seen in Lebanon, another odd man out because of its very large Christian population which, when the political accommodation in Lebanon became reduced to writing many decades ago, still constituted the majority in Lebanon). No sign as yet that a single Arab Muslim state wants to have any of the guarantees for minorities that Lebanon has, or Israel, or equality before the law. No, these haven't been Models, nor could Shi'a-dominated Iraq ever be such a model for resentful Arab Sunni regimes, determined to undo the Shi'a dominance that the American invasion made possible.

Tushar Saxena

You have no idea how many times I have been called a "moby", traitor, liberial, Dkos, etc. at LGF. I am a conservative but not a fan of Bush. I love the term BDS (bush derangement syndrome) but I always fire back with my definition for them:

BDS = Bush Defense Syndrome

I still love them and yes I think Charles does a great job because of the info presented on his site. I really do think Charles is coming around to the idea. He is on our side as are most conservatives (as mislead as they are). However with that said many just don't understand why it is a better strategy to dump the democracy project and re-deploy (not a complete pull out becuase we will still support the Kurds for practical reasons).

Let them kill each other. Why do the work for them? Plus by getting out we can bomb Iran into the stone age because we won't have to appease the Shia in Iraq anymore. Just read all the posts by Hugh for a tour de force of why this will work. Hugh should write a book on the subject. He says it better then me with a better command of the english language.

I am 110% in agreement with Hugh Fitzgerald's and greatcometof1577's position. I also agree with Hugh that at this point, after all that has been offered in support of this position, there are still those who can oppose it. Not brand new posters, people who's ignorance exceeds mine, but posters who have been here for a short spill at least. It makes me wonder if anyone is actually reading the commentary or if after reading, are absorbing any of it. It is truly beyond frustrating.

Instead of just simply disagreeing with the aforementioned position, using terms like, "We broke it, we own it.", or more specifically, labeling Hugh Fitzgerald a "cut and run", "cheese-eating appeaser", and my personal favorite, "Let's make sure America is defeated", leftist nutwing, I ask this:

To those who support this continued folly in Iraq, those bereft of any historical knowledge of Islam, it's core ideological beliefs, Islam as it exists and is applied today, military strategy, common sense and basic human right's recognition....would you please define what the "mission" is in Iraq and how it can possibly be achieved?

Why, for God's sake, won't any dissenter to Hugh's obvious winning position, just answer this very simple and direct question? I myself have asked just this exact question publically on this site at least 10 times over the last 5 days.

Please, someone, help me to understand the error of my thinking.

Hugh-

I was ironically quoting a weak general, Colin Powell.

We invaded (broke) Iraq. Which leaves it in our lap (bought it).

Paper tigers get burned.

We either crush the jihadists wherever they give us the military opportunity or they will consider it as a case of having "chased us out" (as in Mogadishu).

However slipshod the strategic planning was that immersed us in this battle (a gamble over WMD's, which, after 9/11, made military sense) that the administration dashed into without the proper rules of engagement (hit them in the mosques, hit them at funerals, hit them terrifyingly hard, and level Fallujah if need be), without the proper secular Constitutional planning (instead of allowing crypto-Sahria Law to creep into what was a mainly secular state), and without an understanding of the nature of the militant Mohammedan enemy, we are now in the fight, and to leave without dealing a harsh lesson to these jihadist wannabe-world-conquerors would do nothing for our future security.

The only good that will come from this minor military disaster- once we hand over the semi-stable mess to some form of corrupt Shi'ite Iraqi power structure- is that our soldiers have seen this enemy face-to-face, and have learned his tricks, grasped some of his propaganda rationales, and will be better prepared for the future conflicts to come with these same Lions of Allah.

Leaving the Iraqis to "sectarian"/tribal infighting wouldn't do more than allow Iran to create of Shi'ite superstate, with even more oil revenues for terrorism, would refresh the jihadists everywhere ("look, America runs away!"), and we would pay for our indecision a thousandfold above the relatively minor causualties and cost of this current warfare.

It isn't going to end, whatever we do, until we defeat it.

We have the power, we only lack the instincts/will.

A little more from the report McCaffrey (who a year ago was sure things were going smoothly in Iraq):

“The majority of the Iraqi population support armed attacks on American forces," writes Gen. Barry McCaffrey (USA Ret.) in a memo to colleagues at the U.S. Military Academy, where he is an adjunct professor of international affairs.

McCaffrey recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and has written a lengthy analysis (attached) of what he found there based on his conversations with the 65 "sources" listed in the letter.

Overall, McCaffrey outlines a very bleak view of the situation in Iraq, writing that "the US Armed Forces are in a position of strategic peril." Contrary to the view expressed yesterday by new U.S. CENTCOM head Adm. William Fallon, McCaffrey says Iraqi is in the midst of a "low-grade civil war."

Further, McCaffrey directly contradicts the public perception the US military has carefully cultivated of those who would attack US interests in Iraq by acknowledging that the insurgency receives the bulk of its manpower and financing from domestic sources, and that the majority of the population supports attacks on US forces.

"In total, enemy insurgents or armed sectarian militias (SCIRI, JAM, Pesh Merga, AQI, 1920’s Brigade, et. al.) probably exceed 100,000 armed fighters. These non-government armed bands are in some ways more capable of independent operations than the regularly constituted ISF. They do not depend fundamentally on foreign support for their operations. Most of their money, explosives, and leadership are generated inside Iraq."

When McCaffrey writes that a "majority" of Iraqis supports attacks on American soldiers, he is understating because, while fewer than 10% of the Kurds support such attacks, 98% of the Sunni Arabs do, and 70% of the Shi'a Arabs. Doesn't that tell us that this or that sympathetic blogger, or this or that particular person in Iraq one happens to know about, or even to know, cannot serve as the basis for sending off for the second or third or fourth time, people who are being asked to risk their lives, possibly to sacrifice them, for those who, overwhellmingly, are perfectly happy to support murderous attacks on them.

This makes no sense. This enrages.

I dont know why we beat ourselves up so much.

Is it our fault that Islam has produced such a failed culture over there? I dont think so.

Is it our fault that Iraq ended up being a Kubayashi Maru? No, it's not.

Saddam had to be taken care of.

The Jihad was inevitible.

personally I think it's better that we are there as the Jihad starts instead of having to fight our way in after it started.

A report today by an American commander in Iraq who has chilling advice for American trainers of our brave allies, the "Iraqi" soldiers of the "Iraqi" army: "Bever let your guard down -- ever."

Here is that report by Steve Inskeep:

Riding Herd on the Iraqi Police's Dirty 'Wolf Brigade'

U.S. Army Maj. Charles Miller recently finished a year advising Iraq's security forces.

Morning Edition, March 28, 2007 · U.S. troops training to advise Iraqi or Afghan security forces have to learn something that's counterintuitive for Army officers — how not to lead.

"We want you to get your Iraqi counterpart or your Afghan counterpart, we want them to be the ones who are the bold, decisive, aggressive leaders," Maj. Gen. Carter Ham says at a training session at Fort Riley, Kan. "It's a tough thing."

You sense how tough when you sit down with Maj. Charles Miller, who's telling trainees about his own recent experience during a year of advising Iraq's security forces.

Miller was an adviser to the Iraqi National Police's "Wolf Brigade" in Baghdad — a unit that has been linked to sectarian torture and killing.

"They were very known for getting the job done, but how they got it was questionable," he says.

The Wolf Brigade was featured on a Cops-like show on Iraqi TV.

"They would go to arrest somebody who was accused of something," Miller says. "At the end of each episode, they would show the guy in custody admitting to everything he did. However, when the guy was in custody, he was bruised up and bloody."

In a typical operation, he says, the predominately Shia brigade would detain, say, 30 people. Twenty-eight of them would be Shia, "two would be Sunni and they would release the Shia and keep the Sunnis and the Sunnis were mistreated. It got to the point where now every time anyone is detained, we have to take a picture of them when they are detained just to document what they looked like when they were detained."

Miller says he often confronted the question of whether to try to stop the abuse. One of Miller's team members told him, "We are sanctioning what the Shia are doing."

But, Miller says, that's not necessarily true.

"We try to keep them as honest as we possibly can while we're with them," he says. "They would have warrants. We would come to find out all the warrants were not legitimate."

If the warrants weren't complete or legitimate, the Americans — whose presence would lend legitimacy to the Iraqi police — refused to accompany the Iraqi police on an operation, Miller says. "It slowed them down some," he adds.

But such toughness came with a price.

Miller suspects that his team was led into an ambush last September by members of the National Police in retaliation for the American advisers being so tough on the Iraqi officers.

"We rolled out to the site, with no clue of where it was," he recalls. "About 45 seconds after we stopped, me and two of my captains dismounted and an IED went off by the first truck. And then we started getting hit with mortars from across the river and machine guns and RPGs. The National Police dismounted their vehicles, took cover in ditch and never fired back."

"Whether we were set up or not, we don't know," Miller says. "That was the opinion that we got. Because we were being so rough on them — sticklers for details."

After the incident, Miller says, he had a long talk with the Iraqi battalion commander, who blamed "bad ammunition" for his forces not coming to the Americans' aid.

From then on, Miller says, the U.S. team refused to go on joint missions unless the Americans were involved in the planning.

The Wolf Brigade was later moved into another sector and the Iraqi brigade commander was fired, Miller says.

The Wolf Brigade was later moved into another sector, but still didn't change its ways. The brigade commander was finally fired. Miller explains why:

"We would go into a Sunni town, cordon the town, search it [and] confiscate weapons," Miller says. "The searches would go great because [of the] American presence. We would leave, and the Wolf Brigade went back in that night and started kidnapping and killing people, [and] burned a couple of houses down.

"And then the local people turned on them and started shooting them. And [the Wolf Brigade] called us on the phone and said, 'Hey, we're being ambushed. Come help us.'

"I told my counterpart that I'm not coming. He said, 'You've got to come help me.' I said, 'No, you're doing something [you're not] supposed to. We're not going.' After that, we had no more problems."

Miller says he's willing to go back — after a break.

He has this advice for Americans now training for similar missions as advisers in Iraq: "Never let your guard down — ever."

Still think American soldiers should be going out on missions with these people, should be forced to live side-by-side with them in small units, scattered throughout Baghdad. What would you think, if it were your son who was asked to trust his life to such "colleagues." Would you have faith in the "mission"? Faith in the "Iraqi" people who have already given plenty of evidence of what they are like.

What would you be thinking?

Agreed, Hugh. The common denominator of all those involved outside of US forces in Iraq is, quite simply...Islam.

Friends by day, foes by cover of nightfall. To the sane, none of them to be trusted...ever. It has a historical ring to it, doesn't it?

Islam is Islam. Until that is changed, nothing changes. Foolhardy is the US, encumbered by moral conscience during wartime, to continue down this resourcefully wasteful path to protect the various "Wolf Brigades", those masquerading around in the sheepish clothing of the US backed Iraqi army, the one's who profess to support all our earnest attempts to aid and abet them in their desire for freedom.

Each day we remain, is another opportunity wasted, another US dollar wasted, another US life wasted,... it is truly wasteful indeed.

Actually, I suspect that there's a good deal of politicking going on here...

First, (was it yesterday?) John McCain was on the Bill Bennett program, and McCain was talking about how much the situation is improving in Iraq and how people can walk around in the streets, etc.

Well, Wolf Blitzer of CNN immediately got wind of that one -- and sure as anything, Blitzer gets John McCain to repeat those remarks ("it's succeeding as we speak..!" along with [there are] "neighborhoods where you and I could walk")...

Anywho, next thing you know, there's that reporter, what's his name? (the one who looks like he's been in a bar room brawl -- that feisty scrapper) -- he says, [words to this effect] "heh!! Ya wouldn't last twenty minutes out here -- any westerner in Iraq without an armed-to-the-teeth escort will be kidnapped! If the al-Qaeda types don't get you, the criminal gangs will."

Eurodhimmi,

Here is "something like" Islam 101 for your lecture:

An die vielen Mohammedaner die uns das Blut aussaugen:

Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch aufgenommen haben, als andere euch ablehnten...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch die Gelegenheit gaben, einen gute Ausbildung zu erhalten...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch Essen und ein Zuhause gaben, als Ihr keines von beiden hattet...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir eure Familie nachkommen ließen, als eure Heimatländer nicht mehr sicher waren...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch nie zur Arbeit gezwungen haben, während wir alle eure Rechnungen bezahlt haben...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir euch in unseren Sozialwohnungen wohnen ließen, euch Telefone, Internet, Autos und Schulbildung für eure zehn Kinder gaben...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir Euch erlaubt haben Eure Moscheen in unserem christlichen Land zu bauen, damit Ihr Eurem Glauben nachgehen könnt...

Es tut uns leid, dass wir Euch in den 30 Jahren die Ihr bei uns lebt, nie gezwungen haben, unsere Sprache zu lernen...

Deshalb, ...von allen Dänen an die gesamte moslemische Welt, nur ein einziges:

FK YOU!!

[es ist schwer die letzten zwei Worte auf Deutsch zu uebersetzen. Villeicht kann mir jemand damit helfen. Danke sehr.]

Von dem post

Letter to the Germans

Brief an die Deutsche

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/11/moslems-are-not-jews-once-more-with.html

At another thread, a poster asked about what the soldiers themselves think. I told him that my own anecdotal evidence, with people of high intelligence in the civilian army (National Guard and Reserves) was one of complete disbelief in the so-called "mission" and a plummeting morale, one that plummeted further after returning from an initial stay in Iraq, possibly because while in Iraq one is kept so busy, and also kept deliberately outraged about the coveragae of the war by the "American media" and their "falsehoods" in not "telling the truth" about "all the good things that are being done." By the way, that charge is true: the American reporters have not made clear all the good things the soldiers have done or tried to do -- which makes still more offensive the whiny, ungrateful, meretricious, grasping, aggressive, treacherous behavior of so many Iraqis toward the Americans -something one hopes that those soldiers, and their families, will not ever forget.

If I recall rightly, that poster reported that of the regular army and Reservists he knew, two ouf of the three Reserve soldiers was for immediate withdrawal, but the ratio was reversed for teh regular army, and that all of those not in favor of withdrawal were under 30, and all those for withdrawal over 30.

I came across tonight the only poll I have seen so far of the opinions of soldiers in Iraq about the war in Iraq, and it is 13 months old. I think it reasonable to think that if the poll were taken today, after another 13 months of ineffective action by the Iraqis, and more and more people realising that the whole "mission" makes no sense which is why Bush can never articulate it -- he doesn't quite know what to say, because if he says anything, it can then be inspected, taken apart, and held up for ridicule -- the results would be even starker.

Here are those figures:

POLL TAKEN LAST TWO WEEKS OF FEBRUARY 2006:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points."

In February 2006 42% of the troops said they had no very clear idea of why they were there, or what their mission was; 58% said they did. One wonders if, asked today, more troops would answer that they don't understand, at this point, the mission, or whether in the last 13 months Bush has managed to clear things up.

I think it reasonable to conclude that if close to half of your troops still have no clear idea what the "mission" is, because of course they are kept in the dark, not intelligently taught either about Islam or about Iraq before they go over, they are more likely to be confused, and then demoralized, by the treatment they receive in Iraq. You can't be told to fight and sacrifice and risk your life for "Iraqis" if the Iraqis largely support attacks on you (and that can easily be seen, and felt, in the streets). You can't be told to fight and sacrifice, and risk your life, for "Iraqis" if the "Iraqi" soldiers you are with are not trustworthy, if they don't help you, if you are so rightly suspicious of them that you think, at times, that they have "set you up for attack" (see the story posted above in this thread), if you are unsure that they will fight back to defend you or run away, leaving you, the Americdan soldiers, to fight for some non-existent "Iraq" for which neither the Sunnis, nor the Shi'a, nor the government of Iraq, show any willingness to make the kind of compromises that are impossible for Muslims to make, with their inculcated view of the universe, but are quite possible for advanced, Western man to make -- which is what the Americans, including those "counter-insurgency experts" pullulating around Petraeus, just don't get, or may have some theoretical understanding of, but cannot quite believe it, cannot quite make it their own.

If the poll above were taken today, does anyone think that the figures would be less dismal, as far as support by the soldiers for continuing to remain, after another 13 months, in Iraq? Do you think if 89% of the Reservists wanted a withdrawal in February 2006 within a year, that fewer of them do today? Do you think if 82% of the National Guard members who had served in Iraq wanted, in February 2006, a full withdrawal within a year, that a smaller or larger percentage wants that withdrawal today, especially given all the tales of the underequipped National Guard armories at home? And what about the regular soldiers and Marines, the ones who are trained as professionals, to be obedient, the ones who are not to question their mission but to "get the job done," as they like to say, whatever that "job" may be. :ast February 2006 70% of the regular army, and even 58% of the Marines (presumably the most gung-ho of all) when polled said that the troops should be withdrawn within a year -- that is, by today.

Well, we haven't seen a new poll taken in Iraq among the soldiers. And I think we know why. The Pentagon has no doubt moved heaven and earth to prevent it. But we know, don't we? We know that the soldiers there experience what we have experienced at a distance. They have seen the Shi'a and the Sunnis. They are not fooled by the fact that some Anbar Province tribes have turned on Al Qaeda to think, as Bush and his loyalists think, that this means anything else, that these Sunni tribes are somehow now less hostile to the Americans (but they aren't, and even one of the Iraqi bloggers whom Bush relies so exaggeratedly on to justify him, has noted that). They are not fooled by Maliki, or Moqtada al-Sadr lying low. They are not fooled, as Bush apparently is, by the inveiglements of our so-called Sunni Arab "allies" (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) that are trying to get us to undo the crime of having allowed the Shi'a to dominate Iraq -- and they want us to do something to prevent that, anything, no matter what it costs American soldiers who, one can be sure, are not enjoying the same kind of luxurious life that our enemies, not allies, the Saudis, with their unmerited oil wealth, or the rulers of Egypt and Jordan, with their unmerited Jizyah of American foreign aid, manage to enjoy -- while American soldiers fight and are wounded and some die, for a fantasy, a dream, an obstinacy at this point both stupid and cruel, and that makes anyone who truly recognizes the menace of Islam, and the real instruments of Jihad, and all the effective measures that might be undertaken, rage in silent or articulate fury.

To Gen. McCaffrey,

who said, "The result, five years into the war is that "their sophistication, numbers and lethality go up -- not down -- as they incur these staggering battle losses."

Why is that? {Duh]

Answer: Because we (Bush and Co.) are "nation building" instead of taking as many of these illegitimates out as fast as we can, without too much concern for "collateral casualties."

Because we are more concerned with that we appear to be traipsing on some imaginary "moral high ground," tying the hands of our fighters with ridiculous "rules of engagement" that they have to get permission before taking out the illegitimates firing and sniping at them from a mosque, and heaven-forbid if a "civilian"--anybody not actively shooting at them--is taken out. Courts-martials and dishonorable dischages cum stockade-- or brig-time follow.

Is that any way to fight a war to WIN?

Still wondering how to anser that, mon general?

Well it's a resounding NO!

quelle idiot!

Here's McCaffrey's entire statement/report:

http://www.media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/McCaffrey_Report_032707.pdf

Point 5, "The Way Ahead" is to the point.

Try the link above without the "www."

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/McCaffrey_Report_032707.pdf

" . . . the Maliki government is permitting the United States to attack rogue leaders in the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr."

Get this? " . . . the Maliki government is permitting . . . "

Geez, how big of the Maliki government. We should thank it. We should be ever so grateful that these useless illegitimates are giving U.S. forces PERMISSION.

What a way to fight a war!

Are we (the US) engaged in some stupid game? "Please Prime Minister Maliki, may we kill some of the jihadists?"

Idiots of idiots, all are idiots.

Present company excluded, of course.

It seems clear that the Iraqi civilians could suffer 100-200 dead- car bombings, kidnappings, etc.- every single day for the next five years and still there would be no epiphany regarding a national change in direction and sentiment. If we agree on this, and that establishing "peace and democracy" is out the window, and it's not about oil, and we accept Hugh's basic argument, then what are some non-sentimental reasons for the continued US presence? A few possibilities:

1. There is political pressure, probably considerable, from the Saudis regarding a potential post-US mess they do not want to inherit. In a just world they would be fighting beside us and utilizing their formidable war machine against the shia threat.

2. As others have noted, this excercise does afford us an excellent opportunity to study first hand the behavior of the enemy and related tangents: organization and national origin (movement) of the leaders of the most important groups. Certainly many jihadists and jihadist groups are now much more active and observable than they would be otherwise. I would like to hear an honest and qualified appraisal of just how valuable this info is for us.

3. It is a very cynical proposition but some have suggested that one purpose of continuing our stay is to enable US contractors to extract as much revenue as possible for their services. Promises made? Who knows, but it is an interesting idea considering that these folks handily outnumber US armed forces in Iraq. The money must be good to take that kind of risk.

4. We may not be able to prevent a wholesale murderous civil war in Iraq, but we should not encourage it either. I appreciate the concept of setting one's enemies against each other, but everything I have been reading tells me that a majority of Islamic countries are edging closer each day to revolution by well-funded jihadists who despise their corrupt governments as much as they hate us. No one should kid themselves that the ME could not get much, much worse. The power for Islam to inspire catastrophic horror is limitless.

It may be true that the actions of individuals do not constitute movements or contribute much to the "big picture" but very often they are what makes the difference in the hearts of men. How deeply moved have you ever been by any statistic, compared to the face of a child in distress? I recall a news story about how people in Iraq were terrified of and by the Iraqi police (probably Sunni vs. Shia) when they came to arrest a family member, while they were relieved when our troops showed up to get someone. Then they knew there would be some justice.

I find it rather disturbing this notion (repeated in posts above) that the Iraqi people don't deserve any sympathy because they are slaves of Islam. Isn't this abandonment of the very principle we claim separates "us" from "them"-- that a person's life has meaning, that we seflessly give compassion wherever possible? We should not confuse these ideals with the objective of war, which is to win by completely destroying and subduing the enemy, but there is no excuse for failing to make the distinction.

With regard to the mission question, is it enough to secure Baghdad and then call back all but a security force such as we have in Germany, Korea or Japan? That would be ok by me.

I read McCaffrey's pollyannish view that by getting the "100 Sunni and Shi'a leaders" together some kind of "reconciliation" is possible. It isn't. It is out of the question for the Shi'a to give the Sunnis the minimum they demand. It will not happen. They may yield, just for now, just in order to keep the Americans around to give still more aid, to fight still more battles, and above all -- to get their grasping hands on as much American military equipment as they can. They may, for example, put up a fight but pretend to yield on undoing some of the measures that were part of de-Baathification. They may pretend to yield, temporarily, on oil sharing. They, the Shi'a, can afford to wait, afford to keep the Americans around for as long as possible.

Of course McCaffrey has fallen for this, and he has given a laundry list toward the end of stuff --including 150 helicopters -- that he thinks we should give the Iraqis. And he talks about the desirability of "reoconciliation" and "stability" and so on. In other words, he accepts the "mission" and its goasl, but merely reports that, as of now, the "mission" is very far from being accomplished, and may not be accomplishable.

It was that for which I quoted him. His understanding of the larger menace of Islam around the world, and of the disconnect between "stability" and "reconciliation" in Iraq and the need to divide and weaken the Camp of Islam, is startling. Disappointing, and startling.

Where are the brains in that outfit? They must be there, somewhere. Or have they all decided to leave the service, at a lower level, while the getting-out was good?

The American military deserve better. They deserve some independent thinkers, people who see right through the so-called "mission" and are not afraid of speaking out, about Islam, and about the real "mission." Where are they, those people?

"We may not be able to prevent a wholesale murderous civil war in Iraq, but we should not encourage it either."
-- from a posting above

Who is encouraging it? It will happen. It will happen because the spirit of compromise upon which that famous "reconcilation" within Iraq that McCaffrey and others consider to be now the key, cannot and will not happen. We needn't encourage a thing. We need only leave. And in any case, whenever we leave, the same unwillingness of the Sunnis to acquiesce in their loss of power and status, the same inability of the Shi'a to give up what they have at long last obtained (and no doubt, in a certain sense, deserve), will ensure that.

No one has said we need to "encourage" civil war in Iraq. We need only exploit the pre-existing weaknesses and divisions within the enemy camp, if we first properly identify that enemy camp, and then properlly recognize those pre-existing divisions.

"As others have noted, this excercise does afford us an excellent opportunity to study first hand the behavior of the enemy and related tangents: organization and national origin (movement) of the leaders of the most important groups..."
-- from the same posting above

This sounds like some crazed preparation for a seminar paper at some service academy or Fort Leavenworth. For god's sake, we don't need to keep 160,00 troops, or 16,000, or 160, in Iraq any more to "afford us an excellent opportunity to study first hand the behavior of the enemy and related tangents" --please, what's next, pie-charts and bullets, and "organizational development" chatter where the Next New Thing, as business schools have their Total Quality Management or Just-in-Time Fads (see Harvard Business School for the latest examples -- they don't miss a trick), takes over from the sensible understanding of what makes the enemy tick (hint: Islam makes the Muslim enemy tick, and the doctrine and duty of Jihad, using whatever instruments are available and prove effective).

We don't have limitless money, war materiel, and men to keep in Iraq in order to learn -- the law of diminishing returns on that upward-sloping but now fairly flat learning cuurve about "the behavior of the enemy" -- what we need is to divide the world, with an Africa Segment and a NATO Segment, and a Russia Segment, and so on, with the possibillites for penetration by the forces of Islam, and the possibliities, by the Infidels, to halt and reverse that penetration, and to figure out the kinds of points of entry, as in Darfur and southern Sudan, that could for a small price buy a very large advantage (in Darfur and Sudan, the world's liberals could hardly object to "humanitarian" intervention, and it would be hard for the Arab League to attack us for remaining until such time as the black Africans in Darfur and the southern Sudan can vote in a referendum on "independence"), and so on.

We don't need to stay in Iraq to observe "enemy behavior." We've seen it. The soldiers have seen it. They can see it in Gaza and the West Bank. They can see it in Somalia. They can see it in southern Thailand and in Kashmir. They can see it in the Moluccas. They can see it in Beslan and Moscow, and in Madrid and London. And in New York and Washington. It takes various forms. But the intended victim is always the Infidel, and the intended goal is always the same: to remove all obstacles to Islam, until Dar al-Islam swallows up Dar al-Harb, and as has been said many times, "Islam dominates and is not to be dominated." Islam, and the history of Islamic conquest, are what the American military, like the civilian leadership, needs to study -- not remain in Iraq for all the world like business school students picking up pointers, at this point, for theoreticians of "counter-insurgency" (with their apparent overlooking both of Islam, and of the fact that there is not one but many insurgencies, and however hostile each group may be to one or more of the others, they are all of them hostile to the Infidel Americans, but are not above using those Americans, inveigling and manipulating those apparently endlessly naive Americans,including officers, to get what they want out of them, including all kinds of goods and services.).

My sympathies are selective: they go to the men and women, the American men and women, serving in Iraq, as part of the military. Some Iraqis are nice, a handful are even noble. But that may have been said, I suppose, of a few of the people who were bombed in Berlin (a very few), or in Tokyo by American bombers. That's what wars do, what they are about. You must be selective. And you certainly do not hold back and endanger the lives of servicemen, or of civilians, out of undue solicitude for those who, had they not been born into Islam (and it was through no fault of their own, as I always am careful to write), might be just swell. But they have been raised in societies suffused with Islam, and puts a permanent barrier between us -- unless of course they are like Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, and others, in which case they are a self-selected intellectual and moral elite, that consists of those born "through no fault of their own," into Islam, but managed to fight their way out.

"everything I have been reading tells me that a majority of Islamic countries are edging closer each day to revolution by well-funded jihadists who despise their corrupt governments as much as they hate us."
-- from the same posting above

No. The ruthless and well-financed governments of the Sunni Arabs will crush all resistance. But in any case they too are our enemies, and I don't see what Saudi Arabia could be doing, with its vast funding of mosques and madrasas and hate literature and campaigns of targetted Daw'a and front men and groups and armies of Western hirelings, that would or could be worse.

Which is worse: the Slow Jihad of Mahmoud Abbas, or the Fast Jihad of Hamas? They are both a mortal threat to Israel. Ideally what one would like is for those you describe as "jihadists" to be fighting the regimes all over the Arab and Muslim world, instead of having their rage at those regimes being continually and cleverly turned outward, toward us. I think it would be just fine if the Al-Saud faced a strong and persistent internal revolt, including growing unrest among the Shi'a in the Eastern (Hasa) Province. And I hope the Bahraini Shi'a protest the attempt by the Sunni ruler (who calls himself "King") to give citizenship to 50,000 Sunnis from Iraq, including several thousand former army and secret police members --in order to help keep those restive Shi'a down.

Oh, it will be fine. It will be a spectacle. It will be something to watch, and to learn from -- and I gather from your notion that we should stay in Iraq to learn about "the behavior of the enemy and related tangents." Yes, let us and the Europeans, and others learn: but from "a beautiful distance," to end this view of a not-distant-and-not-nevsky prospect on a strangely gogolian note.

Had Bush won the war when he won it, these discussions would not be necessary.
To leave or not to leave, that is the question.
No matter what the US does, the jihad will continue.
Those who think that staying will 'win' something are wrong, and those who think we should leave to 'save' something are also wrong. No matter what anyone 'thinks', the jihad will not stop, untill the west stops it. Redeployment is fine if it does not look like retreat and defeat, as the liberals have made it. The Islamic hegemony cannot defeat America, but liberal/democrats can, and will, and are.
Liberalism is a pandemic of huge proportions, it infects mostly the young and mentally challanged older people. Most well balanced people give it up, at about age thirty or so. Those who hang on to it suffer. Look what it has done to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi. I have mentioned before about the local liberals taking over the towns only overpass, and using it for one demonstration after another. It's always the same people, thier ranks never grow, and boy are they ugly. Aged hippies, wrinkled up pot smokers, blocking traffic.
Aint that a pip...wrinkled up pot smokers deciding
US policy, and war plans...where did we go wrong?

McCaffrey always was good at pointing out things are not working but don't expect him to come up with any useful conclusions on why it is not working.

"100 Sunni and Shi'a leaders"

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight...

I would to hate to be poor sap that has to arrange that meeting. He better have his will done. Lets hope it is done by phone, e-mail etc.

Beyond that he gives nothing useful in Part 5 of the report of what we should do. He keeps using the word "reconciliation" as the answer to problem. Well I am sure that will happen! Good Luck! If that is what it has come down to then why not get out now. They can reconcile without yankee doodle getting in the way.

He goes on to say...

"We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. General Dave Petraeus, LTG Ray Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have the country’s treasure and combat power at their disposal. Our cause is just. The consequence of failure will be severe."

Well I am convinced!

I love the use of the word "brilliant" (god help us the blind leading the blind). I already know what people think of Petraeus and Co. (moron). Can someone tell me how failure will be severe? Do you really trust these guys running this country with our treasure? You have to laugh because if you don't you will go crazy.

I'm good friends with a National Guard officer with two one-year stints under his belt. He is a very educated guy with a fairly prestigious job he had to leave... twice.

Before the Iraqi War, he was gung ho, talking how much he wanted to get rid of Sadam and bring in freedom... his exact words.

Not now. I don't berate him, nor do I let him know I study the situation extensively(or read Jihad Watch). I listen, have a beer or two with him, call him, but he's not the same guy. Depressed. Sad. Divorced. Lost his job, but most of all lost. I'm trying to get him to fufill his lifelong dream of becoming a doctor. But, I don't think he's interested in this right now. He's plagued by the recall of a nice Iraqi guy who translated for him and got his head delivered to the gate at the green zone as appreciation from his loving Iraqi countrymen. 3200 plus dead and counting and for what? To help Jihadis kill one another? Thats how I see it.

My friend is just another victim who I pray will get a second chance at life.

Hugh-

After re-reading one of your above posts I am fascinated by your (?) idea of simultaneously withdrawing from Iraq and announcing that we are doing so because we are now hip to the breadth and severity of the overall Islamic threat. Methinks a number of terrible events and political evolutions will have to occur first before anything like that is said, or even thought, in the White House. But I do like the idea.

I did not intend to suggest that we should maintain any number of US personnel in Iraq in order to learn about insurgents and their ways. This was merely one of a few out-loud suppositions about why our government remains so committed to the cause.

I thought it more hasty than "crazed."

Why Bush ever attacked Iraq (after going after the al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan) has never been made clear. Was it because his daddy didn't finish the war on Saddam? Was it because Saddam tried to have the elder George Bush assassinated? Was it to please the Saudis?

The logical strike, after Afghanistan, would have been Saudi Arabia. but these were and are the Bushs' friends and allies (not the US's). Then, also, Saddam was a threat to the Saudis. Hence . . . voila! The war on Iraq with its WMDs etc.

The next should have been (before it started on its nuclear venture) the old enemy since they invaded our embassy: Iran. Way past time. George W. Bush even named them in his "Axis of Evil." But never followed up on that when he could have and should have.

Without Saudi financing, the jihad would have fallen on hard times. No madrassas and Wahhabi mosques in our lands, no money for al qaeda. (Yes, I know, Dubai is financing CAIR, etc.)

Had that happened, we would not be talking about "should we stay or should we go" about Iraq now.

Has Saddam persisted in his threats, taking him our--sans occupation--and sans worrying too much about "collateral casualties" could have solved that problem. Yes, Shia would fight Sunni in the resultant turmoil, but jihadists would not have rushed in to join the fight. They are only there to kill Americans--infidels as they call us.

Without Saudi financing, jihadist would not have the wherewithal to keep on internationally. Of course there would have to be a curtailing of Moslem "students" and others of that ideological persuasion from entering our country.

Would have, should have, what's the use of Monday morning quarterbacking?

As for Iraq, get outta there! Now. Fast. Hit Iran, then the worry about Iran taking over Iraq will dissipate. As for the "Iraqi people" . . . 'em.

More for your lecture Eurodhimmi:

Was ist Islam ?
.
Es ist eine Ideologie des Imperialismus !
.
Es ist ein Politisches Programm um die Welt zu erobern - UNS !
..
.
Es präsentiert sich als eine Religion indem es Teile des Alten und Neuen Testaments benutzt, Erlaubnis für Raub, Vergewaltiung, und Chaos hinzufügt, und sich "Die wahre Religion" nennt - die einzige Religion, die alle anderen Religionen ersetzen muß -- die einzige Religion erlaubt.
.
Islam ist tödlich; es ist eine Infektion.
.
Wenn wir uns gegen den Islam wehren praktizieren wir keine Diskrimination oder Religiösen Bias.
Wir sagen unseren möchte-gern Eroberern NEIN !
.
Sagen Sie einfach NEIN zum Islam.

Danke sehr fuer die Uebersetzung,Porky!

http://unverdaechtigerschweinestall.blogspot.com/

In einem Land, in dem man noch bei Trost ist, sollte eine solche Ideologie eigentlich als Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung erklärt und verboten werden, die jemand als Vorbild propagiert, der nicht nur ein Gigolo und ein Feigling war, sondern auch ein Demagoge, ein Pädophiler, ein Betrüger, ein Mörder, ein Mafioso, ein Dieb, ein Anhänger der Sklaverei, ein Vergewaltiger, ein falscher Prophet, ein skrupelloser Opportunist, ein sexuell Besessener, ein Kriegsverbrecher, ein paranoider Serienkiller, ein lasterhafter und übergeschnappter Zeitgenosser, ein machiavellistischer Verräter und auch Anführer einer Plündererbande war, da ein solches „Vorbild“ die Gesellschaft gefährdet.

http://der-prophet.blogspot.com/

http://in.cafe150.com/ueberpage.html

das Original

auf dem Unverdaechtigen Schweinenstall selbst

http://unverdaechtigerschweinestall.blogspot.com/

von dem Blog

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-islam-now-in-german-jetzt-auf.html

Jesse said

Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din proves Muslims can "get it" - we might not be able to help Iraq become a melting pot but the Al-Dins can, but only if we stay so the political debate can continue.

spinoneone said

and, oh yes, the let's make sure America is defeated crowd. you seem to think the American people somehow voted to have their military destroyed in iraq.

It is comments like these, and similar ones made by the Administration, that prove we are not taking the jihad seriously. To think that we should continue to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars, and send our troops to be injured or worse, in order to save a few "pro-Western" Iraqis, is irresponsible. We shouldn't, and we cannot afford to continue this debacle. We did not send our troops in to "save" the Germans in WWII, they didn't go to "help" Japan become a "melting pot"; so why are we being so generous and noble with the Afghans and the Iraqis? Your priorities are way out of whack. Our troops should be utilized for one goal and one goal only: to ensure that US citizens are safe from the threat of jihad. I don't give a rat's *ss whether Iraq is a "melting pot". As long as they lack the ability to attack us, they can rot in h*ll for all I care, a h*ll that they are making despite our attempt to "help" them. Scr*w them. What is it going to take to get you to start worrying about Americans instead of Iraqis?

It appears, this time Hugh has taken the fight to the enemy in full charge (the administration honkeys). The flawlessness of logic, impeccable nature of the analyses, the predictive value offered (which on previous analyses proved consistently true...from 2003 onwards) just shoot right through the shallow-phrase-throwing lackeys like profitsbeard who suddenly appear to be Wilsonian lefties forcing a Jeffersonian system on a primitivized people who refuse to give an inch, in whose vocabulary, compromise is not a word much utilized. But alas! nothing shall stop the lackeys from supporting this stupid cause, which is the OPPOSITE of what victory should be (and has already been achieved, if only the troops were pulled out so we could pass the popcorn and watch the fireworks and let the Sunni and Shia have at it).
Despairing, indeed.

The US Military did a great job for which they were originally sent there to do, take down the Saddam Military machine. But no Army in the world can do what they are trying to do now, and that restructure
the heart of the Iraqi people...which seems to be getting poisoned by Jihad more & more with each passing year.

The best we could have hoped for was another Turkey, but it looks like Bush is going to get a Islam-o- razorback squealing allah-u-akbar now.

Anyone else read Janis Karpinsky's book about her
true life experiences in Iraq,how she tried to get supplies and things done,how she was made scapegoat for Abu Greib prison & finally lost the job she was so proud of?
From the first Janis discovered there was NO PLAN
for Iraq after country was technically under U.S & Coalition rule. Only SAFE place then was heavily fortified Green Zone -same as now. When Janis & her soldiers tried to change life such as putting up buildings;by next morning all supplies even down to nails had been stolen.
I dare to say even though shall be threatened again as a Cyberspace punchbag-U.S FOREIGN POLICY
HAS BEEN A TOTAL DISASTER SINCE INTERFERING IN AFGHANISTAN.Since Vietname war,really. In the meantime China becomes ever more powerful & Russia is regaining its confidence & political clout.
It is to America's detriment it has courted & supported some of the worst,repressive regimes in
History,Saddam Hussein among them.A 'friend ' like Saudi Arabia-probably the most secretive & totalitarian state in the world,on par with N Korea-makes people laugh when America trumpets
DEMOCRACY,'friend & ally' Pakistan takes U.S money-some of it going to Taleban to kill hated
Americans.Turkey is another 'friend' which U.S pushes for entry into E.U-a suicidal idea for Europe if there ever was one-last thing that is needed is 70 million more Jihadists to deliver last chop & establish new Ottoman Empire.
Frankly,war in Iraq is lost[also Afghanistan]sensible thing to do is pull out from both countries and let the natives slaughter each other.General is RIGHT but no doubt he will be
castigated by folk sitting at home in armchairs
watching wargames on telly.

Retired US Army Generals is coming to look more and more like a chorus of rogues. Watching TV now makes one hanker for the days of circumspect and dignified retired senior American military officers

* 33:21 ** 33:21 * * 33:21 * * 33:21 * * 33:21 * * 33:21 * * 33:21 * * 33:21 * * 33:21 *

In retrospect, there was never any reason to think that the military academies wouldn't become as corrupted as civilian universities.

The only difference is that, graduating from the latter are gullible fools; graduating from the former are reticent pussies.

Morgane it would be interesting to know what "plans" the Allied forces had for after WW2, but then the military back then acted like one.

"Morgane it would be interesting to know what "plans" the Allied forces had for after WW2, but then the military back then acted like one."

The comparison is highly incorrect. First of all Germany belonged and still belongs to the same civilisational circle as the USA and the UK. Nazism was a recent ideology that took over. In Iraq, the worldview is dominated by an ideology that came to be 1400 years ago. Second, Germany did have democratic institutions prior to Hitler, nothing of the sort ever existed in Iraq. And third, the Allies did have a plan for Germany, ever hear of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences?

"Before the Iraqi War, he was gung ho, talking how much he wanted to get rid of Sadam and bring in freedom... his exact words.

Not now. I don't berate him, nor do I let him know I study the situation extensively(or read Jihad Watch)."
-- from a posting above

Why shouldn't you tell him about Jihad Watch? Why shouldn't you give him, say, Bat Ye'or's "The Dhimmi" (to start with) or Robert Spencer's book on Muhammad or possibly "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance"? Why shouldn't he learn enough to make sense of What Went (Or Was Always) Wrong, to use the Lewisian phrase, about the goals Bush apparently had all along (how many were quite aware of that? I was stupid enough to be thinkinig only of, focussing only on seizing or finding or disrupting programs intended to produce those weapons of mass destruction, and it was not until later that I realized -- my god, this "transplanting democracy" business is something the Bush Administration is taking seriously. In other words, I was stupid enough not to think that those making policy in the Pentagon were as ignorant and stupid and self-satsified with their ignorance -- one very high official told me in April 2005 to "guess how many books I've read since September 2001" and, without waiting for my answer, told me almost proudly, "none. I've read none." He thought this demonstrated how hard working he was, getting up at 4 a.m. to go into the Pentagon to work on Iraq. I, on the other hand, was horrified --he hasn't read a book, not a book, on Islam, not a book on Iraq. He's relied on executive summaries and busy-busy reports by the slightly-less-ignorant enthusiasts providing talking points and suchlike for the slightly-more-ignorant at the top of the anthill. And this particular fellow was, by repute, one of the most intelligent. God save us from the proud workaholic who is "too busy" to read, to study, to think, to comrehend.

Help your friend, whose patriotism was used and abused, to make sense of the whole thing, not so as to be further embittered, but to coldly understand Folly, and what Folly at the Top can do, and all its Works and Days.

unicorns:

There were many good reasons to invade Iraq. Saddam was most definitely not in his "box" (Read Christopher Hitchens on the point of Saddam's emissary to Niger.)and while he had no "official" connection with Al-Qaeda, the way, say Iran does with Hezbollah, he offered them, at a minimum, safe haven in the Kurdish territories in the north prior to the 2003 invasion that led to his capture. And then there is the question of Iraq's petro wealth. Given what the Iranians have been doing with theirs since the Islamic revolution, leaving Saddam in charge of the Iraqi treasury or allowing the theocratic fascists to succeed him would be a greater global threat than allowing Afghanistan or Somalia to fall.

Jesse and THw5kds:

Check this item posted by MEMRI as well:

Liberal Algerian Daily Criticizes U.S. Anti-War Movement

In an opinion piece in the liberal Algerian daily Liberté, columnist Mustapha Hammouche criticizes what he sees as the simplistic populism of the anti-war movement in the U.S. He argues that the anti-war protests are primarily a result of nostalgia for the protest movement against the Vietnam War, and that they ignore the realities of the current war in Iraq - which, he says, has helped terrorism diminish Iraqis' hopes and has eroded their support for democracy.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD152207

"And then there is the question of Iraq's petro wealth. Given what the Iranians have been doing with theirs since the Islamic revolution, leaving Saddam in charge of the Iraqi treasury or allowing the theocratic fascists to succeed him would be a greater global threat than allowing Afghanistan or Somalia to fall."
-- from a posting above

Really? So you think we should stay in Iraq to prevent those "theocratic fascists" as you call them to take over? But haven't they already done so, everywhere south of Baghdad? And don't the Shi'a now ruling give every sign of being far more likely to become "theocratic fascists" rather than the other kind, the kind of "fascist" that Saddam Hussein was, the non-theocratic fascist?

And why do you apparently mentally resist the notion of letting Iraq dissolve into a state of permanent hostility and warfare, where no one side ever rests easy, nor any of its circumjacent neighbors? What is it about that that you can't accept?

What was the Islamic Republic of Iran doing with its oil wealth, within a year of its establishment, during the period 1980-1988?

It was spending every cent it had on fending off the armies of Iraq. And that kept it from makiing all kinds of mischief elsewhere. Virtually all it could do, for that eight-year period, was fend off the forces of Sunni-ruled Arab Iraq.

And during that period, too, Saddam Hussein could do nothing else. It was only later, when that war ended -- it should have gone on forever -- that he began the mass killing (as opposed to the small-scale killing) of the Kurds in the Anfal campaign, and the killing of Shi'a in the south. It was only after that war ended that he invaded Kuwait. And it was only after that war ended, that the Iranians, in a big way (they always had time to send a few agents to kill, in places like Paris, the more outspoken enemies of the regime, like the elegant Shahpour Bakhtiar, or to encourage local succursals in Lebanon to bomb Marine barracks), could give their total attention to what, of course, they have been concentrating on for the last 20 years: making life as unpleasant or dangerous for all freenthinkers in Iran, and supporting anti-Israel and anti-American and other anti-Infidel forces everywhere, with no need to worry about an invasion from Iraq.

"To think that we should continue to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars, and send our troops to be injured or worse, in order to save a few "pro-Western" Iraqis, is irresponsible. "

That is not my position at all, I'm saying that the debate for Democratic Freedom has started in Iraq for the first time, and Iraqis like Al-Din are leading that debate. The reason this debate has started is because the coalition made it safe for his voice to be heard, the coalition removed the totalitarian dictator standing in the way of the Democratic Freedom debate. Islamic tatalitarian dictators have stood in the way of the Democratic freedom debate as long as Islam has existed. These "despicable dictators" (as AlDin calls them) have never allowed ordinary Muslims to emerge from the Dark Ages, but they are losing control of the veil, Al-Din is proof. So we should stay so that the debate for Democratic Freedom can continue, without totalitarian dictators in the way, Democratic Freedom will win.

The first Muslim Mosque in America was in Ross, ND. This is something most people don't know. Why? Because those Muslims embraced the ideals of America, not the ideals of jihad. I bring this up because I disagree that Islam is incompatable with Democratic Freedom. When given the chance the Muslims in Ross ND chose the ideals of Democratic freedom, something many if not most Muslims would choose - if they had the choice. I think AL-Dins bird in a cage analogy is a very noteworthy one.

Hugh, etal, I grasp the concept of the argument, and on a mechanically logical level understand the appeal of the idea of deliberately starting a war of Islamic factions by pulling out. But I cannot agree because I think there is hope Islam can emerge from its self imposed Dark Age.

BTW search "Iyad Jamal al-Din" at MemriTV.com for more of what he says, it is interesting.

Sorry for being kind of harsh in my earlier comments.

JL

Exactly Hugh!!

The discussion has now come full-circle. We, being the West, primarilly the US, are in a war against Islam. We should only be concerned about our interests. Let the true nature of Islam run amok, not abroad, but in their own backyard. let them destroy themsleves, so much faster than we can, with us being clouded by conscience.

Unless we are prepared to "kill them all", as a poster above offered, immediate ground withdrawal from iraq makes the most military sense. Islam is Islam, and has remained as such since it's inception. Historical secterian differences will prevail. The Sunni's and the Shia will not play nice together. Since they both prescribe to Islam, they are both the enemy of the US and the West, and that realization is all that matters.

While they in-fight, they will not be able to fight us externally, not to the same degree. This is a double bonus for the US. First, more of our Islamic enemies are killed, which is always a sound goal in any war, and secondly, they will be killed by their own hand, not our's. Maybe then people will wake up to the reality of the ideology of Islam and aknowledge the fight we already face here at home, in our backyard. Hussein was the stabilizing force in the region. By that fact the "mission" was accomplished as soon as his regime was removed.

Islam cannot be eradicated, nor can it be changed, reasoned or bartered with. Now is the time to bludgeon Islam into acquiescence, or preferably, allow it to bludgeon itself.

"The first Muslim Mosque in America was in Ross, ND. This is something most people don't know. Why? Because those Muslims embraced the ideals of America, not the ideals of jihad. I bring this up because I disagree that Islam is incompatable with Democratic Freedom. When given the chance the Muslims in Ross ND chose the ideals of Democratic freedom, something many if not most Muslims would choose - if they had the choice. I think AL-Dins bird in a cage analogy is a very noteworthy one."
-- from a posting above

This makes no sense whatsoever. Because some Muslims opened a mosque in "Ross, ND" that means they "embraced the ideals of America, not the ideals of Jihad"? But if they had opened the mosque in Newark or Dearborn they would presumably not have "embraced the ideals of America"? Why does where a mosque is opened, or when, have anything to do with figuring out the "ideals" of the Muslims who erect or attend that mosque?

You further claim that the "ideals of freedom" are something that "many if not most Muslims would choose -- if they had the choice." On what evidence, textual in the Qur'an and Hadith, or otherwise, do you make such a remark? What is it about, for example, Spencer's 2003 article showing how unlikely and naive the notion of transplanting "democracy" to Iraq is, and how much against the spirit and letter of Islam not only the political theory that legitimizes or justifies government in a Social Contract Theory, beginning with the justifications for the state having a monopoly on violence that were presented by Hobbes and then, quite differently, by Locke and also by Rouseau with his General Will, and then elaborated upon right up through Mill and Bentham, to Michael Oakeshott and then Judith Shklar and John Rawls.

And if one defines "democracy" as we now do, with such things as the Bill of Rights or its equivalent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, how do you reconcile Islamic teachings, and the unequal treatment of non-Muslims, the failure to guarantee free exercise of conscience (including the right to leave Islam), and free speech (see those Danish cartoons, or anything smacking of criticism of Muhammad or Islam), with those individual rights that are deemed not mere later and unimportnat accretions on the essence of democracy, but in fact indispensable to its practice in the advanced world -- that is, our world?

What some mosque in Ross, ND is supposed to prove, and the rest of what you write in the same vein, is both unclear, and bizarre.

"Islam cannot be eradicated, nor can it be changed, reasoned or bartered with. Now is the time to bludgeon Islam into acquiescence, or preferably, allow it to bludgeon itself."

Dont't you think there will always be a dictator of some flavor and thus the problem will continue?

The real struggle IMO is totalitarianism vs Democratic Freedom.

Democratic Freedom is the cure for totalitarianism.

Free the bird, help it use its wings - and it will never be put back in the cage again.

But, man has never been able to govern himself for long periods of time and I think there will be a world wide totalitarian government. It might be Islam. Man's last blast, then it's done.

"the appeal of the idea of deliberately starting a war of Islamic factions by pulling out. But I cannot agree because I think there is hope Islam can emerge from its self imposed Dark Age."
-- from the same poster above

I have not written that we need to "deliberately" start a war of Islamic factions. Those "Islamic factions" have started the war themselves, despite every effort by the Americans to tamp it down or dampen it. Don't start blaming the United States for fissures within Islam, both sectarian (Sunni/Shi'a) and ethnic (Islam has from its beginnings been a vehicle for Arab supremacism, cultural and linguistic and also political), that began with the first century of Islam -- that is, a thousand years before the United States became a country. Please, none of that blame-America-for-everything stuff. After all the generosity and incredible sacrifices of American soldiers in Iraq, that kind of thing is simply intolerable.

And what does the phrase "self-imposed Dark Ages" mean? Have you actually studied Islam, or do you just come here and read a bit for the hell of it? Has none of it stuck? Have you read any books by Spencer or Bat Ye'or or possibly "The Legacy of Jihad"? You write as if Islam was once wonderful and then had this "self-imposed Dark Ages" out of which it can somehow emerge. You are taking a category from the history of Western, i.e., Christian, Europe (and in any case, the past forty years of historical scholarship has blown up the idea of a "Dark Ages" in the West, in any case) and applying it to Islam. The phrase "Dark Ages" -- the "Dark Ages of Islam" -- has no intelligent application. The doctrines of Islam, and the habit of mental submission in Islam, and the ferocious intolerance of free and skeptical inquiry in Islam, is part of Islam itself.

The word "deliberately" is false and unfair. No need to do a thing except leave. And the notion of the Islamic "Dark Ages" as being a temporary phenomenon, out of which Muslims show a great willingness to emerge -- those who wish to emerge from those "Dark Ages" have to leave Islam itself, or most of it, at the door, and the freest and most liberated spirits are those of the clear-sighted apostates, some of whose most famous examples met last month in St. Petersburg, Florida.

In order to make Islam tolerable, and still call oneself a "Muslim" --as with such Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims as Magdi Allam, one simply has to ignore a good deal of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira. In other words, one has to be a very bad Muslim indeed. That is not exactly coming out of some supposedly temporary Dark Ages" -- it is rather to reject Islam while pretending, for various reasons, not to.

A different thing.

Hugh,

I bring up the Mosque in Ross,ND because of the agument made that Islam is incompatable with Democratic Freedom. (Click the link and read, it is not the same as "democracy")

That mosque was built by Lebanese Muslims in the early 1900s. My point is that no one knew about nor knows about this mosque because these Muslims adapted to the American ideal of "out of many one". Being an American came first for them, thus they did not profess or practice jihad ideology which would have drawn attention to them much like it does to the jihadist muslims of today. This is an example (maybe weak) to show that muslims can let go of jihadist idealogy and embrace the principles Democratic Freedom.

Muslims themselves must decide to shake off the Dark Ages imposed on them by their own "dispicable dictators", and I think the little known mosque at Ross. ND is proof that they can.

=======================================

How did the western world throw off its Dark Ages?

That will be the same way Islam must do it.

Yes it will mean they will have "to ignore a good deal of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira".

It should not take an Islamic civil war to do it.

"I have not written that we need to "deliberately" start a war of Islamic factions. Those "Islamic factions" have started the war themselves, "

"The word "deliberately" is false and unfair. No need to do a thing except leave."

Ok, deliberately leaving while knowing islamic factions have started a war in hopes that as many of them as possible will each other.

Still sounds pretty deliberate, and brutal to me.

Looks like that is what is going to happen, though.

JL

Jesse

"The real struggle IMO is totalitarianism vs Democratic Freedom."

"Democratic Freedom is the cure for totalitarianism."

Then you will have to do away with Islam or reconfigure the faith to fit modern values in Iraq. You know how long that will take. You know what you will have to do to accomplish that? You are going to have to do some serious killing and converting to get that across. You are not dealing with modern totalitarianism but a religious totalitarianism. We as Americans never have faced that before. This is not like communism or nazism for those ideologies were rather new (in the grand view of history). Islam is not new. It has been a part of their civilization for over a 1,000 years. It is thus a religious war.

"But, man has never been able to govern himself for long periods of time and I think there will be a world wide totalitarian government. It might be Islam."

Then convert to Islam and get it over with. I would rather die then convert or be subdued. We have governed ourselves for 200 plus years thank you very much. Many other civilized peoples are governing themselves. Of course all those people have secular governments and have for the most accepted the idea of freedom of religion.

"as many of them as possible will each other"

as many of them as possible will kill each other

==================================================

"Then you will have to do away with Islam or reconfigure the faith to fit modern values in Iraq."

Yes, exactly.

"You know how long that will take."

No man knows, or if it is even possible. Who guessed the USSR would ever break up and as suddenly as it did?

You know what you will have to do to accomplish that? You are going to have to do some serious killing and converting to get that across. "

Not so in the case of Iyad Jamal Al-Din and many other Iraqis.

JL

The case of recent Iranian history illustrates two crucial pinciples, applicable to several recent posts here:

1. No mater how autocratic and repressive and powerful they are, ME (and West Asian) dictatorships friendly to the West have been and will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists from time to time.

2. Even allowing for the fantastic decadence and suppression of the Shah's regime, there is a lot to be said for the freedoms and advanced liberal culture of the Persians before 1979. Still this was not enough to prevent a native uprising and complete destruction of that culture.

I agree that we should get out of Iraq soon. But the madness that will inevitably follow does not sound like a condition conducive to long range security for anyone, as "satisfying" as it may be in the short term.

Jesse,

You seem like a nice person who wants good things to happen in the world. Noted.

Your statement that, the "solution" is the reconfiguring of Islam, is just not feasible, not in the short term, and also not the responsibility of the West.

We infidels have been awaiting for this progressive reformation for over 1000 years now. We have the right to defend ourselves from those who want our way of life eradicated in any way possible until that day, if it ever does, come.

Try looking at it as a short-term solution, not one that might occur in another 1000 years from now.

If you continue to be willfully obstinate in this matter, then so be it. As greatcometof1577 pointed out, you appear to be betting on the "strong horse" here, and if so, dive right in and convert to your predicted winning team.

For God's sake though, please stop attempting to justify your poorly thought out, losing argument.

After having been born and raised in Egypt, after having spent a lifetime of study of Islam and especially of the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, after having observed from very closee to inside (with all kinds of contacts in high places, who provide her with information) the machinations at the U.N., and the E.U., and in the various Foreign Offices and governments of the nations of Western Europe, and having warned two decades ago about the unchecked and possibly inevitable islamization of Western Europe and what it would mean, Bat Ye'or has grimly concluded that entanglements, including those which result from a naive attempt to improve things, by the Western governments and peoples, with Muslims, can only lead, always and everywhere, to a waste of Infidel resources, a clouding or confusion of Western minds, a constant inveigling by the Muslims involved for more, more, more - more aid, more reconstruction, more diplomatic surrenders by Israel, more willingness to cave into the most incredible Muslim demands in the Lands of the Infidels so as not to "offend" the world's Muslims, and in the end, a loss by Infidels and a gain for the world-wide Jihad.

Bat Ye'or advocates reducing links with the Muslim world to an absolute minimum. No immigration from Muslim lands. No time-wasting and confusing and self-defeating "dialogues" which end up being exercises in Infidel self-flagellation, and Muslim taqiyya-and-tu-quoque. None of it.

I agree. And while we must keep buying the oil, and in order to recoup some of the expenses, must for now continue to allow the rich Arabs to buy all of their goods and services from us (not one rich Arab state has managed to create a modern economy, and inshallah-fatalism is likely to continue to prevent the development of such economies, along with the sheer laziness amounting almost to inanition, displayed by the undeserving, bored, entirely unadmirable inhabitants of the oil-rich Muslim Arab states).

No more trying to transplant "democracy" and help "ordinary moms and dads." If one really wished to help Muslims, what is it one would wish to do? One would wish that they themselves could find a way out of Islam. And how to do that? By helping to force Muslims everywhere to begin to make the connection between the various kinds of failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, of their own societies whether in Muslim-run countries or those they sometimes manage to set up, as a kind of alternative universe, in Muslim colonies in the West, and Islam itself. Stop giving Muslim states the disguised Jizyah of foreign aid. Let them go hat in hand to rich fellow Muslims, and ask for a little sharing of the wealth among the Umma. Stop providing the benefits, taken such fantastic fiddling advantage of, by Muslims all over the ludicrously generous welfare-states of Western Europe, now being impoverished by the demands and the fiddling of those Muslim populations, who also swell the expensive-to-maintain prisons.

The West should stop trying to hold them up, and instead, allow them to wobble and topple and be convulsed with their own troubles, for that is the only way to permit Muslims, or some of them, to come to the realization, as Ataturk did, that Islam itself had to be constrained as a political and social force.

And that, not Bush's crazed messianic plan for Iraq, is the only real way to "help Muslims" and, not incidentally, do the only thing we should really care about, which is to make our own Infidel insitutions and arrangements and understandings, able to withstand the renewed menace, given those OPEC trillions and those tens of millions of Muslim migrants, of the duty, fallen only into desuetude, for a while, out of weakness and not out of a change in Muslim doctrine, of Jihad.

"If you continue to be willfully obstinate in this matter, then so be it. As greatcometof1577 pointed out, you appear to be betting on the "strong horse" here, and if so, dive right in and convert to your predicted winning team."

When my position gets this screwed up what is the point of continuing the conversation?

JL

Jesse wrote:
"But, man has never been able to govern himself for long periods of time and I think there will be a world wide totalitarian government. It might be Islam. Man's last blast, then it's done."

Those were your words, not mine. This thread is about Iraq and the debate to whether we should remain on our present course to exactly nowhere or simply leave.

You appear to be struggling witha moral quandary. Morality is admirable, to a point. I seriously doubt most of the JW community would oppose a morally superior, peaceful solution to the threat and problem that Islam currently poses to the West, and internally as well. That problem however, historically has been, and continues to be, on them. The current state of Iraq is not excluded from that.

As you say, no man knows when or if this reformation will actually happen, but once again, we do not own that problem and should not be held in check, nor be forced to waive our right to act in our best interests. The feasibility of a meaningful reformation is dubious at best, unfortunately.

If a man is cold, he should on on a jacket, not try to move the Earth closer to the Sun.

Jesse

"When my position gets this screwed up what is the point of continuing the conversation?"

Your position was already screwed up just like Iraq is and will always be screwed up as long as Islam is the rule of law. Don't blame this poor westerner for being bewildered by your searing logic.

Who on this board is really showing confidence in the US armed forces?

Incompetence lives everywhere, but I do not think it is over-represented in our military. Look, in fact, at the logistical achievements of the wars that were prosecuted in Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan. The movement of men and materiel across such distances with such coordination and expedition is truly awesome to behold.

So one has to ask a question about the trendline in Iraq, which seems to be inexorably down to the right. It does not seem plausible that this is a failure of military competence. Thus, one has to confront squarely the possibiliy that mere changes in tactics or mere elongations of those already deployed will not alter the well-established trend. If Mr. Fitzgerald recognizes that the military cannot solve this problem, it seems not to be for a lack of confidence in the military, but rather, the reverse; because he is confident in the capabilities of the military, its abject failure to provide security is one more confirmation that the problem is not one that can be solved by military means.

In other words, if I find that I cannot fashion a durable dwelling out of sand, please don't respond that I am a quitter.

Of course, there is one military tactic that could "succeed" in bringing stability to Iraq, and that would be the one used by the likes of Saddam Hussein: utter and unremitting brutality. Jackboot savagery and massive civilian casualties will, over time, break the will of any opposition. (Japan, atom bomb, not a coincidence.) Of course, we have no stomach for that kind of play in the West, nor should we. But that means you keep your interventions to those nations that--on a broad, cultural basis--welcome liberation.

And those that do not welcome it you leave to their own sad and savage devices.

Indeed, this blows for people like the gentleman in the above-linked video. Nevertheless, you need majorities in order to liberate a people. Otherwise, find those few hundred who genuinely long for a non-sectarian state and move them to lebanon.

Jesse, I felt obligated to click on the blog link to see if there were any self-references to God or Jesus Christ.

Here are a few quotes:

Freedom is an engine of economic and human development, and scientific and technological advancement. [...] Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty. [...] Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and famine. [...] Free people have virtually no government genocide and mass murder, and for good theoretical reasons. Freedom is therefore a solution to genocide and mass murder; [...] Free people do not make war on each other, and the greater the freedom within two nations, the less violence between them.[...] (and it goes on)

This is also a misconception of the Administration, who told us that if we give the Iraqis and Afghans "freedom", they would become peaceful, prosperous, educated, tolerant, multicultural, etc. Because those are "univeral" human values; everyone everywhere wants them, and everyone everywhere will take to them naturally, like a duck to water. Remove the artificial blockage of the few radical leaders, and the people will move inexorably towards "freedom".

But those are not "universal" human values. They are Western values, Judeo-Christian values, and as Hugh pointed out above, there is a long history in the West of philosophical thought and political debate that lead to those values. It was a long, and at times, difficult process to get where we are today.

"Freedom" didn't create those values. Those values, and the emphasis on freedom, developed over time together, based on Judeo-Christian influence and historical development. They occur together in the West, but it doesn't follow that one creates the other, and if we graft "freedom" onto the ME, all those other values will necessarily follow.

Muslims have a term for democracy: kafirocracy. That's their term, not mine. Their view of "freedom" is that it is corruption. Allah has told us how to pray, how to blow our nose in the morning, how to wash our butt after defecating, how to remove specific limbs from unbelievers, and so on. Allah knows all, and knows all that will ever happen. There is no free will, everything is predetermined, according to the will of Allah. By offering "freedom", you are asking them to turn their back on Allah, and what Allah demands of them. Any attempt by man, or a government of men, to create laws of men, is heresy.

Freedom is a wonderful product of the West and it has had a great influence on the development of the West; and the lack of freedom has had a corresponding affect on the Islamic world. Freedom is a necessary prerequisite to follow the path of Western development, but it is not sufficient. Just "giving" (or "forcing") freedom on the Iraqis will not make them embrace it. There is a long process they have to go through; there is no shortcut to a society built on freedom. It is their journey, we cannot take it for them. They have not even begun that process yet, a blog or two or an Iraqi-in-exile-for-decades to the contrary notwithstanding. Iraqis need to put their lives on the line to fight for those principles, it's not our battle. Let Muslims stand up and reform Islam, that's not our battle either. Our battle has to be to protect ourselves from their current actual (violent) condition, not the (peaceful) condition we wish they were in. Let them live their lives as they see fit, and make sure that we can live our lives as we see fit.

"This thread is about Iraq and the debate to whether we should remain on our present course to exactly nowhere or simply leave."

I like how some here have so much faith in their crystal ball.

How do any of you KNOW the present course is one to exactly nowhere??

The answer is you don't, so don't act like it.

Another thing none of you know how many there might be that think like AL-Din. EIt seems every survey and MSM article is pre-emptively against anything good happening in Iraq.

"But those are not "universal" human values. They are Western values, Judeo-Christian values, and as Hugh pointed out above, there is a long history in the West of philosophical thought and political debate that lead to those values. It was a long, and at times, difficult process to get where we are today.

"Freedom" didn't create those values. Those values, and the emphasis on freedom, developed over time together, based on Judeo-Christian influence and historical development. They occur together in the West, but it doesn't follow that one creates the other, and if we graft "freedom" onto the ME, all those other values will necessarily follow."

Ok what does Al-Din say??

Here is what he says;

"We do not hold ourselves accountable. This is why America came to demand that the Arabs be accountable. We must have more self-confidence and be accountable before others hold us accountable. we must discipline ourselves before the Americans and English discipline us. We must maintain human rights, which we have neglected for 1,300 or 1,400 years, to this day - until the arrival of the Americans, the Christians, the English, the Zionists, or the Crusaders - call them what you will. They came to teach you, the followers of Muhammad, how to respect human rights."

Now I'll ask how many of you knew this?? How many of you have heard an Arab, a Muslim talking like this??

So why not keep it safe for him to talk??

More of Al-din;

"What is happening in Iraq is a real massacre and a real war between truth and falsehood, between a democratic government which relies on the public, and the remnants of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman tyranny. Iraq will be a cemetery for them and for those behind them."

See, they are on the long road to truth, to Democratic Freedom, and just when they're getting started some of you advocate abandoning them.

I don't.

I guess we will disagree.

JL

Here is a copy of the full McCaffrey report so everyone can pick their own cherries.

After Action Report–General Barry R McCaffrey (Ret)

Any who read the condensed version at the top of these comments should be fair to themselves and read the whole report.

JL

Jesse,

I just read special_guest's excellent post and then your's. So many people in this thread have genuinely tried to reach you, but have been completely unsuccessful. Your mind is made up. The words of one single Arab-Muslim, a very small fish in a giant sea of dissent, is not something you continue to dump military and economic resources for. We cannot continue to do so, to remain to protect this one man, and you even suggesting that, is simply disgraceful.

Re-read special_guest's post and think before you respond. Let the words sink in. Re-read practically every other post again and again and again until it sinks in, if it ever will. The road to nowhere is where we are, unless someone like yourself is suggesting that the US continues to expend military and economic resources indefinately, until Islam is reformed.

Honestly, your last post sums it all up. Your position is absurd. Continue a war to protect one man? Let him leave the ME if he needs to be safe, or better yet, volunteer your services to protect him. You are being purposefully ignorant and obstinate at this point, and I for one, will waste not a second more on this with you.

Absurd.

Heh, I suppose you think I should let the "fact" that there is only one good man in Iraq sink in too??

If that is what you think you got your blinders screwed too tight.

To quote you, "absurd".

JL

Hugh

You refer to my reference of long military service thusly: "What do you think? Military service automatically should confer some kind of universally-applicable expertise?" Did I say that? No. Read the post; I did not even imply such a thing. If I was going to give you my impression of why I believe the attitude of most of our military was reflected in my posted opinion, I felt it important to state that that was my genuine personal experience.

I do not subscribe to the "chicken hawk" epithet and consider those who do to demean themselves. In our society (unlike many others), wearing a uniform has never conferred special rights or privileges upon our citizens. To the contrary. As it should be.

I despise those who exploit noble armed service for political purposes. My mention of military service has obviously touched a sensitive chord with you. Your reflexive twisting of my statement into a diatribe of how irrelevant my service as "a pilot" is to my opinion of what the predominant attitude among my miltary peers is reveals a disturbing prejudice. You may not like it but it is the truth. The military wants to win. That is reflected in the attitudes of the vast majority of those who serve.

What is you point? Take your post about me and substitute the word "Nazi" for "Muslim" and "Fascism" for "Islam" and tell me how history would judge you had you lived during those times. I do not doubt that you recognize Islam as the threat but I do not believe
our european ancestors, faced with the prospect of Islamic aggression, would have found your prescription for survival effective. We would all be Muslims now.

I cannot undersand how, in the light of history, the forceful imposition of our will through military means is not even a viable option in the minds of some. I believe that a final reckoning with Islam is unavoidable. Muslims enthusiastically proclaim the certainty of such a reckoning. At this point in history, the victory of a ruthlessly determined West is certain. Unfortunately, at this point in history, unlike our ancestors, we are neither ruthless nor determined enough to guarantee the survival of our civilization.

Hugh, I applaud your initiative and energy in the cause of alerting the west to the mortal peril of Islam. Your pronouncements, laden with scholarly references and demonstrations of extensive knowlege of Islamic doctrine, history, and practice are impressive. Especially impressive to us lesser mortals relatively new to the subject. As I become less new to the subject, I detect a tone of arrogance and contempt in your dealings with those of us who deviate even slightly from your vision of the correct path. You unnecessarily piss us off. Maybe you are just one of those admirably focused eggheads who have little time for even well-meaning fools. Nonetheless, it is not an effective way to unite ourselves, let alone win an arguement.

Awake says:
"I would ceretainly tend to agree with jesse and THw5kds position if, and only if, they could define the goal of the "mission" and specifically define "the enemy".

Awake, I would define the mission as insuring the survival of western civilization. The enemy is Islam as it has existed throughout history. I cannot take comfort in the fact that muslims at times demonstrate a willingness to slaughter each other with the same enthusiasm with which they would slughter us in the name of Allah. I cannot discern a meaningful difference of opinion among muslims as to what Islam has in store for us.

Unlike the past, Islam, ignored, will inevitably gain the means to take on the infidel and make him submit. That is their stated intention. The whole caliphate may eventually stagnate and descend into a dark age as it has in the past but it won't make any difference if we are all dead or muslims. It will be too late. Iraq is the current battlefield. Abandoning the fight there will only delay the inevitable.

I believe that either we will impose our will on Islam or it will impose itself on us because that is what muslims tell us they intend to do. Taking a chance that, if we just abandon Iraq, Islam will self destruct before it unleashes hell on the rest of us is just too great a risk for mankind to take if it has the means to prevent it. It must be opposed everywhere now while we are strong enough to prevail. It will not always be so.

I do not believe that the Bush plan to allow the Iraqis to embrace democracy on their own is any more a viable strategy for success than it would have been if Imperial Japan had been left to reconstitute itself without outside intervention following World War II. MacArthur wrote their constitution. We should have done the same for Iraq. I just believe that if they knew they were beaten, like the Japanese, they would submit.
Unfortunately, that is no longer the western way of making war.

If we leave Iraq without the Islamists understanding that they were beaten, we invite further slaughter and encourage our tormentors' ambitions. After all, they predicted we would quit in the face of sacrifice. Islam will not care why we say we quit but only that they were right about us quitting. We will pay a terrible price.

"My mention of military service has obviously touched a sensitive chord with you."
-- from a posting above

Why do you write that? I was simply pointing out the obvious:

It was you had raised the issue of your long service (22 years) in the military, as if that were relevant to a discussion of the menace of Islam, a belief-system whose adherents conduct their campaign of expanson not primarily through warfare (the example of the Nazis does not fit the case -- a large part of the problem is that the main instruments of Jihad (Daw'a, demographic conquest, the money weapon) are very far from the notions that most people have of war, with images of troops and tanks and planes.

Why did you mention your military service? To tell us that as a former "military man" you "want to win" and that therefore whatever you offer as the right way to "win" must be listened to devoutly by everyone else, because presumably your being in the military entitles you to claim some special expertise? But service in the military does not, in this case, endow one with a command either of the tenets and attitudes of Isalm, the psychology of Muslims, and an understanding of the histories and present arrangements within each Muslim country that are there to be exploited, if recognized for what they are. How would serving in the Air Force for 22 years make one expert on the division between Kurds and Arabs, or between Sunnis and Shi'a? Would you have known of the relations between the latter two in Pakistan or Yemen or Bahrain, or Lebanon or the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, because you had served in the military? How many of the people at Fort Bragg or Fort Jackson or Fort Benning do you think are well aware of this, and instructing the troops, before they leave, or between deployments, so that they might better understand what they will find, and make sense of it all, in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East? Do you think Amerian troops should findout about Taqiyya and other kinds of religiously-sanctioned deception on the job, or do you think they deserve to find this kind of thing out ahead of time, to be made wary before they have to learn from experience?

I don't think anyone should bring up his military service in such a forum unless there is a clear connection between that service and the issue under discussion. All that should matter is whether or not one's arguments are based on a command of the facts, a display of logic rather than illogic, and a demonstrated awareness of all the elements that are in play in Iraq (or outside Iraq, among its dangerous and at the same time vulnerable neighbors). One need not be of a certain age, a certain sex, a certain nationality. It is whether or not the argument coheres, makes sense, is applicable to the matter at hand and seems to make good sense, even if not heard elsewhere, even if it goes directly against the policy that the entire weight of this Administration, and a trillion dollarrs, has gone into promoting.

Of course, had you said that you were in the military, but had then added that you had been in the military as an intelligence officer, with long experience of Muslims and of Islam, that your specialty was sectarian and ethnic fissures within the Camp of Islam, and that furthermore, your experience had made you immune to taqiyya-nonsense, and your military discipline had imbued you with a sense of mission that made you incorruptible in other ways -- so that you could not be bought, like so many of those former diplomats, journalists, Congressmen, businessmen, and public relations men who form that small and permanent army of Western hirelings of the Saudis, and who have not only prevented for 30 years any sound measures being taken to diminish dependence on oil, but have prevented any intelligent apprehension of Islam or even awareness of the slow islamization of Western Europe. That would have made mention of your service not only relevant, but important in laying claim to some voctational authority about the matters at hand. That would, in other words, have been another thing altogether.

THw5kds wrote:
Awake, I would define the mission as insuring the survival of western civilization.

That is exactly the type of nonsensical answer I expected, for there really is none other possible. The embarassing part of that statement, although expressing much needed heartfelt concern, is that it is does not contain even a semblance of a military strategy.

Just think about the Sargeants or Lieutenants or Captains or whoever coordinates these things, telling the troops at their command, "We are here, to insure the survival of Western civilization." The next logical question from everyone would be, "OK, so what do we do, what's our objective, how do we accomplish that?" Military operations always have objectives. What is the SPECIFIC objective of the current ground operation in Iraq? To secure Baghdad temporarily? To secure it indefinately? To kill every Muslim male in Iraq? What SPECIFICALLY is it?? As a 22-year veteran of the military, or so you say, you should be able to put forth your opinion at least in this matter.

Open-ended expenditures of military and economic resources, without a specific military objective, is fallacious, and that is what we have in Iraq currently. When the US stormed the beaches of Normandy in WWII, the specific objective was to remove the German military front-line and allow for our support force to enter Europe via that newly created opening, in relative safety. It was NOT laid out to the troops who were asked to perform that mission as "defeat Germany and preserve the American way of life." As a career military man, you should know that.

Defining the current "mission" in Iraq as "insuring the survival of western civilization", is as useless as the ham-hander-in-chief's words, who utters such sensationalist drivel, devoid of any context and impossible to employ.

If Hugh's position of simply withdrawing, allowing the natural progression of Islamic in-fighting between the sects is incorrect, explain why, military man. Provide a feasible, and more importantly, a SPECIFIC "mission" objective, one which has a beginning and an end. Hugh's strategy is easily achievable, with a deminimus additional cost to what has already been vested, and is militarily sound. It is also quite specific. Please provide a SPECIFIC alternative.

Defining the "mission" as, "insuring the survival of western civilization", isn't quite up to snuff, now is it?

The only thing more infuriating in this particular situation than the conservatives erroneously labeling those who endorse the withdrawal of US ground forces in Iraq as "cut and run cowards", is those very same conservatives who profess that we should "stay the course" no matter what, at all costs, with nary a clue on how to win this war and ever be able to withdraw.

Edmund Fitzgerald,

That was a very eloquent description of the writing style of Hugh. With "big ego and small penis" comments aside, what was conspicuously absent from your loquacious critique of him, was actually pointing out that he is wrong about anything, regarding the subject of Islam.

His "rants" about pulling out of Iraq have been going on for a few years now, yet you choose this opportunity to first point it out, while simultaneously not refuting his position at all, just refuting the way he relays it.

Hugh's point and comment was valid. If one professes their expertise in an area, then one should be able to back it up. Defining the "mission" in Iraq as, "insuring the survival of western civilization", falls short coming from someone who makes that claim. If one does not want to be respected as an authority in an area, one will not state his credentials as a qualifier in that area.

His "disdain", as you put it, for others, by not referring to them by name, belies your specific resentment of him. One does not have to read every word of Hugh's posts to get his message. As a matter of fact, he posts from his archives more than generating new ones, because what he says, he has said, ad nauseum, in the past.

Hugh is not here to befriend you. If you need self-assurance, and a direct bond with someone or something, then get a dog.

I bid you farewell, for I "fear" that you are not long for this particular virtual world. Your attack was baseless, unless of course your upset because Hugh hasn't invited you over for tea yet.

Apparently there was a posting, now removed (not by me), that I would have enjoyed responding to. Oh well.

Hugh,

It wasn't worth your time. It was waaaaaay off-topic.

Regards.