Many believe, as a poster recently implied here, that the "source" of the "flood of jihadis that has swept over the globe" is Iraq. But is that really true? Is Iraq really more of a "source" than Saudi Arabia, or the "Palestinian"-held territories, or Pakistan?
The "source" is not one place, one region. The "source" is a series of texts: Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. They can create jihadis in all the places, all the nations, all the societies of the globe, and within Western cities. They can create jihadis even in non-Muslim or ex-Muslim families. They can create jihadis out of lone individuals "refinding" their Islam in a student apartment complex in Chapel Hill, or in an engineer’s office in Portland. The texts -- they're the "source."
How will keeping American troops in Iraq for years to come (at what incredible, hideous, unbelievable expense -- a squandering of men, money, and materiel), help halt or reverse the islamization, through demography and Da'wa, of large parts of Western Europe? Is it inconceivable that in a decade France, Great Britain, and other countries will have their foreign policies totally in thrall to Muslim voters? Is it inconceivable that a few decades after that, the armories of our West European allies will be accessible to Muslims who will have actually been encouraged by Western governments to join the military and the police forces, in order to better "integrate" into Western societies -- and that many will do, but not for the benign purposes assumed by those pushing them? And is it not possible, is it not already being seen, that there are grave threats that they might lay their hands on some of the weaponry that the Western Infidel states have acquired for their own use? In other words, rather than merely stealing nuclear plans, as A. Q. Khan did while "working" in laboratories in Germany and the Netherlands and brought them back for Pakistani production of bombs, Muslim citizens of Infidel lands can slowly infiltrate. And they are encouraged, in a sense, by Western governments to do so, as they smile, and smile. And at any point -- we have no idea when -- if they do not already feel keenly their loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya, then they may recover that loyalty. Something may trigger it, and we helpless, hapless, terminally trusting Western publics will realize only too late.
But many still want to stick it out for years in Iraq. You want to spend another trillion dollars there, instead of on energy projects at home to cut off the money weapon that is so essential to the worldwide Jihad?
No. That money needs to be better spent. Those American soldiers should not be getting in the way of Al-Qaeda killing those "Rafidite dogs" (as they call the Shi'a), nor of those Shi'a militia doing their own revenge killing, forcing Sunnis out of Baghdad. In the end it will be a standoff: the Sunnis will not be able to retake Baghdad or the Shi'a lands, and the Shi'a have no desire to take over Anbar Province, but will merely go off on their own, with the big prize of Baghdad.
And in the north, the Kurds and Arabs (of both kinds, but mainly the Sunnis) will no doubt go at it. And there, for geopolitical not sentimental reasons, there are ways for the Americans to aid the Kurds -- and to extract a few promises. The Kurds should agree to protect the Christians, the Assyrians in the northern villages, giving them the means to protect themselves or guaranteeing their safety, if only in order to keep receiving American weaponry.
Google a few cut-and-runners, will you? Google the name "General Sir Michael Rose." Google the name "Major General John Batiste." Look at their faces, read what they say.
Their fury at the waste in Iraq is correct. Where they do go wrong -- and it is understandable -- is to use the word "defeat." The Americans have not been "defeated" in Iraq. The only thing that has been "defeated" is the Bush Administration, with its absurd Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project (a phrase I notice Mustafa Akyol has now copied, in his Washington Times piece, in order to apply it to Turkey).
Now google "Jihad Watch" and "Hugh Fitzgerald" and "Victory" and "Iraq" and see what articles come up. And then see if, in truth, as one of them says, Victory Lies Shining Before Us.
But only if we get out. And this the Administration cannot admit. How, after such expense and squandering, can they do it? How can they admit they were wrong? They just can't. Too much permanent egg on too many faces. Too many loyalists (see National Review, see My Weekly Standard, see see see) who have stood staunchly and idiotically in favor of whatever the Administration does in Iraq.
How do you define "victory" in Iraq? Here's how I define it: an outcome which will weaken the Camp of Islam, by dividing and demoralizing forces within it, so that non-Muslims will no longer be as threatened as they are now by the Jihad. Do you think another trillion dollars, and remaining in Iraq to dodge enemies, now on this side, now on that, meanwhile preventing those enemies from inflicting too much harm on each other, is the way to go? Do you think keeping 150,000 hostages to potential Iranian retaliation, in case of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, makes sense?
What kind of "victory" in Iraq does the Administration now envision? How will a unified Iraq, a prosperous Iraq, help us resist the worldwide Jihad? In any case, neither is possible at this point unless we are prepared to keep it together with our army, and more tens or hundreds of billions in aid. I don't want a single dollar more given to Iraq, not one more dollar to be siphoned off by those in various ministries, past masters at grand theft of American taxpayers' money.
Don't, please, merely parrot the party-line. Think this through. In other words, do what very few in Washington have managed to do, in the hectic vacancies of their meetings and schemings, over the past five years.
Great article, thanks,
Right, I agree, there's no "defeat." How are we supposed to reign in a people who have been barbarians since the 7th Century up to the present? Whose religious texts support barbarism?
Oh, but excuse me. I forgot that all civilizations on the planet are "equal." Forgive me.
Hugh-
How many times in life what is seen at a given time as "defeat" turns out to be opportunity by another name. However, when something does not work, we often hold unto it the tighter because we don't want to admit we are mistaken. Our ego is often our worst enemy.
We stay in Iraq and the jihadists scream they have beaten us. We leave Iraq and the jihadists scream they have beaten us. The hell with what THEY say.
Let's do what's right for us, not for the the ummah. Let's just leave them to their murderous selves. In the end, it will be that bunch who will be the losers.
Hugh has good analysis today and is on a roll with several good articles. His basic point on Iraq is correct.
The question now is how to use the military victory in 2003. If we want to deal with Iran by ground invasion, we should use Iraq. If we are going to let Iran have nukes, we have to consider future scenarios. Are we going to let Iran take the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Will they foment revolutions there?
Why do we let Pakistan build up nukes? Pakistan has a sub shipyard built by France. It is working on new nukes that will go on missiles on subs. Pakistan has about 30 billion in debt. Countries like Pakistan and Iran have to sell what arms they make to finance them. Russia, China, France, and the US sell arms to support their industries, so must Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
Some say Bush invaded Iraq to get Saddam because of the attempt on his father's life. In 1999, Bush talked about vendettas in politics. See:
Bush Speaks of Perot and Buchanan Acting in 'Vendetta'
It may be that Bush Jr had 2 vendettas when he became president. One was to get Saddam. The other was his resentment at Buchanan and Perot voters who betrayed his father in the 1992 election. If they had stayed "loyal" to Bush Sr., daddy would not have had the humiliating defeat.
Bush Jr. now is bent on his amnesty and increased immigration plan. Is this revenge on the Buchanan Perot voters of 1992 and 2000?
Has Bush simply tuned out on the Middle East because he is focused on his other revenge, on Buchanan Perot voters from 1992?
Buchanan in 1992 and 2000 was for immigration restriction, because that is what his voters wanted and needed. Bush ignored warnings before 9-11 and has done nothing to protect the country since. Is that because protecting Buchanan Perot voters is not Bush's goal, but to have revenge on them by the immigration that harms them in wages and prosperity?
The economic harm of immigration on wages and income inequality is reviewed below with links to data sources.
Are the Lou Dobbs Democrats the Buchanan and Perot voters of 1992 and 2000? Is that all Bush thinks about now, his second revenge on these voters for betraying his father in 1992 and deserting Bush Jr. in 2000?
The Senate is doing a secret amnesty deal. Call your Senator and say no to amnesty. You will be stopping Bush's second vendetta.
Missing Link
A Nation of Lou Dobbs Democrats
Correct! There are many ways to skin this beast but as long as we tie down x number of forces there we cannot do anything.
Once again a great article that needs to be read.
They can create jihadis out of just anyone. Islam has been the greatest brainwashing schemes ever, so much so that a Muslim overrides reason to believe in the Koran.
Which brings us to the point that the mind is everything, and psychology should be the basis of the war against Islam.
"we often hold unto it the tighter because we don't want to admit we are mistaken. Our ego is often our worst enemy."
-- from a posting above
Have you heard Bernard Lewis (he just recently of Libya), unrepentantly telling us yet again that things are going not at all badly in Iraq (his "friends" with whom he is "in contact" tell him so), ever publicly admit that he was wrong, completely wrong, in his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords? Has he ever said this publicly to those audiences of adorers and acolytes? Has he gone further, and explained what it was that caused him to be wrong? Was it merely a misreading of Arafat, or was it perhaps a misreading of...Islam itself and the effect of Islam, on the minds of men. Was it possibly a misunderstanding, in the end, of mistaking Prince Hassan (friend, host, patron) for being a "representative" man, and furthermore misunderstanding Prince Hassan's smooth exterior, and that philippe-de-montebello plumby voice, and all the rest of it, just as later Lewis would be fooled by those Shi'a-in-exile friends of his (and how many notables come a-calling to Lewis in Princeton, to be graciously offered coffee or tea at his house, to view his library, and his artifacts, and to appreciate, as only an Arab or Turk can appreciate, as knowledgeable connoisseurs, both those books and artifacts, but also, just as importantly, the linguistic gifts and sallies of Lewis (and there is no vanity like intellectual vanity -- one wants to be appreciated at the right level, and while Lewis is content, for such things, with fit audience, though few, he is also, at the same time, eager to have his books tranlated into Arabic, Farsi, Turkish -- which may help to explain why his books are written, here and there, in an allusive, almost aesopian manner when it comes to Muslim misrule, or Muslim failures owed to Islam itself, and certainly it is hard to understand why he devotes almost no attention at all to one of the biggest subjects of all, the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule).
Lewis will never explain why he was wrong about the Oslo Accords. He will never explain what he misread, and allowed others to misread -- those others being Cheney, Bush, and all the rest -- but instead provided intellectual authority, as they saw it, for what they failed to recognize was their considreable ignorance about Islam and about Iraq. Google "Paul Wolfowitz: After Such Ignorance, What Forgiveness?" for one example.
And the same can be said for the nostrums offered by others as a "solution" to this or that. Since the dissemination of the idea that we can and should put our faith in "moderate Muslims" is already shown to be dangerous (see that American mosque-building in Afghanistan, or Sarkozy's previously-declared intention to build government-funded "moderate" mosques which will do wonders in France) vindication of this "moderate Muslim" business, it is not merely quibbling to want that idea not merely slyly elided, but publicly dropped, and dropped by its promoter(s) with an accompoanying analysis of why it is wrong.
For if the best way to contain Islam is to force Muslims themselves to recognize -- and they will only begin to recognize en masse when Infidels everywhere have recognized it first -- that the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states, of Muslim societies, of Muslim groups even in Dar al-Islam, are a direct result of Islam itself, Islam with its inculcated habit of inshallah-fatalism, and submission, political submission, and what is still worse, the habit of mental submission. Those who tell us that we should rely on "moderate Muslims" are undercutting, fatally, the possibility of such a forthright manner, the most effective manner, of putting Islam, and Muslims, on the intellectual and moral defensive, which is exactly where they deserve to be.
And that is why it is a necessary task to expose the dangeous nostrums, such as Lewis's "either we bring them freedom or they will destroy us" (a self-evidently bizarre idea, demonstrating the full folly of the Tarbaby Iraq venture).
Old Atlantic, I don't believe Bush is pro-immigration to avenge his father's Presidential loss in 1992. He and his brother surround themselves with Mexicans and Cubans and it was the Cubans who helped elect him in 2000. Jeb is married to a Mexican, and his business partner in real estate development is Cuban.
Regarding this article, the jihadi's are indoctrinated everywhere. In the Catskills there is an Islamic style training camp consisting entirely of black Americans complete with burqa wearing women. The surrounding residents are fearful, yet our government does nothing to shut it down. Many Muslim recruits come from prisons and are black. Let's not forget the Nation of Islam which was founded by black Americans. The next wave of attacks could very well conceivably consist of black Americans trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
All this proves the intelligence analysts were right that we're fighting a new type of Al Qaeda-like split up in splinter groups that will plan attacks on their own.
Are the Lou Dobbs Democrats the Buchanan and Perot voters of 1992 and 2000?
from a posting by Old Atlantic
I would guess that many Lou Dobbs Democrats were Clinton/Gore Democrats in 1992 and 2000. Buchanan especially ran against Bush 41 in 1992. Most Dems got behind Clinton when Perot pulled out and they never looked back. It took a while for the dangers to the economy to be fully realized.
Many Buchanan and Perot voters are Lou Dobbs Republicans. Their views are discounted and they are ignored by the GOP. Republicans think they can afford to ignore us because they figure that no matter how bad the GOP candidate will be for Americans, the Democratic candidate will be ten times worse and so we'll stay in the fold. That won't last.
Bonniea your points are well considered, but what about the Fort Dix Six?
From NYT article linked to above:
quote
''I've always thought the 1992 campaign was hard for my dad to get traction in the race because of, first, Patrick J. Buchanan, and then Ross Perot inflicted a series of cuts,'' Mr. Bush said in a response to questions at a news conference in a two-day campaign swing in this state. ''If the adage is true -- you die a death of a thousand cuts in politics -- Ross Perot was a part of the thousand cuts.''
Mr. Bush's display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan was unusual in a campaign in which Mr. Bush has tried to strike an accommodating tone to win over a broad spectrum of voters.
end quote
PMK, your comments also are well considered, but in 1992, Perot got 18 percent. Bill Clinton never got over 50 percent, not in 1992 and not in 1996.
William Jefferson Clinton 43.0%
George H. W. Bush 37.4%
H. Ross Perot 18.9%
wiki 1992 Presidential results
1996 election results wiki
Clinton 49.2
Dole 40.7
Perot 8.4
So Clinton picked up 6 percentage points from 1992 to 1996 from Perot. That is one way to define or measure Democrat votes.
In 2000:
Clerk House PDF
Florida page 13:
Republican (Bush) 2,912,790
Democrat (Gore) 2,912,253
Reform (Buchanan) 17,484
Bush won, officially, by 537 votes. Buchanan got 17,484 votes. So if Buchanan had not run, Bush would have won without the recount mess.
Thus the Buchanan Perot vote undermined Bush Sr. in 1992, betrayed them in Bush Jr's mind it appears, and in 2000 Buchanan voters were far larger than the difference that caused the recount mess.
In 1992 and 2000, Buchanan and Perot were anti-immigration because it harms their voters' prosperity and economic security.
War? I don't see a war. The American, a few days after entering Iraq, secured one of the fastest victories in the history of war. It is what happened afterwards that has misguided commentaries toying with variations on "defeat". Following the short and successful war the Americans quickly learned that what little plans they had for transition to peace and democracy were enormously inadequate for the situation on the ground -- they hadn't done their homework.
What has happened in Iraq after the very brief and well-executed (though I maintain quite illegal) war has been a long, protracted, large scale police action. The U.S. military, which is well-equipped to fight winning wars, has been struggling to retool to manage nuicance attacks on their own troops while putting out fires arising from disputes that have little to do with them. They may have won the war, but they are losing the peace.
I think we have to give the U.S. administration high marks for good intentions and willingness to sacrifice with no hope of return. But low marks for wisdom and doing their homework. It was obvious before the U.S. went in that this thing would blow up and become a regional football, and perhaps almost as obvious that the American military are not tooled for the kind of police action needed. Not only untooled but perhaps unequipped in terms of the nasty requirements of quelling centuries-old hatred and rivalry. It would take another Sadaam to put the lid back on this Pandora's box ... but the Americans are not ethically equipped to go there (and I am not morally equipped to say they should ... perhaps they should just either get out or get more protectionist within the country -- along the lines Daniel Pipes has repeatedly suggested -- and let the locals sort it out.)
"I think we have to give the U.S. administration high marks for good intentions and willingness to sacrifice with no hope of return."
-- from a posting above
"High marks" for "good intentions"? High marks for a "willingness to sacrifice with no hope of return"?
No, and No.
Intentions don't count. The "intentions" were idiotic. The "intentions" were based on such phrases as "war on terror" and "handful of extremists" and "religion of peace" and "ordinary moms and dads." Intentions? Hell. With. Paved.
As for this "willingness to sacrifice with no hope of return" -- who is sacrificing? Bush and Cheney, the draft-dodgers? The sons of this or that Pentagon muckamuck whom I will not, at this point, name? Who is "sacrificing," out of whose hide, comes the $880 billion, with no ability of the eager-to-do-nothing-to-offend-Saudi-Arabia rulers of our state to pry a few hundred billion loose from the Sauids and other rich Arabs?
In "Hamlet" Shakespeare has a character who claims he is being "cruel only to be kind." You have decided to reverse the sentiment. You are being too kind to some (those who, ignorant of Islam and of Iraq, continue to cling to Tarbaby Iraq out of embarrassed and confused obstinacy), and in so doing, are being cruel to the rest of us, those who had nothing to do with the folly, those who have finally recognized the folly, and those who understood all along -- all two or three of us -- why it was always folly, and folly not for the reasons adduced by the cindy-sheehans of this world.
"Kind only to be cruel."
You left out Nader - if it wasn't for him, Algore would have carried the state.
Time to look beyond Bush. Round 2 of the GOP debate is tonight. Start supporting the candidates most openly anti-Jihad, rather than the ones who seem good i.e. prefer Romney or Tancredo over someone like Fred Thomson, whose views on this are unknown, or Giuliani, who is one step shy of making the connection between Islam and Jihad.
Hugh
We didn't review round one - can you put up a post tonight reviewing Round 2 of the GOP debate, particularly if several questions about Jihad/Islam get around?
Anywhere there is a Koran, there is Jihad.
Infidel Pride, you are right that Nader helped make the difference, but this exercise is holding everything else the same, would Buchanan's voters have made the difference in 2000. Holding Nader's vote the same, Buchanan's vote would have spared Bush the post 2000 election mess.
While its true that Nader mattered. Bush in the NYT article linked to above had already said in 1999,
quote
''I've always thought the 1992 campaign was hard for my dad to get traction in the race because of, first, Patrick J. Buchanan, and then Ross Perot inflicted a series of cuts,'' Mr. Bush said in a response to questions at a news conference in a two-day campaign swing in this state.
end quote.
So even before Nov 2000, Bush had a "festering resentment" against Buchanan that he had already articulated.
Old Atlantic, It would have been interesting to see who would have won if Perot were not on the ballot in 1992 and Buchanan not on the ballot in 2000, and someone above pointed out Nader. It's just my belief the Bushes are pro-immigrant for personal reasons, Jeb more so than George. George probably does it because of big business wanting cheap labor. I recall Bush, Sr. calling his grandchildren half breeds or something along those lines which was quite shocking to me.
Regarding Fort Dix Six, they were born Muslim and went to a radical mosque here. And please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all American converts are blacks in prison, just predominantly seems that way. You're not going to see some well adjusted normal American suddenly converting to Islam, but primarily more so those that don't feel they fit in society and have a criminal mindset, and have found a common place in which to lash out at society. Of course this is all from a psychological point of view, but if we could find statistics on this, I think you'll find I'm correct in my assumptions.
Cordially,
Bonnie
"Sarkozy's previously-declared intention to build government-funded "moderate" mosques... "
Personally, I have grave reservations and outright fears with respect to Sarkozy. Sarkozy has expressed interest in making Islam no different from other major religions (thus, there would be funding, tax-payers monies going to fund mosques.) There are other indications that Sarkozy would move France toward a less rigourous secular state -- I think that's a very dangerous notion.
Bonniea,
Thanks for your comments.
Cordially
Old Atlantic
In a sense, nothing has really changed, despite the Iraq and Afghanistan ventures. We still are good buddies with the Saudis, we still do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and pressure Israel to make concessions, even more so now that Iraq is a problem (Condi Rice's latest laundry list was labeled a "benchmark for a bloodbath" by Evelyn Gordon, a jpost.com editorialist), and we still haven't taken decisive steps about energy. I should also add that we also have very open borders, and a growing presence of jihadist para-military camps in the US.
Maybe President Bush really thinks Islam is the religion of peace, and we just have to create the right conditions to make its good nature shine through.
Well, things are still in the beginning stages of the anti-jihad, as Churchill would have put it, the end of the beginning.
The following article makes the argument that it was the Perot voter who voted the Democrats into control of Congress in 2006.
Perot’s Revenge
"Put simply, 2006 saw the return of the Perot voter: economically populist, socially moderate voters with highly nationalist tendencies. Had the Democrats not courted candidates who fit this mold in a number of high profile races, Republicans would almost certainly control the Senate right now if not the House. Democratic candidates like Webb, McCaskill, Casey, and Tester all won by appealing to this specific group of voters who found themselves once again disenchanted with a Republican Party led by a president named Bush."
"My guess is this group is also anti-free trade and strongly opposed to the president’s immigration plan. Again, Perotism rises 14 years later to defeat another guy named Bush."
"The new Democratic majority has these voters to thank for its ascendancy. Without their votes in the industrial north, west, and midwest, Republicans would still be in charge.
... This gives Republicans a real shot at winning these voters back if the Boxerites take over the party the way they did after these same Perot types voted Democrat back in 1992 and watched as the party veered to the far left."
Note, the odd question marks in the original were edited out.
Buchananites, Perot Voters, Nader Greens, Lou Dobbs Democrats. The name changes but the dissatisfaction with the two headed monster stays the same? And its because of bipartisan opposition to the American people on immigration, jihad, etc? The bipartisan jihad on the middle class is finally catching up with the two party duopoly as Nader calls it?
Although I agree with Hugh to stop expending lives and dollars to keep the mess called "Iraq" glued together. There is a different outlook on that--different from Hugh's and the Bush Administration's--that is worth looking at.
Although this outlook does not appear to stop our bleeding dollars and lives in trying to keep the "Iraqi government" and a functioning independent "Iraq" viable, it makes the case for not allowing "Iraq" to turn into a Sunni-Shi'ite battleground not "partition" as a solution.
The third approach to the "Iraq" problem does present another dimension and deserves study and critique.
It can be found at
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/05/iraq-should-we-go-or-should-we-stay.html