Fitzgerald: The Duty of Due Diligence

Robert,

Ya know what your problem is?
You use too much common sense for the politically correct brownshirts to comprehend, or accept.
It goes way over their heads, if not straight through that empty cranial vault of theirs.
Just an observation, my Friend.
All the best!

jcom972:

Thanks, but I didn't write this, Hugh Fitzgerald did.

And contrary to hysterical claims by libellers, we are not the same person -- as anyone who met us both at the last Restoration Weekend can attest.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Nice article. Mostly pellucid (except perhaps when Mr. Fitzgerald employs, for reasons unclear to me, those long, convoluting subclauses he sometimes favors over the beauty of immediate clarity and presence), the piece conveys in a quiet, gentle tone astonishing, little known, central facts, and a calm, resonating call to intellectual arms.

Hugh your points as usual are well taken. l have read other posts of JW readers who are labelled racists, and other disgusting labels.
but we must all percist, l have told one of brothers the one who is now retired teacher, aka typical blame the west person, what kind of a world does he want to leave to his children.
he is smug like so many leftist, saying the muslims are no threat, blah,blah. With the facts you and Robert and others give us here, l can use for my arguments l can see making progress within my circle of friends, family and co-workers.

Well, looks like I stand corrected! LOL
I didn't even look...well, kudos to both!
(sorry, Hugh, "alzheimers moment!" lol j/k)

I can tell you two are not the same...both of you have a distinctively different style in presentation-only a predisposed hate-filled militant mOslem who doesn't read half the entries anyway would assume such a thing.

The main difference with Hugh is that some of his takes have minute details I would normally take issue with, but prove to do so would be so trivial that it's not worth dwelling over in favor of the general message, so I give him the benefit of the doubt in the end as that is more important.

I only missed this one because I'm getting ready to close out, been working for 21 hours straight,glad it's Friday (3 day weekend for me), and didn't bother to look at the author...totally my screwup.
lol

Time to recharge the batteries...it's almost 4:30am here in CA...later all, and thanks. Seeya in a few hours.

Hugh-

I am often surprised at how many people do know what Islam is about, that it is a system of rationalization that permits exploitation, abuse and even the killing of unbelievers. The sneering supremacism of Muslims looks more and more sick and contemptible to non-Muslims. It is the engine of Arab Imperialism. I'll bet, deep down, even Crane Bob-Square Pants knows that. (I'll bet Henry K and Alexander Haig have a few choice adjectives and adverbs to describe Crane Bob-Square Pants, the former Nixon adviser.)

"This is the only feat of derring-do you are being asked to perform: study, study, study. Not all night, not all day. But enough so that you understand what Islam is all about, so that you cannot be fooled in conversation, and so that you may, through letters, through discussions, through phoning in to those PBS talk shows run by Lord Haw Haws and Tokyo Roses, get the truth through."

Superb stuff

For anyone that accepts this Duty, be prepared -- you will not be as popular at parties anymore, you will get a few "hate" emails and personal attacks on your blog comments, and yes, you might even get a nutcase, Marxist or closet Islamist or two taking the time to discuss your Duty on their own blogs as something quite the opposite from reality.

Fascists call me a fascist all the time.

Oh, and as the crew here at JW is also so aware, you might even face censorship.

Yes, this is still the Free World that most of us live in, but some days I find myself wondering...

traeh:

I love Hugh's writing style, every bit of it. There is nothing "convoluted" in it. He can carry on a complicated thought, yes, but that is not "convoluted". He is one of the few writers around who can mange to be engagingly erudite without sounding arrogant, gratuitous or pompous.

For example, he would not, I believe, use a pretentious and ugly word like "pellucid"; there may be a spot for that word, but I have yet to see it, and the many times I have seen it, it was stuck in there to make the writer seem smart.

Hugh also happens to be witty. Some of his phrases or way of putting things is just laugh out loud funny. Folks should read his astonishingly brilliant Joycean rendering of George Bush's deep thoughts, from a while back. It was hilarious. And I think it was actually that piece which made me realize how lucky this man is on our side.

Hugh said:

This is the only feat of derring-do you are being asked to perform: study, study, study. Not all night, not all day. But enough so that you understand what Islam is all about, so that you cannot be fooled in conversation, and so that you may, through letters, through discussions, through phoning in to those PBS talk shows run by Lord Haw Haws and Tokyo Roses, get the truth through.

Here's a starter for all of you, very easy:

Known apologist Stephen Suleyman Schwartz (one of my tribe gone terribly whacky????) published this article in the American Thinker:

Moderate Islam and Its Muslim Enemies

Those interested in examining the essential principles of mainstream Islam are welcome to consult a defining summation of them, almost 1,100 years old and known as "Aqida al-Tahawiyya," accessible in English here. One of its concluding clauses is an excellent statement of Islamic reason and moderation: "Islam lies between going to excess and falling short... between determinism and freewill, and between sureness and despair."

Question. Schwartz links to the Aqida al-Tahawiyya and quotes its closing clause to show that Islam is moderate by definition. Use the same ancient text to show directly and indirectly that Schwartz's claim doesn't hold water. Read through the entire text carefully. There are several clauses that are relevant to the answer.

For those that ask, this is an open book test. :)

Thx, Hugh.
Knowledge is power. It's the weapon that can finally defeat Jihad, which is all about power, but based on superstition and money.

Study, yes. But it matters WHAT you study. The most learned people I know believe that islam is peaceful and that Christianity is just as violent. A contradiction that they don't hear as they say it. They read and memorize and can quote but they don't think. And since they all seem to study under muslim professors how can they get an unbiased view? When the professors label Spencer a racist and they buy right in.

They don't question when they read Armstrong. Or Swartz. When the newspapers print a charming article by a muslim talking about equality in islam, fairness for all people and tolerance, they say 'See!"

My local library will not carry any book not approved by certain reviewers. Even rejecting donated books unless approved. It does carry the public broadcasting Empires of Faith DVD. It leaves out everything negative about islam. If I had watched that before 9/11 I would have converted, if I had been looking for a religion (which I am not). Will they carry What The West Needs To Know? Unlikely.

Foehammer- Not popular at parties? Not even invited is more like it. And rejected by family if I even bring it up.

Call me The Fanatic.

Fan-of-Hugh

BorgWatcher/Still watching the Borg infiltrate

Hugh wrote:
"What should this duty be called? Let us say: the Duty of Due Diligence. We are being asked to accept a "merger" of our civilization with that of Islam, without knowing very much about Islam."

Anyone with any capitalistic sensibility at all cannot ignore the simple, straightforward, irrefutable logic that Hugh has put forth here with that offering.

Nice angle, and nicely done.

Hugh.

Well written and right on target. You and Mr. Spencer are helping to create the intellectual framework from which this war against Islam will be fought. But I believe that it will be eventually fought in real time combat on the ground. Where is the question? I am not pessimistic but merely realistic.

In fact, Bush - though a poor leader - is doing exactly the right thing in Iraq. By keeping the troops in Iraq, he is tying down the Muslims. I am a believer that every round spent there is one less spent here.

This scenario has been played out before. It is much like Grant holding Lee fast, while Sherman came in from behind. The only problem is that I do not know who our Sherman is. Only time will tell. The present, Grant, Bush, and America of 1864 have several things in common. Bush and Grant had past drinking problem and have a willingness to fight. Both men were and are poor oral communicators. An important distinction is that today we have no Lincoln who can lead while we have a very restive public. If the Democrats had won the elections in 1864, it is quite likely that we would have two countries today. In short we need verbal leadership and a sallying forth into Iran and Syria. One can try to educate the American people all one wants, it will not make one iota difference until the boots are on the ground killing the right people.

Read Victor Hanson's latest on his website. I would put his academic and stylistic prowess up against any writer here. A premature withdrawal from Iraq would be a military disaster of such proportion as to be a very, very serious threat to our national security. As Grant said at the end of his magnificently written "Memoirs", "To have peace prepare for war."

An important distinction is that today we have no Lincoln who can lead while we have a very restive public.

Posted by: Crusader at July 20, 2007 8:49 AM

There can only be one driver.

Most business mergers result in one survivor and the other being cut off at the knees, eventually disappearing altogether.

I wonder, will muslims wear lederhosen? Celebrate Octoberfest?

Can Harry Potter books survive in a muslim world?

Borg wrote:
"Not popular at parties? Not even invited is more like it. And rejected by family if I even bring it up."

Hmmmm. Maybe you should try a slightly different approach, change your delivery. All you need to do is get people thinking of one particular thing about Islam, something that piques their interest, then hammer that point home. That, with a suggestion to seek alternate news sources should do the trick. The Islamists will validate your claims each and every day by their actions.

My approval rating amongst friends and family seems to be rising, then again, they could just be taking the path of least resistence, yes-yessing me to death just to get me out of their face.

For anyone that accepts this Duty, be prepared -- you will not be as popular at parties anymore,

posted by foehammer

Au Contraire!
I've found that I've become the "go-to" guy regarding all things muhammedan.

Right on Hugh.

And stay in Iraq, and keep killing Al Qaida jihadis.

And if it's muslim "royalty" thats got to go, so be it,and amen.

The best jihadi is a dead one.

(the worst is the one receiving tacit support from the umma)

I only wish that those in power would practice "the Duty of Due Diligence."

Recently, there have been some incidents which illustrate a total lack of "due diligence." Two examples.

First, the BBC allowed to remain on its comments page an antisemitic rant. (See Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2007, "BBC won't remove anti-Semitic posting".) It was obviously antisemitic, yet the editors refused to recognize it as such. But, then, I guess that's par for the course for the antisemitic BBC.

Then, in today's National Post, there's a report on the Vision TV cable channel which broadcasts once a week a program entitled: "Dill, Dill Pakistan." (I believe I've mentioned this program on other posts -- that is, how Vision TV broadcasts offensive material yet refuses to recognize it as such.)

Anyway, from the National Post article ("Vision TV defends airing 'jihad' lecture" by Stewart Bell) the "preacher" for Jihad is known to advocate the "global domination of Islam" (along with antisemitic rantings), the desire to turn Pakistan into a Fundamentalist State, has "followers in Canada" which include a "terror suspect" (said suspect apparently wanted to detonate truck bombs in Toronto), and, of course, heads up a "self-described 'revolutionary organization' called Tanzeem-e Islami." Then, on the tv show in question the "preacher" advocated for jihad -- "Jihad in the way of Allah, for the cause of Allah, can be pursued either with your financial resources or your bodily strength when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield."

Vision TV has a "code of ethics" which prohibits the broadcast of programs that "incite violence" or provoke or abet "religious or political conflicts."

And, so what is Vision TV's response? The vice president of programming "said the show was screened before it was aired and that no problems were identified." The remainder of what this person said is a laughable joke. (Among other things he said the "preacher" didn't make a direct reference to "the present day or that would reference what a practitioner of Islam should do today." yeah...riiight..)

So much for expecting "due diligence" from the higher ups...

We have one huge handicap that due diligence cannot overcome: the individual.

Throughout the Cold War Russia was our enemy but we met many individuals from Russia who wanted only to live in the West and enjoy its benefits and contribute to its future. They were a bridge between the two sides.

We were told the bin Ladens were a huge family and that most didn't think much of their younger sibling. Were they all lying? Then whom in the Muslim world can we trust?

We meet people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Muslims who don't seek our destruction and who desire a better future. We can't turn our backs on them. We learn of the dangers posed by the al-Zawahiris of the world but what do we do when someone we meet says: not all Muslims are like that; I'm not like that?

Our values place the welfare of the individual first. He/she is a human being. No matter how well educated we become we will have a hard time knowing who's who. Is the next Mohammad Atta you meet a killer biding his time or is he an engineer who is well-traveled and desires to live in peace and freedom? Is the next Muslim you see merely a friend you haven't met yet or simply a mass murderer waiting for the moment to make his move? Is there a middle ground between trust and suspicion?

Nothing seems to pique their interest. Do you have a suggestion? Something that seems to work with everyone you've talked to?

I have very multicultural family. They are open to everything and accepting of everyone. As long as it's a positive. Most of them won't watch the news even, because it's negative. That goes all the way from the PhD's to the high school dropouts.

My bringing up the negative is what turns them away, I think. How can I get around that? I've bought books and given them out, nobody reads them. They are too negative. If I bought Armstrong, glowing that she is, that would get read.

The subject only gets brought up by others when there is an attack. A quick joke about someone getting their virgins, everyone laughs and that's the end. No questions allowed. Once one mentioned 64 virgins, one mentioned ten wives. I tried to tell them the correct thing, they look at me like how do I know? Maybe it is my approach?

I have managed to talk to strangers about it though, several times, if there is news on nearby that brings it up while waiting somewhere.

Stephen Sulyman Schwartz - what a wanker !

Wished me a tour in Iraq (is this American or proud ?), and commented that nowadays anyone with a computer thought he was a writer (so what if I didnt do a stint with a lefty San Fran rag).

He has made his bed.

"Right on Hugh. And stay in Iraq, and keep killing Al Qaeda jihadis..."
-- from a posting above

Apparently the poster has chosen to offer general approval ("right on") with specific and total disapproval -- or a deliberate ignoring of -- what I think, have always thought, should happen in Iraq. AQnd that is the exact opposite of his prescrip[tion that the American army "stay in Iraq, and keep killing Al Qaeda jihadists."

Let me repeat: Tarbaby Iraq can result in something like a victory for the United States, and for the common, but as yet unrecognized Camp of Infidels, if and only if the Camp of Islam is weakened. It will not be weakened if the American army is bogged down in Iraq. It will not be weakened if to the $880 billion already spent on this folly still more money is added.

The true cost -- financial cost -- of this war is not understood. Even the critics of the war, such as General MacCaffery, keep using the figure "$400 billion" as if they are permitted to count only what has officially already been spent, and not the costs of replacing desert-degraded or left-behind equipment, not the costs of exiting, not the costs of future lifetime care for ten or twenty thousand wounded, not the costs of now trying to recruit people to the regular and to the citizen army, not the costs.... -- well, if this were all factored in, it would come, as of right now, to $880 billion, exclusive of macroeconomic costs, and that is more than the cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought)general approval, combined with inattention, or deliberate ignoring, of my other prescriptions. "Due Diligence"

There is the human cost -- the cost in lives, the cost in severely wounded. There is the cost to army morale, a morale weakened because too many soldiers, in Iraq, can see for themselves that the problem is not merely "Al Qaeda" but the grasping, meretricious, treacherous "Iraqis" themselves, but the gap between what the soldiers experience (and this or that gunga-dinnish Iraqi officer, with winning ways, should not be confused with the great mass of "Iraqis"), even if they know nothing about Islam and nothing, really, about the history of Iraq's ethnic and sectarian divisions, and the official line of the Administration and the most dutiful unquestioning officers, is part of the problem -- is exactly what diminishes morale among the troops who do take in reality, and do sense that gap, and do realize that the "mission" -- whatever it is and at this point it seems still to be to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, despite the long history of sectarian and ethnic conflict that -- I am certain -- will not be papered over, will not be resolved, will not come to an end no matter what heroic efforts continue to be asked of troops who are paying for the mistakes of the civilians, in all branches of government, unwilling or incapable of learning about Islam and about the history of Iraq.

Had you written "Right on Hugh" and then followed it with "and let's get out of Iraq, as you have been urging since very early in 2004 and thereby exploit the pre-existing fissures, including those between Sunnis and Shi'a, and different camps within each of those, and between the Arabs and non-Arab Kurds" -- then I might not have needed to reply. But you didn't. So I did.

Democrats Kill John Doe Amendment.

Check out the great campaign picture. I saw this on Michelle's site and had to post it. Copy it and email it around. Heck, put it on a t-shirt. That should get everyone's attention.

And contrary to hysterical claims by libellers, we are not the same person -- as anyone who met us both at the last Restoration Weekend can attest.
Cordially Robert Spencer

Why is it libellous to claim that you are Hugh, or that Hugh is you? - implies that one of you are infamous.

Other than it being untrue, of course ;->

Borg,

My intent was not to criticize, but rather re-emphasize your point that people don't listen because they choose not to enbrace the reality of political Islam in motion currently in the West.

"My approval rating amongst friends and family seems to be rising, then again, they could just be taking the path of least resistence, yes-yessing me to death just to get me out of their face."

My apologies if my sarcasm was missed, a poor reflection on my own post, not yours.

Regards,

awake

The due diligence part is easy.

The persuasion part is what gets difficult.

The most virulent opposition I get is from conservatives, particularly when it comes to suggesting that it can be a good thing to leave Iraq and allow those "fissures" to "weaken the Camp of Islam" as Hugh most convincingly argues.

I do not have a large social network so invitations to parties are not at issue. I try to spread the word about global jihad on the internet through other web sites and chat rooms. I concentrate on conservative sites (e.g., townhall, redstate). Liberals are a lost cause. There are too many are like Edwards. They deny there is a global jihad to worry about. At least conservatives recognize there is a problem with Islam, although they insist on limiting the scope of the problem to only those hijackers of a great religion and the extremists.
These people do their due diligence by listening to George "Islam is a Religion of Peace" Bush and his supporters. When you ask what books they have read on the threat of global jihad they say they don't have to know more, "these radicals want to kill us, what else do I need to know?"

I have been called the most vile names by conservatives, most often being accused of treason. You ought to read the comments when I enter a conservative chat room with this same sign-in name- it is quite amazing.

It is so very frustrating. Hugh is correct. Study study study. It is just a matter of taking the time to understand. It is not rocket science but it cannot be learned by spending a half hour each day with Katie Couric or 10 minutes on the car radio shaking your head in agreement with Rush Limbaugh.

Crusader:

Remembering history is not the same thing as drawing the right lessons from it. Some historical parallels are spot on; today the world faces a mortal threat from islam similar to the threat posed by fascism/militarism in the 1930's. Other parallels are transparently false.

You wrote:

"This scenario has been played out before. It is much like Grant holding Lee fast, while Sherman came in from behind. The only problem is that I do not know who our Sherman is. Only time will tell. The present, Grant, Bush, and America of 1864 have several things in common. Bush and Grant had past drinking problem and have a willingness to fight."

The opposing camps in the Civil War were clear. Who are we fighting in Iraq? the enemy, obviously. but who is the enemy? one day it's Al Qaeda in iraq? the next it's sunni militias, or shiite militias, or the iraqi army, or the iraqi police. every possible group, except the Kurds. If the enemy cannot be defined, except by whoever is intent on killing you on a particular day, why are we committing our armed forces?

The superficial similarities betw. bush & Grant need no comment, except to say that a willingness to fight isn't, by itself, a good thing. it depends on the circumstances. in the Civil War, Grant's willingness to fight was a good thing. In WW I, Gen. Douglas Haig's willingness to fight -- to send wave after wave of English youth up against German defenses -- was utter madness. Willingness to fight means nothing without the ability to determine the proper place & time to fight. by all appearances, the various factions in iraq will not be reconciled, which means that if our objective is nation-building, we will be there indefinitely. building a civil society in iraq is simply a bridge too far. are you willing to accept an indefinite presence as the price for killing whoever wants to kill us? if not, then the only sensible move is to withdraw.

Let us first of all do away with certain basic premises. Obviously everyone (with certain exceptions which I will later note) wishes to weaken the House of Islam. Obviously, everyone wishes to see fewer U.S. casualties. Obviously, everyone wishes to see spending/squandering monies reduced or eradicated. These are non issues. (It's equivalent to arguing -- "So, who opposes murder? So, who likes apple pie?") To state "I want to weaken the House of Islam" is not an "argument." What becomes an argument is the question -- "Well, how do you propose to do that, ie, weaken Islam?" This is the point, the contentious "problem."

There was an address made recently to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (July 17). The speaker examined each of the other proposed options -- and concluded that none of the proposed options would weaken Islam -- in fact, the speaker suggests that it would probably do the exact opposite. Quote: "Each [of the proposed options] involves ceding ground to terrorists or to Iranian influence. Each also sends the message that, when faced with terrorism, America runs." [end quote]

The thought that somehow by withdrawing from Iraq, one will "weaken Islam" is fantasy talk. Or to think that suddenly (bingo!!) the Dhimmicrats will look to developing the "fissures" within Islam and use that so as to weaken Islam (again, I have no problems about exploiting an enemy's weaknesses or expanding the fissures -- but, please, the current Dhimmicrat zeitgeist isn't there yet, and it's a fantasy to think they are.) (There are advocates of withdrawl from Iraq (note Cindy Sheehan types) who figure the worst terrorist out there is George Bush and hope for a withdrawl from Iraq so that the U.S. is defeated -- that's what they hope for. And just look at how many times radical Islam, even within the U.S., the CAIR people are given support/assistance by Democrats. So where's this "turn around" in thinking going to come from? Suddenly, everone will "get tough" with Islam, contingent only on a withdrawl from Iraq...yeah, sure. It's a utopian daydream.)

A withdrawl would equal a rout (as I've posted before) you'd get the Islamists hollerin' about having defeated the "Great Satan" in Babylon -- you'd get an Iranian super state (with control of incredible oil resources -- sufficient to easily black mail the world); you'd further the development of an Iranian nuke, etc. etc. NONE of this "weakens islam." As the speaker noted: "There is no way to spin defeat."

So even though the current goings-on in Iraq may be "problematic" or "troublesome" -- this can't be used so as to support an alternative argument which advocates withdrawl. (if you have a list of 10 options, and you go through the list and eliminate all the "loser" options, and you have eliminated 9 of the entries, this does not lend support to option 10. It's still incumbent on the arguer to convince others that option 10 is the best of the lot. for all we know option 10 could also be eliminated, then you'd have to draw up a new list.)

Nope Hugh,
We will win in Iraq.
Despite the Dems and a little wrongheaded reasoning on your part, geopolitics, national interest and real politic require presence and prevailing.
It will happen.
We will prevail.
You can be brilliant and wrong (as against Naseem who is thick and wrong).

Crusader,

Bush does not really have a willingness to fight as you say. His mission has ecolved so many times, it is laughable.

Mission objective timeline:

-Invade Iraq to search for hidden WMD's in violation of multiple UN resolutions.

-Overthrow Hussein's fascist Baathist party regime.

-Allow Iraqi freedom by exporting democracy, which will make us safer here in the US

-Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's who almost all just want freedom.

-Fighting al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, Iranian backed Shia militias because if "we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them over here."

The mission SHOULD have been over the minute Hussein was pulled from his spider hole. Just look at the video clips. Thousands of people in masks with guns running around with the US military policing neighborhoods. Further waste of an already over-taxed infantry.

Since this folly of trying to stabalize Iraq prevents the US from razing the place, we really don't have the will to fight, or at least not the will the Islamists have to kill each other. If they can and will kill each other much faster than we will, why not oblige them. It is after all a war, right?

The de-stabilization of Iraq is the winning move, not spending an eternity unsuccessfully trying to stabilize it. The enemy has still not properly identified and do not wear uniforms.

When you figure out a way to tell the difference between Sunni and Shia on sight, please let me know.

Claiming that I am Hugh is not libellous. It is just nuts, and, if it had not been accompanied by so many actual libels, somewhat amusing.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

"There was an address made recently to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (July 17). The speaker examined each of the other proposed options -- and concluded that none of the proposed options would weaken Islam -- in fact, the speaker suggests that it would probably do the exact opposite. Quote: "Each [of the proposed options] involves ceding ground to terrorists or to Iranian influence. Each also sends the message that, when faced with terrorism, America runs."
-- from a posting above

Yes, this was testimony by Michael Rubin. I thought every single one of its propositions was wrong. The refusal to contemplate a free-for-all in Iraq is prompted, in this and in other cases, not by an analysis of what the benefits would be to the Camp of Infidels, but by a mixture of embarrassment, refusal to see that one was wrong all along (this is paralyzing the Bush Administration and its most fervent loyalists), a queasiness about internecine warfare because of a perceived inability of the Americans not to take the blame -- but surely it is not beyond the wit of those who, for the right reasons, want to leave Iraq now (want to have left it three years ago) to exploit the extensive record of all those "Get Out of Iraq Now" (for the wrong reasons) campaigners, who will, if their wish is granted -- and I have argued that it should be, for quite different reasons -- not be able to then express a feigned horror at the result. Besides, it is unclear what the result will be, but it is clear that the Sunnis will never acquiesce in their loss of power, and the Shi'a will never give the Sunnis what they want, and that, finally, the attitudes of Islam -- the victor/vanquished view of the world -- will keep both sides from making those compromises that American policymakers keep thinking can and will and must be made.

In the end, the mess in Iraq merely expresses the Triumph of Islam - a triumph that will, if only we let it, lead as well to a dividing and demoralizing and therefore to a weakening, of the Camp of Islam.

dgene wrote:
"We will win in Iraq."

Your definition of victory here would be helpful.

J.S. wrote:
"The thought that somehow by withdrawing from Iraq, one will "weaken Islam" is fantasy talk. Or to think that suddenly (bingo!!) the Dhimmicrats will look to developing the "fissures" within Islam and use that so as to weaken Islam (again, I have no problems about exploiting an enemy's weaknesses or expanding the fissures -- but, please, the current Dhimmicrat zeitgeist isn't there yet, and it's a fantasy to think they are.)"

The only fantasy talk around here is a belief that in the absence of killing every male Islamist in the region, that our current limited infantry resources can actually make a damn bit of difference in Iraq over the long haul. We cleaned up Afghanistan, left, and the roaches returned in full-vigor. This is not a video game where we can just hit "play again" if we are unsuccessful.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not preclude an air-strike against Iran. Our resources can best be spent elsewhere. Our presence in Iraq did not prevent the attempted UK bombings or the Glasgow bombing. It isn't stopping the unchecked influx of illegals into the US as we speak either.

Why on God's good Earth would you assume that the democrats have to "work" towards developing the fissures in the Camp of Islam. They already exist. See Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's for recent historical reference.

Simply withdrawing our ground forces is easily achievable and the benefits are nigh impossible to ignore. Your end result would be...?

I read Carmen Bin Laden's book and found it to be a fascinating and easy read. An interesting fact she pointed out that many Saudi's are lesbians and homosexuals because they're not permitted contact with the opposite sex, and also daily life and customs of a Saudi woman.

I also want to point out that many here, namely Hugh, are misinformed about some members of the Saudi Royal family. They are not all extremists and fear Al Qaeda just as much as we do, if not more. While I do not condone or approve of their religion, as I feel it's an evil cult, it's not fair to lump them all in the Jihadi bin. Pre-9/11 I dated several Saudi's from the most prominent families and also met several members of the Royal family. They all love living in our country, with some having permanent residences here for many years. One of them abhors his country and even hates to visit there. None of the ones I met were strict Muslims and they all drink alcohol. In conversation with a Prince, I voiced my concern at the treatment of women in his country. His reply was that they are cherished and protected. I was treated more like a Princess by them compared to the way many American men treat their women. Another surprising thing I noticed is they view blacks and Hispanics as second class citizens.

Another fallacy I wish to point out is that the Bushes are not the only Presidents to have close ties with the Saudi's. ALL of our Presidents have had close relations with that family since the discovery of oil there because our country is dependent upon it. Prince Bandar is very close friends with Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and regards Bush, Sr. as a father figure. The Royal family lives in constant fear of their country being taken over by the extremists and are slowly trying to modernize it without making too many waves. They also employ former Delta Force as their bodyguards. If all of them were truly that horrible, it's doubtful American patriots would work to protect them. I am not making excuses for them, but merely trying to be fair in pointing out facts that many of you do not know.

Ok, Robert. I'm now left concluding that Hugh is Spencer Katz. Or Katt. Or whatever.

.."I have argued that it should be, for quite different reasons -- not be able to then express a feigned horror at the result." And you think they [meaning the Cindy Sheehan types] won't express horror, gnashing of teeth, and extreme angst at the result? Please. They would immediately demand that x, y, and z be charged with "war crimes" and that the doors be thrown open to every and all Islamic "immigration" given the fact that it was "all the fault of the evil United States, and the U.S. owes Muslims, the poor dears, big time." That's the Dhimmi line. (that, as you've noted, is only if one grants the "they'll be at each others throats" analysis. Since this is all about speculating about future events -- I don't know about that being at each others throats...Take southern Iraq -- largely controlled by Iranians right now -- is this a hot bed of violence? Iran has the capabilities (and has done so, from news reports) and has easily squashed rebellions...they just send out their goon squads, and the "rebellion" lasts all of 2 hours or a day. The same was true of Saddam during his reign -- rebellion? heh, no problem...send out the troops. These are not Americans -- they don't fight like Americans -- they're brutal, cruel and repressive...rebellions don't occur for a reason in the Islamic world. They are brutally suppressed. They don't play by Geneva Convention Rules. For most, I'm sure, it's the far smarter stratedy to play along with corrupt Dictator/Mullah leader X.

Another brief consideration. A book was recently published, entitled: "Sabotage: America's enemies within the CIA" by Rowan Scarborough. (Scarborough was interviewed on the Lou Dobbs' program the other day). Scarborough noted that because the CIA has no operatives in certain countries, we are left "speculating" -- particularly about such things as "chain of command." There are no insiders in Iran to explain what's going on, who's in control, who says what, etc. Rowan noted that one of the indicators that we're flying blind was that no one wanted to come out and say, definitely, that Iranian IEDs are smuggled into Iraq with the government of Iran's full knowledge, participation, etc. Can't say that...Iran has a means of worming its way out by resorting to "plausible deniability." "No, No, No, the IEDs are not approved by the highest powers in Iran -- heaven forfend!" This also raises questions about how adept the U.S./Intel would be in developing any of the "fissures" of Islam -- but even that, once again, assumes that the CIA would have the desire to do so...(so, even if the CIA had the desire to expand the fissures -- somewhat debatable -- the next question would be "Do they have sufficient insider info?" answer, "probably not.")

J.S.,

I repeat....If you, like the US are not proposing or willing to eliminate each and every male Islamist in the region, how do you propose to effectively baby-sit a country ad infinitum?

In fact, Bush - though a poor leader - is doing exactly the right thing in Iraq. By keeping the troops in Iraq, he is tying down the Muslims. I am a believer that every round spent there is one less spent here.

Our being over there has not slowed down the steady stream of Muslim immigrants - legal and otherwise - pouring into our country. It has not stopped them from plotting attacks on Ft. Dix, Glasgow, and elsewhere in the US and UK. It has done nothing to hurt al-Qaeda's recruitment or CAIR's shenanigans. It has not slowed down the global jihad in any way, shape, or form.

Far from it being the case that we are tying them down over there, it is the Muslims who are keeping us tied down in Iraq, while they continue the spread of Islam and Sharia worldwide.

This scenario has been played out before. It is much like Grant holding Lee fast, while Sherman came in from behind.

The real Sherman coming in from behind is the Muslim immigrants to the US and Europe who will someday constitute a big enough political/demographic bloc that they will be able to dismantle our democratic institutions and implement their sharia "legally", with the help of unscrupulous politicians on both sides of the aisle eager for their votes or cowed by their propensity for violence. Throwing American lives and money away in Iraq for no reason whatsoever does nothing to stop this.

Leaving would help though. In the short-term, I believe Iraq would erupt into Gaza-like levels of violence, which could serve as yet another object lesson as to what Islam is really all about. With any luck, it could lead also to a general regional war, say Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Sunni Iraqis vs Iran, Kurdistan, and the Shiite Iraqis, with millions of lives lost, and the West safely on the sidelines. That would be a tragedy for the Muslims, obviously, but at this point it is probably the best case scenario as far as preserving Western civilization goes.

Let the whole Middle East burn like Gaza, making it clear that their blood is on their own hands, and not only will they be weakened from the standpoint of lives lost, infrastructure destroyed, etc, but the whole "religion of peace" foolishness will be put to rest finally, and serious discussion of deporting the Muslims en masse from the US and Europe will be possible.

Awake, you have not provided a coherent explanation as to why a withdrawl from Iraq would either benefit the United States or weaken Islam. I have presented (which I do not intend to repeated) over and over again the list of disadvantages. You claim: "Withdrawal from Iraq does not preclude an air-strike against Iran." Well, does remaining in Iraq preclude an air-strike against Iran? (Dream on about any air-strikes against Iran -- ain't gonna happen...I see absolutely zero evidence for ANY desire, whatsoever, to launch some air strike against iran...So, present the evidence. The other day Bush came out and stated, "no air strikes against iran." And do you think the Dhimmicrats would launch an air strike against their buddies?? Dream on...dream on...The Dhimmicrats are fighting on behalf of CAIR.) (but you're in the UK, right?)

Next, about "Our presence in Iraq did not prevent the attempted UK bombings or the Glasgow bombing." Yeah, how about that. So what are you implying? that "our presence in Iraq makes the Jihadists hate us? thus, we should get out, then maybe they'll love us?" Dream on. The bottom line is -- they hate Infidels -- doesn't matter the "provocation" (if you read a jihadist website, which I'm assuming you probably have, you'll notice that the animus and hatred doesn't' require much to begin with -- most of it's illusionary, there's not a great deal of "reality testing" in the Islamic world -- it runs by way of rumours and fantasies -- not facts.)

So, in brief, it's "yak, yak" or "bang, bang." Right now I say, good for the bang, bang. (or would you prefer the jihadists to remain alive?)

I see two possibilities, both of which throw into question the value to the non-Muslim camp of immediate withdrawal from Iraq:

First, suppose the Democrats get what they claim to wish for, and withdraw immediately. As a result, civil war and regional war open up, as Hugh contemplates, with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties, or worse. In that case, there will be huge pressure in the U.S. to give green cards to huge numbers of Muslim refugees. What you or I or Hugh might think about admitting those refugees to the U.S. might not matter to the outcome. Already politicians are talking about taking in all those who have helped us in Iraq and their families. How much more would the pressure be to take in huge numbers of Muslims if a gigantic humanitarian catastrophe unfolds when we leave before establishing some kind of stability? To admit tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslims to citizenship status in the U.S. would weaken the camp of the infidels and would be a significant price to pay to "weaken the camp of Islam" through chaos in Iraq. Would it still be a bargain? Depends on how you weigh the factors. And even if by some fortunate circumstance the U.S. Congress were to listen, even in the context of catastrophic Iraqi civil war, to the subgroup of U.S. citizens who would exclude Muslim refugees coming to the U.S., still, parts of Europe would take in huge numbers of Iraqi and regional refugees, which would also weaken the camp of the infidels further. To say that the U.S. will easily be able to resist international pressure to take in refugees fleeing a humanitarian catastrophe the world will say the U.S. is partly responsible for, is just not realistic. You or I or Hugh could resist that international pressure, but large parts of the U.S. population will see it just as the international community will see it: that the U.S. is partly responsible for the evils of the Iraqi civil war that unfolds, and therefore we should take in as many refugees as possible. I am NOT saying I would respect that opinion, I am only saying OTHERS will respect it and will ACT on it, and we won't be able to stop them, no matter how stupid we think their views are. Have we been able lately to stop Muslim refugees and immigrants from coming to the U.S.? I believe Robert Spencer is having some effect, but he hasn't been able to stop the flows yet, and I doubt he or we will be able to prevent an influx of huge numbers of Muslim refugees if we follow the strategy of immediate withdrawal.

But here's the other reason I'm skeptical about immediate withdrawal:

The Democrats might well refuse to withdraw without finding some way to prevent the worst possibilities of civil war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton already talks in that mode. The Democrats don't want to be tarred with genocide or the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands in a civil war that opens up because the Democrats demanded U.S. withdrawal. So if the Democrats manage to find ways to prevent civil wars and other disasters, while the U.S. at the same time withdraws, a large part of the strategic advantage that Hugh contemplates from immediate withdrawal -- internecine Muslim war -- would be lost, but huge downsides to his strategy would remain.

For example, if the U.S. leaves precipitously and Iraq descends into chaos, it might not matter terribly much how the U.S. subgroup holding views like ours tries to interpret that as a U.S. victory. Jihadists worldwide will psychologically beat their breasts and will think they have now defeated not only the Soviet Union, but the greatest superpower on earth. That will be a HUGE boost to their morale. Money and volunteers may flow in to them as never before. That's a significant price to pay for chaos in Iraq. Is it a bargain?

I agree with your analysis, traeh. Also, someone else mentioned Gaza. Well, yes, let's consider Gaza. Soooo, for just how long did the "chaos" in Gaza last? Two, three days? When did things settle down? After people were thrown off buildings or had their heads blown off in public square executions? Yeah, that's a fine example...(again, it's also a speculation even if "the violence" or internecine warfare would even take place or for how long -- ...I don't really see that in southern Iraq...the Iranians (like Hamas) would quickly scuttle any of that)...but in other parts of Iraq (sunni areas, could be chaotic -- but then, America will be blamed and expected to "fix" the problem.)

Boy oh boy, we have some serious victims of myopia here in this thread.

Reality check points:

-The Democrats won't do a damn thing about Iraq under Bush because they can't override his veto.

-When the withdrawal is engaged, not if, because that just is not possible militarily or economically, Bush will be blamed for all the carnage that ensues.

-Carnage WILL ensue. Iran is not as strong as they would have us believe and the Saudi's will not cede the area unchallenged to their subordinate Shi'ite brethren.

-The degree of the Sunni/Shia rift like that seen in the Iran/Iraq war is the rule, not the exception.

Pay the piper now or pay him in 2008. Bite the bullet now, and there's a chance the world will see exactly how savage the Islamists are, still with a chance to succeed Bush with another Republican. Let them beat their chest and attempt bolder moves. It appears that is just what the US still needs...another slap in the face. If we wait until 2008, it will be on Hillary's watch, and STILL blamed on Bush. That sounds like an egregious 4-year mistake to me, as a minimum.

For someone who detests the Dems as much as you do J.S., you certainly are playing right into their hands with your stance.

Time to re-group and rethink our position for the long haul, while all hell breaks loose in the Iraq region, with Muslim on Muslim violence galore.....THAT is exactly the benefit for the US and the detriment to Islam, for the short term anyway, with your inplausible boast of killing-off of all the jihadists benefit aside.

And no, J.S., I am not in the UK. I am typing to you right now from the good o'l U S of A, New York City proper to be exact. How about yourself?

For all you Saudi lovers a simple question:

Who is funding 80% of Western mosques and making sure the imams are Wahabbee ?

What is the greatest danger to the West, apart from the Dems ? (dare one say radical islam ?)

Winning in Iraq is when the bastards opposing us give up, and our job is to keep killing them until they do.

That is victory. Most everything else is auto eroticism of the adolescent variety.

Ok, awake. Let's suppose your points are well-taken.

Two questions:

1. On what realistic basis do you think the U.S. and Europe won't take in from the region hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees if, on coalition withdrawal, an intense civil and regional war opens up with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties? What percentage probability would you estimate there is of the U.S. and Europe avoiding the intake of huge numbers of refugees in those circumstances?

2. If you agree it is significantly within the realm of possibility that Europe and America would admit huge numbers of Muslim refugees in the event of unchecked civil war opening up in Iraq upon coalition withdrawal, what is your basis for believing that chaos in Iraq is worth the price of adding, to the Europe and the U.S. together, potentially hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees? What is your cost/benefit analysis?

If you can give a serious answer to those two questions, and not simply dismiss them summarily without significant explanation, or if you can refer me to a serious answer that Hugh or someone else has given to them, I'm completely open to hearing it.

So you're betting all (putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak) that there will be internecine warfare. Soo, what happens if no "warfare" occurs in southern Iraq? What happens if Iran (with its massive standing army) quietly assumes control, including control of the oil fields? not to mention control of all the Shiite holy sites and shrines in the heart of Iraq? Again, have you contemplated what will happen if Iran expands, becomes a super state? What makes your outcome (ie, internecine war) so 100 percent certain? I also don't understand (at all) the constant refrain that by withdrawing, "there's a chance the world will see exactly how savage the Islamists are.." 100 bodies a day in Baghdad isn't sufficient?? The havoc and carnage that Islam creates world-wide isn't enough? (If "the world" doesn't understand Islamic savagery at this point in time, then nothing is going to do it...And, as you yourself state: Bush will be blamed -- isn't that a contradiction? -- on the one hand, it's let's show the world Islamic savagery, and the next, it's "Bush will be blamed." So, whose fault is it -- Bush's or Islamists?) There have been reports from Americans (in the field) in Iraq who state categorically that Iran's fingerprints are all over certain weaponry now showing up in Iraq...and the Americans say that they know it's not Iraqi because the Iraqis just aren't as skilled in terms of warfare, weaponry. The Iranians have a massive standing army -- well trained, well equipped...I think assuming control of southern Iraq would be exceptionally easy...(much of it is already under the control of Iran). so if you listen to those on the ground in Iraq there is a discernable difference between the Iraqi "fighters" and the Iranian ones...(and, it's not good from an American perspective.) so, where is the "Muslim on Muslim" violence? It's in the Sunni areas of Iraq -- not in Gaza, not in Iran, not in S. Arabia, etc., etc. There is "carnage" -- civilian carnage -- it's occurring right now in the Baghdad and Sunni areas (no need for a U.S. withdrawal). So, what's the "advantage" of that again? So, suppose the U.S. leaves and then al-Qaeda sets up training camps outside Baghdad. Now there's another real plus for the United States?

Anyway, you haven't convinced me -- at all -- that a U.S. withdrawal (particularly not with the Dhimmicrats panting at the thought of declaring the U.S. "Defeated, Hurray!!" upon any withdrawal) would either weaken Islam or benefit the U.S.

Anyway, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. (i'm not in the States, although I'm an American citizen....living in Canada...Alberta)

J.S. wrote:

"... you have not provided a coherent explanation as to why a withdrawl from Iraq would either benefit the United States or weaken Islam."

I should think it's obvious, but since it evidently isn't, I'll spell it out. Withdrawal benefits the U.S. by

1.) saving the lives & limbs of US servicemen;
2.) preventing the expenditure of hundreds of billions of $ in iraq annually;
3.) saving the public's stomach for a fight for when it really counts. the longer we stay in iraq, the more war-weary the public will become, which increases the risk that when we should be committing to important battle fronts, the American public will balk.
4.)giving the Repubs a chance of avoiding a clean sweep in the 2008 elections. I'm surprised you don't address the near-certainty that if we remain in iraq until next summer, the Repubs will be wiped out.

since iran looms large in your arguments, I wonder what you think of the bush administration's diplomatic overtures to iran. apparently, even though iran is supplying militants with sophisticated bombs to blow up our soldiers, bush wants to sit down at the same table & talk things over with them. don't you think he should take a fraction of what we would save by withdrawing from iraq & spend it on bringing down the iranian government? Hugh thinks that goal is achievable, & given his track record in accurately analyzing other issues, I'm inclined to agree.

OK traeh, I will do my best the only way I know how, through fact and logic.

Your first question:
1. "On what realistic basis do you think the U.S. and Europe won't take in from the region hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees if, on coalition withdrawal, an intense civil and regional war opens up with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties? What percentage probability would you estimate there is of the U.S. and Europe avoiding the intake of huge numbers of refugees in those circumstances?"

Honestly traeh, I have absolutely no idea. Shaping foreign policy however, based on estimated percentages, like loose statements from conservative "watch dogs" like Glenn Beck, who assumed that only 10% of Muslims are our enemies, is a precarious notion. In Glenn's offense, however, 10% of 1.3+ billion Muslims is a number way too high for my liking, and polling has shown that to be a conservative estimation, at best.

As far as refugee intake in general, the US is not currently equipped to address illegal entry through its borders. That has been a big issue here in the States lately, just in case you haven't been paying attention. I know that the administartion has allowed or is prepared to allow 7000 Iraqi refugees into the US, currently. I do not believe that there is a correlation that staying the course in Iraq will hinder Muslim immigartion into the US, whether by officail sanction or by illegal means, whatsoever. Logic and reason are screaming at me to refute that possibility as a valid ground to continue in the present direction in Iraq.

Your second:
"If you agree it is significantly within the realm of possibility that Europe and America would admit huge numbers of Muslim refugees in the event of unchecked civil war opening up in Iraq upon coalition withdrawal, what is your basis for believing that chaos in Iraq is worth the price of adding, to the Europe and the U.S. together, potentially hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees? What is your cost/benefit analysis?"

I absolutely do not agree that sanctioned admission of "huge numbers" of Muslim refugees is a probable scenario if and when we withdraw from Iraq. Additionally, "in the event" of unchecked civil war in Iraq subsequent to US withdrawal is a much safer bet, based solely on the fact that it is factually occuring as we speak. There is no estimation required to reach that conclusion.

A simple analogy to illustrate my point:
If the Sun appears yellow and has appeared yellow for as long as can be remembered, it is a safer bet to assume that the Sun will continue to appear yellow, even though at some point it appearing as green is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

Mass US sanctioned acceptance of Iraqi refugees as a by-product of US withdrawal from Iraq is a hunch, whereas civil war in Iraq subsequent to withdrawal, is a near certainty. The latter is based on recent historical evidence, now known as fact.

I only hope you are not basing your assumptions due to some moral conundrum, akin to the "You broke it, you fix it" mentality. Neither I nor any other infidel should suffer from that malaise.

Fact and logic...Two tough cookies to crack.

1.) "saving the lives & limbs of US servicemen;" followed by a resurgent al-Qaeda in Iraq and a devastating attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad (think embassies) -- resulting in X number of civilian (American) casualties.
2.) "preventing the expenditure of hundreds of billions of $ in iraq annually;" handing over the oil fields of southern Iraq to Iranian interests who then flex their muscles (even more so than currently) by withholding oil exports to U.S. and/or blocking the shipping lanes... plunging the U.S. economy into a recession.
3.) "saving the public's stomach for a fight for when it really counts. the longer we stay in iraq, the more war-weary the public will become, which increases the risk that when we should be committing to important battle fronts, the American public will balk." If Americans don't yet understand who and what the enemy is at this stage in the game, then you get bet your booty that they will never, ever be "war ready." (in fact, one could argue that if Iraq turns into a rout and an unmitigated disaster --more so than it already is -- and you'd make it this disaster by a withdrawal, then troops will never, ever be on any battlefield for at least the next decade(at least, not fighting Islamists.)
4.)"giving the Repubs a chance of avoiding a clean sweep in the 2008 elections. I'm surprised you don't address the near-certainty that if we remain in iraq until next summer, the Repubs will be wiped out" So you're a political ideologue? that's all that matters to you? a political ideology? (that is, you seem to be saying that if it hurts the Repubs than, "Don't do it!!" well, what if it is the right thing to do? and withdrawal is the wrong thing to do?

One more time -- how is a withdrawal from Iraq going to be "beneficial" when all the counter arguments of illusory "benefit" can be so easily countered? and, I might add, quickly nullified. The attractiveness (effervescent) disappears the moment one thinks beyond the immediate. Not good for Americans, not good at all.

J.S.

you wrote:
"So you're betting all (putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak) that there will be internecine warfare. Soo, what happens if no "warfare" occurs in southern Iraq?"

No warfare occurs in southern Iraq?? Are you serious with that statement? Are you suggesting all warfare in Iraq is founded on the US and coalition presence there?

Also:
"What happens if Iran (with its massive standing army) quietly assumes control, including control of the oil fields?"

Quietly assumes control??, what with a handshake and a wink? Iran is rationing petroleum as we speak. They have enough internal problems and their main concern is to keep the US occupied lest we militarily destroy their plutonium enrichment capability.

Also:
"What makes your outcome (ie, internecine war) so 100 percent certain?"

Nothing but death is 100% certain. However, since the internecine war is already in full vigor, let me re-direct that question to you. Based on zero recent empirical, historical, factual evidence, what would possibly coerce someone to think that when the "hall monitors"(US) have left the building, that the secterian fighting, based on a rift which has existed for over 1000 years will suddenly cease with a weepy meet and greet in the center of the battlefield???

Next:
"I also don't understand (at all) the constant refrain that by withdrawing, "there's a chance the world will see exactly how savage the Islamists are.." 100 bodies a day in Baghdad isn't sufficient??"

Apparently not, unless you are receiving MSM news in Canada that is more direct and truthful than we do here in the US.

As a final note to you in this thread J.S., because I fear that you are focusing on specific groups of Muslims rather than recognizing the group of Islamic idealogy as a whole, before you cede the entire Middle East to Iran, realize that the majority of al-Qaeda insurgents are being directly implanted and backed by Saudi Arabia. Think about that, and think about how badly the Sunni Saudis despise the Iranian Shia.

While you are at it, think about why the ultimate Islamic enemy of the West, Saudi Arabia, producer of Usama himself, perpetrators of slow-jihad through vile dawa, mosque and madrassa building throughout the West, will justy sit idly by and watch Iran greatly improve it's sphere of influence in the Middle East. You have a better chance of proving Bush had a hand in 9/11 than convincing nearly everyone here of that prospect.

You speak of Iran and it's "massive standing army". How many uniformed Iranian military personnel are currently engaged against the US in Iraq?????

There have been eye-witness reports about how Iranians (that's during the initial incursion of U.S. forces into Iraq in March 2003 -- when they were headed to Baghdad -- Iranian forces were already entering southern Iraq -- the Brits knew about this -- but, they decided that it was better to just let things be -- not confront the iraqis. These reports have come from Michael Ware and others. There are political factions in Iraq which owe allegiance to Iran...etc. So, they're already there in large part. Also, look up (on Jihadwatch.org an article about how Iran backs al-Qaeda -- it's a myth about how much Iranians despise al-Qaeda, etc. Iranians have no qualms about supporting al-Qaeda types (it's the old adage "an enemy of my enemy is my friend.").

I did not say that "no warfare occurs in southern Iraq" -- that's a falsification. I am saying that in southern Iraq it's not "Iraqi vs Iraqi." It's Shiites murdering/ambushing U.S. troops.

Anyway, I must go now, it's getting late. Will be back sometime Sunday (permitting, etc.) Nice dialogue...do it again some time, etc.

You really have no clue about "mainstream media" in Canada, do you? It is viciously anti-American -- or do you think that's a superior form of "journalism."

I don't conceive of any Islamic group as a "friend" of Americans -- they are ALL enemies -- including Kurds (the Kurds just slightly less so -- but even the Kurds support terrorism, etc.)

awake, thanks for the attempt to move the debate along. You said:

I only hope you are not basing your assumptions due to some moral conundrum, akin to the "You broke it, you fix it" mentality.

Nope, I'm coming from a different, and I hope broader, frame of reference than that.

When I ask you to estimate the probability that the US and Europe will avoid intake of huge numbers of Muslim refugees in the event of massive civil war unfolding once the coalition abandons Iraq, you say:

Honestly traeh, I have absolutely no idea.

Seems to me then that, while your position might be correct, you are absolutely incapable of enlightening me as to why my objection is mistaken, because you have absolutely no idea.

How does having "no idea" lead you to end your message by saying

Fact and logic...Two tough cookies to crack.

I absolutely do not agree that sanctioned admission of "huge numbers" of Muslim refugees is a probable scenario if and when we withdraw from Iraq.

Ok, why? I'm asking for some basis, if you have one, not a belief.

You say:

Mass US sanctioned acceptance of Iraqi refugees as a by-product of US withdrawal from Iraq is a hunch, whereas civil war in Iraq subsequent to withdrawal, is a near certainty.

You say you do not think the admission of large numbers -- tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees -- is probable should the US abandon Iraq and allow the civil war there to explode unchecked. But you say you have "no idea" how improbable it is. You have no idea how improbable it is, and you provide no reason why you think it improbable. You just believe it, perhaps based on some analogy with the sun being yellow. Yet you downplay or ignore the clear possibility that large sectors of the U.S. populace will feel responsible for the vast slaughterhouse Iraq may become, with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties. And you have nothing to say about how you and I will be able to avoid being forced, by other Americans, to take in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees.

Well, I was hoping you would educate me and transform my outlook. But on the first question, about refugees, you offered no facts or logic, only your belief. That leaves the second question: If we assume, just for the sake of discussion, that you and I may be forced, by other Americans, to accept tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees -- or perhaps hundreds of thousands, if we are looking at the next decade -- then why do you think that is a worthwhile price to pay for chaos in Iraq? That is a question you didn't even attempt to answer.

Oh well. I appreciate the effort at "facts" and "logic," but if you want to change the mind of anyone who doesn't already agree with you, a little more help from you will be needed.

Look what the coalition forces have done to enable Iraq to become a free and independent nation over the past several years and look at how these Iraqis have squandered that opportunity. They flushed it down the toilet.

Imagine the Continental Army being supplied with an endless supply of money men and materials by a foriegn country in the Revolutionary War. That war would have lasted a fraction of the time.

J.S. was asked several times what he expecta victory to look like and he refuses to answer. Will anyone else who defends this war like to give their definition of "victory in Iraq".
Is it an extremely important point. Becuase it also forces one to state then , what the exact mission is. We have been told that it is to establish a free and independent Iraq, have we not?

So what have the "Iraqis" done towards showing any desire to become a free nation?

These stories were reported or discussed here at JW. Recall the PBS special that showed how Iraqis refused to fight in Fallujah when they learned they might have to kill other Iraqi insurgents.

The attendance rate ( isn't that an odd term to use in this context?) of the Iraqi army on any given day is 75%. The other 25% don't bother showing up. They quit the army when they get stationed too far from their homes and cannot sleep in their own beds at night. And how about the story posted here just last week about the Iraqi policemen by day, Shiite militiaman by night caught in a fight with US soldiers.

And how about those members of parliment who will be going on vaction next month cuz it gets a little too hot for them in August, but coalition soldiers will be on foot patrol in 110 degree heat in full battle gear. Don't you think that just as a symbolic matter of decency while we american soldiers are dying on a daily basis so that Iraqis can be free they might cancel that vacation?

So someone please show me some evidence that there are sufficent numbers of Iraqis who believe that a free Iraq is worth dying for.

And let us suppose "victory" is acheived by some means as the most optimistic here suggest. What next. With a Shiite majority in place, do you also think Iraq will not, when we are no longer there to protect them, become a puppet of the Iranian regime? So how long will real democracy and truly free elections last once another mullacracy is established. Iran has been making these very plans before the invasion. It would be a never ending commitment of troops at great risk and cost to forever remain in Iraq to avoid the Iranians long-term plans. And will the 40,000 Iranian Qods forces now in Iraq who are dedicated to making sure Shiites remain in control just pack up and go home?

And what about that little nuisance call Sharia law which was voted and and adopted by those freedom loving Iraqis, into their consitution. How long after we leave do you think it will be before we start hearing about the morality police patroling the streets and beheadings of that and this adulturer? What kind of "free" nation will it be when freedom of religion and expression are surpressed under sharia law.

So, once again J.S. and other defenders of this war, please project what Iraq will look like after victory is acheieved?

traeh,

Let's be frank here. My answer to you asking me what I "think" the percentage of liklihood of the US admitting Iraqi's if we withdraw' was followed by an honest answer that can not be supported by any factual evidence or proof if you will, a term you are trying to pass off as "realistic".

What "realistic" example can you give me that the US will undoubtably do as YOU say and admit tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees. I stated a FACT, that the US has admitted or are prepared to admit 7,000 Iraqis, a small number considering the duration of the war. If you want PROOF that withdrawal will not be followed by the government sanctioned influx of Iraqi refugees, then you will search long and hard and in vain.

Proof of what MAY occur in the future is illogical to expect and impossible to determine. All we can do is base our actions and beliefs on what we believe to most likely occur.

I challenge you to refute the fact-based logic that the probability of a continued civil war in Iraq after US withdrawal, a secterian war that irrefutable exists in the present, exceeds the probability that massive Iraqi refugees will be accommodated by the US administration. There is NO fact based reasoning to support your scenario.

Islamist vs. Islamist weakens the camp of Islam in general, a very good probability to continue, based on recent historical occurences. PROOF of the future is preposterous as a request.

The obviousness of the entire losing position of the "stay in Iraq" crowd has and continues to be what 'Leave Iraq Now' has aptly re-iterated in this thread:

"Will anyone else who defends this war like to give their definition of "victory in Iraq".
Is it an extremely important point. Becuase it also forces one to state then , what the exact mission is."

I have asked that exact question of the supporters of the Iraq war ad nauseum on this site.

No one, and I mean NO ONE ever puts forth an answer.

The diaslogue exchange to the initial statement by J.S. of:
"I also don't understand (at all) the constant refrain that by withdrawing, "there's a chance the world will see exactly how savage the Islamists are.." 100 bodies a day in Baghdad isn't sufficient??"

with my response of:
"Apparently not, unless you are receiving MSM news in Canada that is more direct and truthful than we do here in the US."

followed by J.S with:
"You really have no clue about "mainstream media" in Canada, do you? It is viciously anti-American -- or do you think that's a superior form of "journalism." "

belies a basic fact that J.S. has completely "missed the boat" on this issue. The MSM in the US and Canada are equally useless in exposing Islam for what it truly is.

If the "oppressive US regime" is removed from the Iraq equation and the secterian violence continues, near certain, the blame cannot rest on the US indefinately. The Islamists will have to answer for their own continued actions at some point. Maybe then the world will see what we here already know.

Withdrawal is certainly not a panacea to the Iraq dilemma, not by a longshot, but it is easily achieveable as an end. More importantly, it is the end result no matter how you slice it, unless one can figure out a way to provide the resources to continue this "war" for about a century or so.

This is a "bad hand" that needs to be folded, sooner rather than later because the cards we are holding will not change. Withdraw and take our lumps, but rest assured, the Islamists will be taking their's as well. Probably more so.

awake, you said:

My answer to you asking me what I "think" the percentage of liklihood of the US admitting Iraqi's if we withdraw' was followed by an honest answer that can not be supported by any factual evidence or proof if you will, a term you are trying to pass off as "realistic".

I see we are talking past each other. This is starting to become fruitlessly competitive. No doubt partly the fault of the tone of my earlier message to you. So I'll try to shift that beginning a bit, and apologize in case I was somehow offensive. That's quite possible because I'm opinionated in ways that aren't always decently friendly. I should do better.

I am not asking you for ironclad proof. I was merely asking you to offer some evidence. I was asking you to make a case. Or let's say extend the case you were already making.

You said:

What "realistic" example can you give me that the US will undoubtably do as YOU say and admit tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees.

You said:

I stated a FACT, that the US has admitted or are prepared to admit 7,000 Iraqis, a small number considering the duration of the war.

Fair enough. That was a relevant fact. I stand corrected. That's certainly not much of a case, but it's a start.

You said:

If you want PROOF that withdrawal will not be followed by the government sanctioned influx of Iraqi refugees, then you will search long and hard and in vain.

I don't want proof, but I would like to hear an argument made and some evidence presented. The impossibility of proof doesn't mean all discussion becomes a mere pushing of one’s beliefs, does it? To say that any conversation without perfect proofs is a mere pushing of belief, is a mistake. Law courts are not scientific laboratories, and rarely if ever is there absolute proof in courts, but pretty much everyone accepts it is nevertheless worthwhile if parties gather evidence and make arguments and try to get closer to the truth. Life is not a mathematical formula capable of "proof", but we still try to navigate it on the basis of experience and logic, not mere belief. Yet you seem to say that because there is no proof available, any request for any other form of justification from you is somehow unjustified.

You said:

Proof of what MAY occur in the future is illogical to expect and impossible to determine. All we can do is base our actions and beliefs on what we believe to most likely occur.

You said:

I challenge you to refute the fact-based logic that the probability of a continued civil war in Iraq after US withdrawal, a secterian war that irrefutable exists in the present, exceeds the probability that massive Iraqi refugees will be accommodated by the US administration.

Where in my other posts did I deny that? Why would I want to refute it? I never said that the probability of civil war, upon US withdrawal, does not exceed the probability of large numbers of Muslim refugees being taken in to the US. Maybe you are mixing up someone else's posts with mine.

You said:

Islamist vs. Islamist weakens the camp of Islam in general, a very good probability to continue, based on recent historical occurences. PROOF of the future is preposterous as a request.

Never asked for absolute proof, I asked for a discussion, a case, evidence, something that might improve my understanding and persuade me to come around to a different point of view.

You said:

The obviousness of the entire losing position of the "stay in Iraq" crowd has and continues to be what 'Leave Iraq Now' has aptly re-iterated in this thread:

"Will anyone else who defends this war like to give their definition of "victory in Iraq".
Is it an extremely important point. Becuase it also forces one to state then, what the exact mission is."

I have asked that exact question of the supporters of the Iraq war ad nauseum on this site.

No one, and I mean NO ONE ever puts forth an answer.

Not so. Many answers have been put forth. But I guess you mean you find all of them unconvincing. That’s fine, but the case for going immediately and the case for staying both require to be argued for. Neither one can be simply assumed as obvious. To say something is obvious is not an argument. And all I'm trying to do is advance the argument in my own mind by picking your brains -- and the brains of others -- for evidence and reasons that might cause me to reevaluate my thoughts.

Again, I apologize if I've been unfriendly or somehow offensive.

traeh,

Once again, let's be clear and easy here.

Argument for withdrawal from Iraq is to allow the already existing secterian rifts to engage in a long, bloody civil war, effectively weakening the Camp of Islam as a whole.

Argument against withdrawal is the danger that civil war will cause tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees to seek asylum in the US, granted by the administration.

Probability of the former occuring?: very likely

Probability of the latter occuring?: unknown

Justification to ignore the liklihood of the former and continue on the present course for fear of the occurence of the latter?: None.

The argument of the benefits for the withdrawal have been presented clearly: High probability Islamic militants killing each other in a completely de-stabalized region. All we have to do is simply withdraw. Very do-able.

The arguments against withdrawal because of fear that Islamic refugess will seek and begranted asylum in the US: Not nearly as probable and certainly not a better argument in favor over the former. To achieve that goal is undefined in terms of time, military and economic commitment.

you wrote:
"Many answers have been put forth. But I guess you mean you find all of them unconvincing."

I do not believe this to be the case. These threads occur intermittently here, and I am usually involved at some point. I don't recall any argument, your current one notwithstanding, being presented that is anything more than "stay in Iraq because we need to win" or "stay in Iraq because it would be morally reprehensible for us to leave at this point, since we started it".

Your assistance in providing additional arguments put forth for staying the course would be greatly appreciated.

you wrote:
"Again, I apologize if I've been unfriendly or somehow offensive."

No need for apologies. Unfriendliness is the least of both of our current problems.

Regards,

awake

traeh,

I respectfully disagree with you that:

"Not so. Many answers have been put forth."

Where are they because I missed them. They are not in this thread. And not from you.

2 more things in this issue,

1. Let us say you, Traeh, are correct in suggesting a result of withdrawal is an unwanted and dangerous influx of Iraq refugees.

If that is a risk we have to take, I for one will reluctantly accept that risk. Perhaps a policy can be formulated within a bigger immigration reform proposal and certain prerequisites could be imposed such as use of the questionnaire as Robert has suggested a few times here.

If more muslims in the U.S. is the price to pay for exiting Iraq it may be a price worth paying.

2. Think of the scenario in a slightly different way.

Go back to 2002 and say we all agreed on the need to oust Saddam and rid WMDs or confirm there was no danger from them. AND YOU COULD EASILY FIGURE that deposing Saddam would cause civil war of the same type you are worried about now.

Would you still support the invasion? I think you would. I know I would.

_____

Nation building was not what we were asked to approve when the U.S. invaded Iraq. There was a declaration of war. Ideally we would have killed Saddam within days/weeks. Destroyed any/all WMDs and exited, civil war and all. That would have been acceptable then and should be acceptable now.

But no. our president, on some very poor advice declared a NEW mission. Beyond what was approved by congress. He tells us that we must achieve victory in Iraq or else Al Qaeda will win. So that implies yet another mission, in addition to the original. So not only is his goal to set up a liberal democracy, we have to defeat Al Qaeda as well. He is, as Hugh states, at the throttle of a runaway train.

Iraq and Afghanistan are noble experiments in nation building and democracy franchising. What worked after WWII in Germany in Japan does not work in muslim nations.

We can still get out of this and be strong. Or we can waste men and money and set ourselves up for a democratic president and congress in 2008 becuase we refuse to take our lumps and admit the experiment failed.

Perhaps I can be persuaded that more time, even after September should be given to prove this is the correct strategy. But that is just me.

There is just no way a majority of the American people are going to support a candidate in 2008 who insists on the need to stay in Iraq without a a date certain as to when that mission will be accomplished.

The notion of Hillary Clinton making decisions about the proper way to wage war against global jihad scares the hell out of me.

As to due diligence, see the Lancet editorial "Overseas doctors and the UK's National Health Service" from this week's issue.