"The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq." -- from this article
The whole worshipful cult of Petraeus, as the Great Uniformed Hope, is utterly misplaced. It is he who seems to take seriously, or perhaps even originated, the utterly unhelpful idea that "in general, insurgencies last ten years." This is a pointless, even silly, notion, for it ignores the nature of insurgencies. When they are directed at, say, a colonial power (the MauMau), or against the local government because of its perceived injustice (the Greek Communists), and there are ways to satisfy demands at the same time that military defeat is inflicted, then insurgencies may last ten years. Jomo Kenyatta came to power -- in other words, the English gave up. In Greece there was, presumably, some attention to winning the hearts and minds of the impoverished who might be most vulnerable to Communist propaganda. But in Iraq there is not one insurgency, but many, and while they are all conducted by various groups of Muslims against each other, they are also -- to varying degrees depending only on what temporary use they may have for the Infidel Americans -- all hostile, permanently hostile (temporary smiles and wiles are transparent, or should be) to the Infidels.
What would you think of me if I were to write an article, or promote a doctrine, in which it was maintained that "in general, civil wars last 6.7 years"? A pointless, silly notion, isn't it? You would make fun of me for such a thing. You would say, that such a statistic has no ability to help us in a particular situation. Why then do we applaud Petraeus, whose previous term as a supposedly successful "trainer" of Iraqi forces did not train up a great many loyal, true-blue Iraqis? Nor did the area he supposedly pacified remain pacified.
Of course he is of thoughtful mien. Of course he is very brave, and not only brave but mediagenic. But so what? Someone who starts using the pronoun "we" to include Americans and Iraqis as one group, with identical interests is not someone whose thoughtful demeanor and bravery (shot in the stomach in an accident during training, insisting on going right back to active duty as soon as he could, etc.) should cause us, however desperate we are for a hero on a horse, some General Beranger, to put Petraeus on a pedestal or pediment. Infidels and Muslims do not have, anywhere, identical interests. Furthermore, he has continued to think that "hearts and minds" matter.
Furthermore, he has not dropped any hints that he understands that the larger Jihad will not be affected in the slightest by bringing some kind of temporary harmony to Iraq. The larger Jihad is the one which consists of all the local Jihads (which cannot be reduced to merely "local" and "non-Islamic promptings, as either he, or possibly Kilcullen, or possibly both, seem to think). It is the one that relies mainly on the Money Weapon, and campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, and whose theatre is now Western Europe.
It would be far better to let Iraq be a source of constant internal strife within the Camp of Islam and Jihad. But how can a general possibly turn himself into a real strategist, a Halford Mackinder, who sees just how trivial Iraq is in the larger scheme of things? His entire effort is spent in fulfilling this or that task. He does not see beyond that hideously difficult task to ponder why the task itself, and its fulfillment, makes no larger strategic sense. Iraq is trivial except as a place where American lives, and money, and war materiel, have been and are being squandered for all the wrong reasons. They are being squandered for a policy based on a lack of understanding of the forces at play in Iraq and potentially outside Iraq. Most of all, there is a lack of understanding by most of those who love Bush and by most of those who hate him, of Islam: its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, that guarantee that there will never be a settlement between Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq that will look anything like what Infidels would think is possible. That is, there will never be a settlement that people of reason might arrive at -- people who are used to compromise and who are not schooled up in a victor/vanquished view of the universe as are Muslims, with the victors being the Believers, and the vanquished being the Infidels. That attitude carries over to the Sunni view of Shi'a and, to some extent, vice-versa.
It won't happen in Iraq. And if it did, it would be of no help in weakening the Camp of Jihad.
Does Petraeus even think in such terms? Has he realized what the demographic conquest of Western Europe would mean -- first for a change in foreign policy, then to the weaponry of NATO, and then to the very nature of the societies that form, along with North America, the heart of the West?
Does he? Or is he merely a general? Because this war is too important to be left to mere generals. Even quiet, mediagenic generals such as David Petraeus.
What would you think of me if I were to write an article, or promote a doctrine, in which it was maintained that "in general, civil wars last 6.7 years"? A pointless, silly notion, isn't it?
- Hugh
No, absolutely not.
Not if it's what I want to hear.
"Has he realized what the demographic conquest of Western Europe would mean"
.....I suspect all the achievements made by eons of inventors, artists, scholars, educators, doctors, investors, politicians, generals, public servants, laborers, musicians, athletes, builders, religious entities, and many others responsible for the creation of modern society will be tossed aside and forgotten and the world will regress back into the 7th century Muslim world.....complete with the horrid Shar'is Law and death worse than any plaque ever encountered by mankind....History will be forgotten and the world will be forever engulfed in a constant state of mini wars...the earth will be ravaged....
For many supporters of the current Iraq policy, Bush is God, Petraeus is Jesus.
American, Canadian and Australian readers of this website, please note
A growing number of concerned activists from different countries in Europe are organising a rally outside the building of the European Parliament in Brussels on the afternoon of Tuesday 11th September from 1pm in protest against the spread of the influence of Sharia Law across the continent.
Plans are being made for similar events in other European cities (and across the world) in the near future.
Your participation and support will ensure the success of these events.
For more information, visit: “sioe.wordpress.com”
When Condoleeza Rice was chosen for Secretary of State, her well publicized education gave one a sense of comfort. Her education was valuable for fighting the era of the Cold War.
This war requires a leader in the State Dept. with the depth of critical understanding of the players involved on the level of the highly esteemed Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihadwatch.org.
I come to this site daily and shudder that this administration continues with the folly of 'scholarship' in play at that department today.
Hugh Fitzgerald is an American treasure. Thank you.
"Has he realized what the demographic conquest of Western Europe would mean?"
If we substitute for "he" in the above with the following group:
any U.S. Congressmen, U.S. Senator, Administration official, particularly those in the Departments of Defense and State, and any Presidential candididate,
we would get the same answer, No. It is as if muslim immigration in Europe is all a temporary social problem. It must be a belief that surely those millions of muslim immigrants will assimilate into European culture at some time and this problem will pass. Or perhaps with all eyes focused and fingers crossed over tarbaby Iraq, it is overlooked.
Hurrah for Petraeus.
He is effecting the datum of the challenge: that the only good jihadi is a dead one.
If all islam is our enemy, he is effecting the Hugh prescription of divide and conquer in saying there are good muslims and bad muslims, and the good muslims are helping us defeat the bad ones (the Sunni and the Shia are turning on the outside Al Quaida).
Some people just hate being successful (and actually right)and will do anything to keep their mind closed to success, particularly if it is not in keeping with how things "must" be in their mind.
The "tarbaby" is the one Hugh is holding close to his breast: his closed mind.
Now am going to go out and buy the biggest damn suv that is offered (and can be afforded).
Bless America.
dgene wrote,"good muslims are helping us defeat the bad ones (the Sunni and the Shia are turning on the outside Al Quaida)."
Wow. A true-blue-bush-brand kool-aid drinker. Hey, dgene. I've got a bridge in Minneapolis I'd like to sell you. Warning: some assembly required.
It's not surprising that he (or she?) also doesn't see anything wrong with filling up saudi arabia's coffers with even more petrodollars.
@dgene
I'm confused. Could you tell me who the good guys are in Iraq?
a) Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution (SCARI)
b) Mahdi Army
c) Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia
d) Disinfranchised Ex-Baath Party Loyalists
e) Dawa Party of Iran
The good guys in Iraq are us.
The good thing in Iraq is an ally without a willingness to go against us.
Still believe that the Iraquis can only be rented, but so what ?
The Saudi pukes will have petrodollars with or without us - there are many buyers - the issue is how to neutralize them and outlaw their Wahhabeism and influence peddling in the beltway and the Fifth Estate.
If you are striving for simplicity, read a fairy tale or Harry Potter, but if you wish to win and thus survive, use your noggin. (and be willing to fight).
the issue is how to neutralize them and outlaw their Wahhabeism and influence peddling in the beltway and the Fifth Estate.
dgene
How is establishing a democracy in Iraq related to neutralizing Saudis?
Now now LIN.
Iraq has been huge success. We've wiped out the Infidels in Iraq. Iran can now manipulate the quartered remains of Iraq at it's pleasure. Heck, it owns the Shiite south. Oh, there's a small matter of a trillion bucks and several 1,000 Infidel soldiers lives but, hey, that's success. It don't come cheap.
Hot news just in.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070809/wl_afp/usiraniraqbush_070809170151
Yes folks, that vibrantly vibrant democracay aka Iraq has spoken.
They love Iran.
I do hope all those "let's bring DemAAAAAAcracy to Iraq" devotees salute democratic Iraq's decision to climb into bed with Iran. After all, as we've been told ad nauseum
"democracry is all"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070809/wl_afp/usiraniraqbush_070809170151
"Bush, holding a pre-vacation press conference, said he was not surprised at pictures showing cordial meetings between Maliki and top Iranian leaders in Tehran but that he hoped the prime minister was delivering a tough message."
So our present policy in Iraq is to "HOPE" that everything becomes hunky dory and lurverly jubberly.
Boy, that's what I call a plan.
Where's that coin gone.......heads I laugh blah blah blah
This general, Petraeus, will fail like all the rest of them that preceded him. They come and go. One after the other. One failure after another. He will be lucky if he gets mentioned in the footnotes of history. He won't be on the pedestal too long. Which General from any recent war since WWII has been remembered for being a true leader and independent thinker. None comes to mind.