Over more than fifty years the American military has poured money and weapons into various Muslim states, and built expensive bases in Muslim states, assuming that certain alliances would last.
What has been the result? Along with the British, the Americans poured money and weapons into the ill-fated and essentially worthless CENTO -- with Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq being the recipients of money and weaponry. That whole thing came to a final end with the 1958 coup in Baghdad, in which young King Faisal was killed, and "strongman" (that was the Homeric epithet Time magazine applied to him) Nuri es-Said's mutilated corpse was dragged through the streets of Baghdad. The alliance with those straight-shooting, highly reliable Pakistani generals continued (they were so much more trustworthy than left-wing Nehru and Krishna Menon), and the Pakistani military is essentially the creation of American aid, that sustains it, absurdly, to this day. And American economic aid made possible the development of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. American planes may make possible the delivery of such weapons to others -- either other Muslim states or groups that might use them, or the attempted dropping of such weaponry on an Infidel enemy, India or Israel.
Iran was our true friend under the Shah, but the Shah, that "pillar of stability" (as Carter called him) fell, and instead the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was established. And even if that regime falters or falls, and a much better regime follows, who can say whether or not, in Iran's future, there is not another Islamic Republic of Iran, as long as Iranians remain Muslims?
And then there is Turkey. Turkey, that sent troops to the Korean War. Turkey, whose officers have for decades received training and weapons from the American military. Turkey, that it has always been assumed was, and would forever remain, "secular" Turkey, the Turkey of Kemalism, the Turkey that would never go back. But of course eighty years of Kemalism have been slowly undone, for Kemalism has not spread to all of Turkish society. The secular class failed to extend the constraints on Islam, preferring to lazily rely on intermittent interventions by the army. But the army itself has to constantly monitor to make sure that those who take their Islam seriously are not working their way up the ranks -- yet despite that monitoring, such people are indeed infiltrating.
Furthermore, under the "replacement theology" of Kemalism, with Ataturk replacing Muhammad as "uswa hasana" and "al-insan al-kamil," and the cult of "the Turk" (see Inonu's "Sun People") replacing the cult of the Believer (and especially the Arab Believer, best of all Muslims), lies the same kind of mental set. The "Turk," for example, cannot be a Christian, Armenian or Greek, or a Jew, but must be a Muslim. It is the same as in Malaysia, where "Malays" who benefit from the Bumiputra system must be Muslim Malays.
That the Turks cannot own up to their own past, that their moderation is skin-deep, that they are so defensive and so quick to demand that history be ignored or else, that even before this the Turkish public was snapping up copies of "Mein Kampf" and making the box-office smash of all time a movie that depicted American soldiers as Nazis (and a Jewish doctor as harvesting the organs of dead Iraqis for buyers in Los Angeles and Tel Aviv), that Hrant Dink was killed, that important figures in the Turkish establishment denounced the Americans as "worse than Nazis" in Iraq and were not in turn denounced by other Turks, that Turkey refused to allow the Americans to make use of its own bases to send a fourth division into Iraq in March 2003 (to quickly subdue Anbar Province), that this and much more has taken place and the Turks think we will not notice any of this, or not notice a good deal more that could be mentioned, shows that in dealing with a predominately Muslim population, in a Muslim state, those who count on the "moderates" are whistling in the dark, and always will be.
I don't know if Incirlik will be lost. The airbase in Morocco had to be given up in 1967. The huge Wheelus Air Base in Libya was lost when Khaddafy came to power. The bases in Saudi Arabia are not worth a thing, for they cannot be used except against sworn enemies of the Al-Saud (as in 1991), abroad or within the country. The bases temporarily permitted in Central Asian republics have been taken back, or are being phased out.
No, there is no Muslim state that can be relied on. That is the lesson.
Is there an alternative to Turkey? Of course there is. It is Bulgaria, one of the worst victims of Ottoman Muslim murder. See Gladstone, see what he wrote about the Ottomans round about 1876.
And learn from CENTO, from the reliance on those Pakistani generals, or the Shah of Iran, or, for that matter, Turkey. Should Turkey be kicked out of NATO? Of course it should. Then the NATO forces will be able to meet, and discuss the worldwide Jihad, and the demographic conquest of parts of Western Europe that hold deep significance for the armories of NATO, and who is to control them, and what kind of domestic tranquillity, or lack of it, the states and peoples of Western Europe will enjoy, or endure, in the future.
Turkey's exit is not to be deplored, but to be fondly wished. Unless, of course, the forces of Kemalism come to their senses, take power in Turkey, and force a much greater enlargement of the Kemalist program. That's a vast program, and unlikely to be undertaken.
Well said.
The typical western response ...
"But isn’t it more expedient to ignore history, compromise our principles, and continue making alliances with so-called moderate Muslim states? Won't that make them our friends?"
Islam has been at war with the rest of the world ever since Mohammed moved to Medina and decided that raiding caravans was how he would support himself.
"Slaughter is better than persecution."
Others are expendable, I got to make some money. It's not exactly the Golden Rule, but it is in the Qur'an.
Assalamau Laikum all,
A very happy Eid (Eid mubarak) to you all....may all your grandaughters learn how to fast over the holy month of Ramdaan.
Truly many goats were sacrificed in Lahore ...may Allah T'allah give solace to thier souls for the sacrifice of Eid....there can be no greater.
As to whether you can rely on muslim states....yes you can...but ofcourse there are specifics.
Often the Amerike comes in all guns blazing, talking down to Allah's chosen and generally berating the culture, religion and day to day living.
There is much misunderstaing ...but much can be cleared if tackled properly.
The muslim is like you too...he likes to be a top gun...fly the f16s albiet in his kurta pyjama and prayer cap.
He will be just as adept as you at firing the air-air missile when the time comes ...whether you want to fight the communist or indeed another christian country....there is no problem there.
The problem comes when you want muslims to fight another muslim country ...on your terms ...and that's not very nice.
Muslim countries do not want to spend much money on developing sophisticated weapons ....that your job....and we don't not want to be resented by taking your jobs aways from you ...like those nasty hindoos do. You like them because they try to emulate you...but we don't... and variety is the spice of life.
The truth is that you are developing your weapons of the fiuture for the wuslim. The majority of your childrens will be wuslims and they will drive these weapons perhaps initially against other muslim countries but the ulema will prevail as wuslims don't like to kill or hurt other wuslims.
The message is " you can trust wuslims"....pass it on...to who ever will listen...Dubiya sure does.
assallah ulickem naseem
plese tel mor storrys of butiful islam and pakestnd
ur fiend
mo
Muslim unreliability is causing us to redraw the map of the world, those who can be trusted and those who cannot. This new map is the gradually evolving battle plan to rid ourselves of a putrid supremacist quasi-religious cult which in its dreams imagines it will take over the world. Obviously, they are on the wrong side in this battle between freedom and slavery.
Naseem, you're on the wrong side, and when the pinch comes, your beloved wusslims will be shown out the door, back to your wonderful paradise land of Allah. We need not worry about our daughters, your sexually immature men will have no hold on them, once the war starts... unless they use their age old tactic honed by centuries of experience, hostage taking and kidnapping for slavery, or sex slaves. Your culture has little to offer us of value. On second thought, nothing.
Often the Amerike comes in all guns blazing, talking down to Allah's chosen and generally berating the culture, religion . . .Posted by: Naseem at October 14, 2007 6:48 PM
What!? allah can't protect his chosen - what a wimp. allah's "chosen" - he can have 'em, who else would want em.
I have been teaching my granddaughter well, at 14 she knows a lot about islam, all of us (those here who have grandchildren) are teaching them, rest assured. They will never become "wuss"lims, worshipping a do-nothing wussy "god".
That was one of the funniest posts Naseem has ever posted. Thanks Naseem, you widdle wuslum, I got a lot of laughs out of that...
Remember when you were attending a lecture and the speaker asked for questions and repeated that saying that there are no stupid questions. He was lying.
Here's a stupid question: Where are the US military bases in Istael? Are there any?
Well two stupid questions.
RE: " Is there an alternative to Turkey? Of course there is. It is Bulgaria, one of the worst victims of Ottoman Muslim murder.
Bulgaria is definetely a good alternative. The U.S. should pull out the Bulgarian card against Turkey.
On April 28, 2006, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ivaylo Kalfin and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement, a ten-year agreement that allows for up to 2,500 U.S. troops to be stationed in Bulgaria. During rotation, troop number may increase to 5,000 for a period of 30 days. The American troops will be stationed in four Bulgarian bases: the Novo Selo Training Area, the Bezmer Air Base, and the Graf Ignatievo Air Base. The U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria explains that there will be no "U.S. military bases" in Bulgaria. These are and will continue to be Bulgarian bases under Bulgarian flag and under Bulgarian command, which will be shared by U.S. troops for training purposes.
The bases allow the U.S. to keep increased control of the country and the Greater Middle East region, as Washington now has a military presence in the south (America's 5th fleet is based in Bahrain) and will have a presence in the north through nearby Bulgaria.
Another reason for befriending Bulgaria had to do with a "what if" scenario. Namely, what would have been the future of Bulgaria if it had not joined Western European organizations? Bluntly put, if Brussels did not accept Bulgaria as a N.A.T.O. member, there was the possibility that Bulgaria could have fallen into another country's sphere of influence, namely Russia.
Read this article: ''Bulgaria, U.S. Bases and Black Sea Geopolitics''
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=678&language_id=1
The bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan that are being closed are being closed at least in the case of Uzbekistan due to the State Department's condemnation and tacic support of democratic i.e. Islamizing trends in Uzbekistan. As you probably remember, Uzbekistan was one of the countries to grant the US these bases to support against the Taliban, and unlike Turkey, actually permitted the US to use them as a FOB. However, the geniuses in the State Department chose to criticize the Uzbek regime, even though the potential consequences of that could be the emergence to power of the Islamic Party of Turkestan - an Islamic group that wants to bring Islam not only to Tashkent, but also to the other 4 Turanian countries.
Also, just as Chengiz Khan is now Mongolia's national hero, the 15th century Turkic mass murderer Tamerlane - the greatest Jihadist of all time in terms of area and population covered - is their national hero. Therefore, even if those in Washington who think that democracy would solve the problem of 'Islamo-fascism' turned out to be right about the IPT not ending up in power in Tashkent, the problem would still remain of the most populous country in the region now wanting to recreate Tamerlane's legacy. Think then of a Taliban Afghanistan, but stretching from Russia's southern border and China's Western border, all the way down to the Arabian Sea.
Bottom line - had the US not been so obdurate about promoting democracy in Islamic countries, those bases might have stayed intact. The way to do it is - use Communism (or what remains of it in Turkestan) as a bulwork against Islam.
P.S. You may however be right about Kyrgyzstan - I heard that they are a lot more Islamic now than they were under Akayev
Hugh, while I agree that all Muslim states are frail reeds to lean on (especially Pathologicalstan), I can't say that I greatly admire the memories of Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon. the former was a a Fabian Socialist to the bone, and while his policies were not quite as disastrous for India as Mao's were for China, he still played a large role in keeping post-independence India poor. Further, Krishna Menon's "We have nothing to fear from fellow Asians" after Mao gobbled up in Tibet got repaid handsomely in 1962, when India got caught in a border war with China (and trounced). Further, Nehru wanted nothing to do with anyone who had been too close an ally of perfidious Albion in the recent past--and even mistrusted the brass of the post-Independence Indian army for their pro-British traditions.
"while I agree that all Muslim states are frail reeds to lean on (especially Pathologicalstan), I can't say that I greatly admire the memories of Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon. the former was a a Fabian Socialist to the bone, and while his policies were not quite as disastrous for India as Mao's were for China.."
-- from a posting above
I was not endorsing Krishna Menon, or for that matter Pandit Nehru. I was reading the minds of the American generals, and the Dulles brothers, and others who found Pakistani generals so much more trustworthy and reliable, because, you see, "Islam is a bulwark against Communism" and Menon and Nehru undoubtedly had against them their memberships, possibly lapsed, in Gollancz's New Left Book Club.
This is hardly the place to discuss economic theories. But the kind of guarantees that were in place in Europe (those "welfare states") and that put a brake on rapacity, and prevented total misery, that is modified Dickensian laissez-faire capitalism, strike me as not having been a mistake. The mistake is to confuse political freedom with free-market fundamentalism, and by misundrestanding Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, to endorse, as so many do, the free-trade that is now damaging American and European businesses and throwing workers and skilled craftsmen (think of the silk trade in Como) permanently out of work, as the low-cost producer, China, takes over here and there, and everywhere, through its low costs. Free-market fundamentalists don't mind. Capitol is mobile; labor largely stationary, and loyalty to the stockholders can be justified in a way that loyalty to one's own country, apparently, can not. There are ways to remedy this, if appeals to good sense and decency and patriotism do not work. And apparently they do not.
But this is not a fit subject for this website.
Selling or "transferring" high technology (by allowing in "students" to learn it in kaffir institutes, etc.) to those who believe in anti-Constitutional and anti-human rights dogmas is suicidal.
We should have stopped anything more advanced than camel brushes and axle grease.
Hangmen always love when you sell them rope.
Trust only your ideological compatriots.
Islam is not.
Here's a scary map I found.....
http://www.islam21stcenturysuperpower.com/page2/page2.html
ISLAMIC UNION 2010
"What if an Islamic Union was created with an associated Islamic currency that could unite the Muslim communities and countries of Arabia, Africa, and Central Asia in one theologically based cultural and economic community. This Islamic Union would be the largest Union in geographical size and population. It would also control the majority of strategic and natural resources, including oil and gas. The GDP1 of this Union would initially be smaller than that of the EU and NAFTA, due primarily to one factor that could be addressed by applying the same business model used by the leaders of the UAE. This successful model of management could be called the Dubai Stewardship Model (DSM), and would be built on a foundation of stewardship (khalifa in the Qur'an) as called for in the Qur’an and also prominent in the teachings of the Bible and other major religions. If the current mismanagement of the immense natural resources of the African continent was replaced with a new Islamic economic model of management based on the DSM, the GDP would undoubtedly double if not triple in short time."
Read the rest here:
http://www.islam21stcenturysuperpower.com/index.html
"Nuri es-Said's mutilated corpse was dragged through the streets of Baghdad"
Come, come, I loathe islam same as the next man, but wasn't that the time U.S. "Management" - but in Saddam in his place? Wasn't that the time the Cia (aka the drug import company) arranged to put in Saddam? This is from exposed cia records.
Sigh. Anyway, Saddam knew the ropes and how to handle his own people. We should have kept him there.
"What has been the result" of alliances with the various Islamic regimes???
Here are two small 'results' glibly overlooked in the analysis above:
1. The flow of trillions of barrels of cheap oil into Western markets thus helping the fueling the unprecedented flourishing of capitalism. This may also be credited with the creation of a period of unprecedented world stability, and radically diminished deaths through warfare.
2. The rolling back and crushing of the expansionist Soviet Empire through alliances with Islamic regimes surrounding that communist octopus -- nations which included at times Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, & Afghanistan. Without the wealth partially generated by the Western securiing, development and shipment of oil, we neither would have had the wealth or the military prowess or the global influence to counter Soviet expansionism in those Islamic domains.
These are no small results. They saved, no doubt, hundreds of millions or billions from death and enslavement. Perhaps even America's salvation was at hand through this wealth generation and these repudiations of communism through alliances with various Muslim states.
Of course it's critical to draw conclusions on the unreliability of Muslims from these experiences, and it should be clear that alliances with Islamic nations are not permanent arrangements ever -- but no alliance ever was or will be permanent. But it's not correct to minimize the benefits which have accrued to the West and America through our presence in the ME, and our sometimes alliances with the likes of Turkey and Pakistan.
I challenge as unfair the idea that America should be blamed for the Pakistani military, or that their vile clandestine development of nukes should be placed on America's shoulders -- The Pakistanis are to blame for their treacheries -- not America -- this species of blaming America for the transgressions and betrayals of her allies is a hideous form of anti-Americanism. It is on par with the slanders spewed by the leftist America-haters, the 9/11 Truthers, and MoveOn.org, George Soros, and even Bin Laden and many other Islamists.
We are not responsible for the hideousness of Islam and Muslim societies.
Islam and Muslims are responsible for their vileness and their hideousness. America cannot and should not be blamed for making alliances with them at times to serve other larger strategic purposes. Now that those purposes have been accomplished, and especially now that Islam itself poses a strategic threat to America and the West, we can be blamed for failing to re-appraise those alliances in a timely fashion -- but no more than that.
Thank you for the trust, Hugh! The decision to let the US have bases on Bulgarian territory was not taken easily, and it still has a lot of enemies. You see, not even the Soviets had bases in Bulgaria after the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty. Bulgarian people don't particularly like foreign troops around (probably die to the memory of Ottoman Janissaries who managed to stay there some 500 years).
However, I think it is too early to think of expelling Turkey from NATO, not in the least because there is no such possibility in the Washington Treaty. Besides, the Turkish Army is really strong and really Western-minded. I would rather have them as dubious allies than as forthright enemies.
'Do you think Iraqis are a peaceful people who have been driven to brutal killings by American treatment of prisoners or occupation of their country? Do you think Republicans are to blame for the mess we find ourselves in today in Iraq? Do you really believe that dismembering and publicly displaying corpses is out of character for the Iraqi people?
If you answered "Yes" to any of the three questions above then I highly recommend you go visit your public library and read up on Middle Eastern history because your government-sponsored schools didn't teach you a damn thing about modern history.
I made mention of a date in a recent post here and several alert readers inquired about that date and what happened. Here's the scoop, kids. Try not to be too shocked at what you may learn. Our story begins almost 46 years ago in a little country called Iraq ....
On July 14, 1958, a single division of the Iraqi Army led by General Abdul Qarim Qasim , ostensibly moving through Baghdad to a new location, suddenly attacked the palace and overthrew the government. Armed mobs financed by Egyptian sources emerged, and excited the crowds and instigated bloody vengeance on anyone connected with the Royal Family or government. Before any loyal elements of the army, the British or the Jordanians could intervene, everything was over.
18-year-old King Faisal II of Iraq had angered President Nasser of Egypt by refusing to join the Pan-Arab league so the Egyptians set about to remove Faisal, assisting General Qasim in the bloody coup. The young King, the Crown Prince and their female relatives and aides were gunned down in cold blood outside the palace, under the pretence of a truce. The bodies of several prominent figures were dragged through the streets and mutilated in a fashion so barbaric that Iraqis to this day remember with shame the atrocities committed. With a beginning as inauspicious as this, the military regime that replaced the monarchy did not survive better. On October 7, 1959 Saddam Hussein took part in an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Qasim and was shot in the leg and exiled to Egypt.
The 1958 revolution, which toppled the British-installed monarchy, was gruesome and bloody. The regent Abdullah and several members of his family were gunned down in cold blood. The body of his uncle, Abdul Illah (picture below), was dragged through the streets of Baghdad and later dismembered. Prime Minister Nuri es-Said (picture below), long despised as the “puppet” of the British occupiers, tried to escape dressed as a woman but was found two days later and killed. His body was dismembered by the mob, the parts left in the street and motorists drove over his body.
General Qasim was an anti-Westerner, who would later seal his own fate by helping to create OPEC. He also made the mistake of relying on the local Communist Party for support, leaning, politically, towards Russia, and (surprise!) threatening to annex Kuwait. All of these, naturally, caused concern for President Kennedy (a Democrat), and the CIA assisted in the brutal assassination of Qasim on February 8, 1963, and helped bring the oil-company-friendly Ba'ath Party (to which Saddam Hussein belonged) to power.
For you conspiracy theorists out there, later in that same year President Kennedy was assassinated (November 22, 1963) and succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, a Texas oil man (also a Democrat). President Johnson was later driven out of office in 1968 after making a total mess of the quagmire in Vietnam .... where John Kerry served .... in Vietnam .... did I mention that John Kerry served in Vietnam? Did you know that John Kerry is also a Democrat, just like Kennedy and Johnson? John Kerry really has a lot to live down to, doesn't he?
So you see, (1) the war in Iraq started before many of you were born, (2) it was started by Egypt and an American Democratic President, and (3) the butal methods of the Iraqi mobs haven't changed one bit.
"
Qasim's regime was not brought down by the C.I.A. or President Kennedy. It was entirely an Iraqi affair. On July 14, 1958 Qasim's coup had gotten rid of Feisal, his family, and "strongman" Nuri es-Said, who had been involved in so many coups plotted, and coups failed, and counter-coups as well, for as long as he had been around, and he had been around since before World War II. The history of Iraq when it was under British control was one of Shi'a tribes revolting against the imposition of a Sunni (Hashemite) monarch, and a few months after the British left, and despite a solemn promise that had been made to the British, local Arabs proceeded to massacre tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians (William Saroyan wrote a book about it: "70,000 Assyrians").
The coups and counter-coups continued. There was pro-Nazi Rashid Ali, in 1941. There was on June 1-2, 1941, the "Farhud," the murder by Muslim mobs of Jews all over Baghdad. Naim Kattan (now in Montreal) has written a memoir of the period; Elie Kedourie wrote about it. A favorite method was to tie Jews to the streetcar tracks so everyone could gather round and enjoy seeing them crushed by a trolley. Great fun, and of course in 1963 there was similar fun when half-a-million Iraqis showed up to enjoy the spectacle of a dozen Jews and a few Chrstians being hung in the main Baghdad Square, and a good time was had by all -- if you were in the audience, and not being hung.
And the coups continued: 1958, and then 1963, in which the bullet-riddled bodies of Qassem and three associates were shown on television. And then Ba'athists, including a young man named Saddam Hussein who later came to power and promptly selected for execution all kinds of former associates, weeping crocodile tears as he had them taken, one by one, away to their deaths.
The rest is history. That's Iraq.