Not a single foreign intelligence service appears to have been impressed by the NIE. Those of Great Britain and Israel have raised more than eyebrows. The Israelis, who cannot afford to make the kind of mistakes the Americans keep permitting themselves, are not merely unimpressed with the conclusions but by all reports appalled by them, and now realize that they are on their own.
The actual text does not support the conclusions, the conclusions ballyhooed by The Times on the front-page as a Great Achievement In Intelligence. But what disturbs most of all is the underlying failure of its authors, in assigning the "moderate" or "high degree" of "confidence" in this or that conclusion, to realize how much depends upon an understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime. One must understand its origins, its history, the worldview of those who run it and what they wish to do, and what might, temporarily, give them pause, but in the end would cause them to start right up again when they thought the coast was clear. What conceivable explanation can there be for what Iran has been caught trying to import, or has managed to build? What conceivable explanation can there be for the 3,000 centrifuges to which the Iranians have admitted (the actual number is much greater)? It is the taking of Iranian denials at face value that is so disturbing, as well as the ignoring of the entire pattern of behavior that is prompted by deep beliefs, beliefs that in Ahmadinejad's case include a chiliasm that ought to scare many into grim comprehension.
Every assumption that appears to lie behind this report is on the side of seeing Iran's rulers as sensible, sane, rational actors. It's nonsense. That is not what Islam teaches -- not in the advanced Western sense. It teaches the duty to promote the spread, and dominance of Islam, coute que coute. Seventh-century texts may be laughed off by us, the Infidels, but they are not laughed off by others. The chiliasm of Ahmadinejad (a follower of a particular group within Shi'a Islam) may appear mad to us, but so what? It is the fact of his belief, not what we think of it, that matters, and that should underlie any weighing of evidence and any judgment as to what may be concluded -- and what it makes little sense to conclude.
Iran, meanwhile, needs to be preoccupied with something. That something should be Iraq. If the American forces leave, the Sunnis will be outnumbered, but despite American efforts to train an "Iraqi" army that, in fact, consists essentially of two wings -- the Kurdish and the Shi'a Arab -- the Sunnis will still, one suspects, exhibit superior ferocity. And they will, of course, be refreshed, from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. The Americans, free to concentrate on the larger problem of Islam, should then focus on the one thing that immediately matters -- which is the disruption, or destruction, or partial destruction, of Iran's science project.
One assumes that the Iranians, who have already been swarming into southern Iraq, and who have the sympathy, and perhaps even the allegiance, of some if not all Iraqi Shi'a, would not lightly allow the Sunni ascendancy to somehow be established, or to permit the wholesale slaughter of Iranian Shi'a. They will intervene. This, in turn, will require men, money, materiel to be expended, and those men, that money, that materiel so expended will further reduce the popularity of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The more fanatical supporters, i.e. basiji, will leave their duties policing and intimidating fellow Iranians to fight (and, one hopes, die) in Iraq, the better not only for the disaffected Iranians who will not be quick to join them, but also for Infidels elsewhere.
Western powers who wish to protect Infidels should do only one thing in Iraq: get out, and allow the natural fissures of Shia and Sunni, Arab and non-Arab, widen and widen and widen, to the great good fortune of Infidels, who if nothing else, need to buy time until a more informed political class comes to power all over the Western world, in its governments, in its armed services, in its judiciary, in its press, radio, and television.
The NIE report is but another step in the long march by the leftists in foggy bottom to undo the elections of 2000 and 2004. Regretably they are willing to sacrifice this entire nation for the sake of political 'payback' i.e., Valerie and Joe's slanderous lies about Nigerian yellowcake almost succeeded.
If this activity isn't treason then nothing is. Bush has done little if anything to stop it. The American people are outraged. Wait til November 2008. You'll see.
Of course NIE report is balderdash. It is merely a promise not to attack Iran in exchange for Iran letting us leave Iraq and declare it a victory. This ignominy is the price Bush is paying for his absurd venture.
I've been reading that the "intelligensia's" latest big idea is to view Iran's terrorism and WMD push as just a need for their fair share of influence, or "place in the sun", so we need to be accomodating and provide diplomatic carrots.
How anyone with any common sense can actually believe that nonsense is a measure of the intellectual degeneracy of Western elites. Now I understand Neville Chamberlain's appeal.
The Israelis, who cannot afford to make the kind of mistakes the Americans keep permitting themselves, are not merely unimpressed with the conclusions but by all reports appalled by them, and now realize that they are on their own.
Posted by Hugh.
This is a question to those on this forum who have a good knowledge of the Bible and biblical prophecy.
Is it not the case that in the Bible it describes the whole world including alies turning on Israel in the end times?
I am interested to see how those who ascribe and believe in prophecy are interpreting these events.
Any links would be appreciated.
Thanks
KM
Western powers who wish to protect Infidels should do only one thing in Iraq: get out, and allow the natural fissures of Shia and Sunni, Arab and non-Arab, widen and widen and widen...
by Hugh
Here's hoping we are not living in a dream world.
Natural fissures of Shia and Sunni? They have demonstrated an ability to work together against the infidel. They may, in the end, destroy one another, but only after they have destroyed us. This isn't the 15th century. They have the ability to cross the oceans, courtesy of Western aviation, and they are not averse to using our freedoms against us.
Does getting out mean withdrawing to Qatar or to NATO bases in Europe, or does it mean crossing the Atlantic? Getting out should be a one-way trip. Once we leave, we don't go back for at least a century. The "peaceful" people of the area will have to take it upon themselves to fight the jihad or die from it. We can get out but that policy will do nothing to help us unless it is paired with a total (and that means complete) ban on all Muslim travel to the West, regardless of nationality.
A more informed political class?
We already have leaders in waiting, such as Tom Tancredo, but the wider electorate will not vote for them because their views of America and Western civilization as worthy of defending are offensive to those who would live and let live in a multicultural realm.
From an Op Ed Piece by Kissinger at the Washington Post. Read it and weep.
The reality is that the concern about Iranian nuclear weapons has had three components: the production of fissile material, the development of missiles and the building of warheads. Heretofore, production of fissile material has been treated as by far the greatest danger, and the pace of Iranian production of fissile material has accelerated since 2006. So has the development of missiles of increasing range. What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads.
I'm a simple person. I have a simple mind which functions in a simple way.
What ails our Commander in Chief that he doesn't understand that retreat is a tactic, not an admission of inability or weakness? Are we going to spend more lives and money just for Bush's pride?
We should withdraw. We should leave not a man, not a gun, not so much as a can of beans in Iraq.
If warfare means crushing the enemy, especially the infrastructure of his society, then we've done that, or done enough toward that end. Time to leave, now. There is nothing more to be gained over there. We aren't going to win the hearts of the heartless, nor the minds of the mindless.
Nation Building! Horse pucky!
The idea (I think, in my simple way) is to leave them sitting in the rubble of their lives, with time to ponder, as they rebuild, the folly of biting off more than they can chew.
We need our troops here, at home. We have porous borders to plug. In time, God help us, we may have Mohammedan rioters to put down. An ounce of prevention is needed here, on the homefront.
Oh, well. That's my barely articulate, caffiene-inspired outpouring of rhetoric, for the day. I'm one of those "blue collar" types who were lately sneered at by a certain jurror in the HLF trial debacle.
PMK: Would just like to add that even assuming "getting out" of Iraq is a good idea (I'm inclined to think it isn't), this remains impracticable as long as America, Japan and so many other nations are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Energy independence for America, Japan, etc. is a key factor in eventually leaving Iraq and the wider Middle East. Any instability above and beyond what exists now (and for those who think things are bad as they are, consider that they could get much worse), could lead to astronomically high oil prices, which in turn would have the most decided negative effects on markets, savings, employment and inflation worldwide. The lifeblood of a nation is its ecnonomy and the lifeblood of economies across the globe is Middle Eastern oil. It's a mess, but it's a mess that will take a lot of ingenuity and initiative to alter. And I see precious little REAL proposals for energy independence being seriously put forth with possibility of implementaton by either Republicans (who generally have the better ideas but not the guts to follow through on them or Democrats (who generally have loopy ideas but enough resolution to follow through on their feckless schemes if given the chance). Oh yeah, things are complicated.
"barely articulate..."
Would that others could be even half so "barely articulate."
There is no question that a total Islamo-nutter like Mahmoud Ahm-mad-on-jihad, when he finally obtains nuclear weapons, WILL USE THEM.
The Israelis are indeed alone, because the members of the political class here in the West have all lost their minds!
This is like 1937, the fuse is lit, the clock is ticking....... we race headlong toward cataclysm.
The deterrent effect of mutual assured destruction got us through the Cold War, but just barely. The opposing sides were rational. Both sides earnestly feared a nuclear exchange, and sought to avoid it. Even so, the world was continually at risk of destruction resulting from a miscalculation.
We cannot assume that deterrence and containment will work with a nuclear-armed Iran. We would be stupid to rely on that strategy if there is any possible way of preventing Iran from going nuclear in the first place. In fact, we have already been stupid in allowing Pakistan to go nuclear.
Iranian nuclear weapons could most easily be stopped in the production stage, not after they are manufactured and deployed.
We can not even assume that the attack would come through a missile-launched weapon. If the Iranians obtain such weapons, they could seek to deploy them on ships or motorized vehicles or by aircraft piloted by jihadeen. If we were attacked in such an unconventional manner and then told there were additional nukes deployed in additional cities, we would be in a very difficult spot.
So, the potential consequence of getting it wrong on Iranian nuclear weapons is deadly.
But, who reads past the headlines? Our own intelligence says Iran abandoned its nuclear designs, so why worry about a few thousand centrifuges still spinning deep underground in concrete-reinforced bunkers? If there were a problem, our leaders would do something. And, if we are not reading past the headlines, why should we insist that the leaders we elect read any farther either?
Wow. The surrendercrats are now reading JW, at least on Saturdays....... "if we would just get out of Iraq, all this nation's problems will be over?" What collosally stupid sophistry
Get REAL, you peace 'mongers'.
Wellington says:
"Would just like to add that even assuming "getting out" of Iraq is a good idea (I'm inclined to think it isn't), this remains impracticable as long as America, Japan and so many other nations are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Energy independence for America, Japan, etc. is a key factor in eventually leaving Iraq and the wider Middle East."
I think Wellington reflects the opinion of many conservatives who still believe in attaining "victory" in Iraq is worth an indefinite commitment. And what that opinion comes down to that Iraq is about oil. Not about about freedom and democracy to ordinary moms and dads; not about stopping the global jihad; and not about fighting "terrorists over there". It is, about oil and our laziness, and slothfulness, and unjustified fear that the price of forgoing that middle eastern oil is higher than we want to pay.
Given the demographics, particularly in Europe, and the state of denial of so many westerners, are we not talking about the most intelligent steps to take for the very survival of western civilization?
Access to middle eastern oil is not worth fighting for and dying for when the rest of the jihad marches on unchallenged.
There are other energy resources that can be developed but they won't, as long as we have access to that middle eastern oil. Agreed that a sudden withdrawal of that middle eastern oil causes possible SEVERE economic effects. So freakin' what.
I'd rather not have a car, or a DVD player, or whatever convieninces I may have grown dependent on in my own ignorance because of the availability of middle eastern oil. I am tired of this. We are inviting the end of our civilization because we are afraid of being inconvenienced in the short to mid-terms. Sorry, but that is a pitiful excuse to allow the global jihad to continue unchecked. It's goal is world domination. Is it better to be free without the energy consuming conveniences we have become addicted to, or become the slaves of allah because it seems to me that is what our choices come down to when we are told we must continue the fight in Iraq and ignore the rest of the global jihad when it is acknowledged that oil is the prime reason for continuing the present course.
And I do not necessarily agree that inaccesibility to middle eastern oil will result in the economic collapse of western economies. The environmentalist crowd won't be happy, but the U.S. does have energy resources to fill the gap but once again they will not be developed while we have access to all that middle eastern oil. Every one of us will have to pay costs for cutting off that flow of oil. It is not that the gap cannot be filled it is that we do not want to do it becuase we fear the costs will be too high.
Iraq is about OIL now. No one wants to admit it and no one wants to pay the price in foregoing access to it. Are you?
God bless G.W., the US marines and the West.
Much of the rest is chatter, misleading analysis, and wrong conclusions.
The centrifuges place the bulls eye target on them.
Others may wait for the mullahs to fade away, or for oil, one of the greatest boons to our civilization, also to fade away, but such hope is illusory and foolish.
Maintaining access to Middle Eastern oil is a national security priority.
One reason for this is because we have pumped up and burned so much of our own petroleum resources, and in the course of depleting our own resources, we have built an economy and transportation system that relies upon oil at the very time that the oil we need is increasingly to be found in nations in the Middle East and elsewhere which do not share our values or have our interest at heart. Finding and using up what we have left in the West will only leave us more vulnerable later. We need to reduce our reliance on oil through conservation and search for renewable alternatives, but in the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, access to and control over Middle Eastern oil continues to be a matter of national security. Jets and tanks still run better on old-fashioned petroleum products than on ethanol or other alternatives and will for the foreseeable future.
The Axis powers lost North Africa and the Middle East and with this lost, the Axis lost access to petroleum resources in WWII. They did the best they could to make do without, but that loss hamstrung their efforts and highlights the importance of petroleum to national security.
If we are in a global war against jihadists, we do not want to end up begging them for oil. We need to be thinking about maintaining enough of a military presence in the Middle East to ensure the petroleum supplies necessary to fuel our military and our economy. That may not be a pretty reality, but the alternative is someone else using control of those petroleum reserves to cause the loss of our blood and our freedom.
But again, we also need to work hard on conservation. If we cannot or will not exercise the wisdom and self-restraint to do that, we do not deserve our freedoms.
Iraq is also about denying the Jihadi enemy a huge victory, immense oil wealth (to use against us) and a huge land base from which to attack us.
We have destroyed the old order (Saddam) and it WILL be replaced with “something”.
That “something” will be our enemy (who will grow incalculably stronger for it) or the political order of our choosing. What we know, and who we are, dictate that political order to be “Western style democracy”. This we have begun, though not perfectly by any means. As long as we defend it, it will grow stronger and serve our purpose.
Good posts, dgene, n.a. palm and Wellington, at least some of us “get it”
USorThem: Thanks for your post. I just wanted to clarify my position by unambiguously stating that oil is A factor, not THE factor, in any realistic determination of how we should proceed in the future in Iraq and in the Middle East at large. I'm not so jaded as to think that oil is all that matters, nor do I think the President and his closest advisers believe that oil is all there is in any calculation of American forces being or not being in the Middle East. One can be realistic and idealistic at the same time, as Lincoln was during the Civil War. Should America be able to bring democracy and prosperity to a country like Iraq, it would be an altruistic as well as an extremely practical achievement by the United States. Just as Jane Austen said it would be foolish to marry for money alone, but it would be equally foolish to marry without it, so America would indeed be less than praiseworthy if its only motive for being in Iraq and the wider region there were oil, but it would be pure folly not to take into account the enormous importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves for America and the world at large.
What we know, and who we are, dictate that political order to be “Western style democracy”. This we have begun, though not perfectly by any means. As long as we defend it, it will grow stronger and serve our purpose.
Good posts, dgene, n.a. palm and Wellington, at least some of us “get it.”
-- from a posting above
Among those who apparently do not "get it" about the imposition of "Western style democracy" in Iraq is Robert Spencer. His article at www.frontpagemagazine,org, written in 2003, on the incompatibility of Islam and democracy, can be easily retrieved, read, and digested.
I don’t know what to make of the NIE. We are either:
1. Led by abject idiots.
2. Led by a man who knows what’s brewing and is trying to bag his successor for either personal or political reasons.
3. Witnessing a ‘Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory’ move where the plan is to let Iran hit Israel, let Israel retaliate, and bet that the counter-counter strike will bring us into the fight. After first being attacked and retaining ‘good guy’ status.
Dangerous in any case. Two datapoints from a small town thirty miles away from a medium-sized city:
-A guy I know who has an ownership interest in the local small-town True Value hardware store is selling three AK-47s a day (nice weapon by the way, twenty cents per round in bulk; the rounds shatter 5500psi 6" concrete test cylinders).
- There is no gold bullion available for the public in the City this weekend. Called up four dealers and all were out. One guy when on for twenty minutes about how weird the market is.
Hugh: I too believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible. But I would suggest that it just may be possible to have a democracy in a majority Islamic country IN SPITE OF Islam and not because of it. Ataturk showed the way in an authoritarian and semi-democratic fashion; Lebanon before 1975 is arguably another model that worked from time to time. Full-fledged Islam will never work with democracy for reasons you and I and so many others know only too well. But a watered-down Islam, whereby a lot in the faith is conveniently ignored, sort of the way Presbyterians have to ignore Calvin's remorseless emphasis on predestination or Hindus have to avoid thinking too long and hard on coming back as a cow or a carrot, might be the kind of Islam that could get along with true democratic principles.
Trouble is that the Islamic theological blueprint has all kinds of things that must be ignored for democracy to function. And I fear that Islam will always remain a death cult for a certain percentage of its followers when they don't get their way. Either these obstacles can be overcome by so-called moderate Muslims working with non-Muslims or they can't. If they can't, then the entire Muslim world is hopeless and mankind's greatest struggle in its entire history is now in its early stages. Those who think all of the Muslim world is hopeless may very well be correct but they should hope they're wrong. If they are correct, then prepare for Armageddon, because while we can count on Muslims tearing each other apart in large numbers, they will also come after the rest of the world as well.
Hugh,
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my comments.
I would very much like to read the article by Robert Spencer to which you referred in your post above. I have found all the articles by R.S. at “FrontPage” for 2003, but none reference “democracy” in the title.
Could you please give me a specific date or a little more of the title?
We stayed in Iraq to flank Iran. The Democracy project is just an excuse for us to stay there. There is no creditable threat Iraq poses to a properly provisioned Army. Especially if the Forces are free to use those weapons without restraint.
Our forces are struck by roadside bombs as often as they are simply because the General Population still has access to the road network. In the case of active Combat, like it was during invasion, US fire power will clear them in short order.
War is not the Answer- It is the solution.
If our National Security is our main concern, then the consequences of going to war with Iran is other Country's problem. Our Foreign Policy is being held Hostage by the the unwillingness of other Country's to step up to the plate. There are way too many other Country's dependent upon Middle Eastern Oil than we are.
The loss of Middle Eastern oil will effect many other Country's more than it would to us. Sure, we will suffer, but the World complains we use too much of it as it is. The World complains about us now when we are trying to maintain the flow of it. They seem to have a problem no matter what we do. So screw them. Do what is in our Interest.
We have the capability to replace our energy needs by alternatives even if it takes some time to bring them fully on line.
For years we have been prevented from further Developing our own resources, due to the Environmental movement. Effectively halting any meaningful development. Does it make any sense on a National level for Sen. Ted Kennedy to block the development of Wind Turbines simply because he would have to look at them when at home having too many cocktails? Now extrapolate that mentality across the Nation and then ask yourself why so many complain about an Oil dependent Economy.
If the Policy of the United States is to maintain the flow of Oil from the Middle East. then Leaving Iraq is not an option. If Confronting Iran is the United States Policy, then Leaving Iraq is not an Option.(unless your just going to Nuke them).
Leaving Iraq in the hopes that Islam feeds upon itself, a likelihood Hugh so eloquently endorses. Is just as likely to shut off the flow of Middle East Oil as Going to war with Iran will. Only, Leaving them alone, will draw the conflict out for Years on end with all the incentive for other 3rd party's to continue the flow of weapons into the region. While leaving them alone to further develop WMD. Something they are already actively engaged in and likely to be helped with by the same entities who would keep them supplied with conventional weapons.
Just leaving Iraq will never do anything to alter Domestic Policy with regards to the Threat of Islam to the West. It will not halt Muslim Immigration, Close the Borders, change Energy generation methods, energize domestic industry development. or rid us of Multi=Cultural BS.
War will. It leaves us no other alternative.
Then, when we chose to leave. we can do so in a western direction and solve the rest of the Middle Eastern Problems by reembarking our Forces through Ports in the Eastern Med.
There is no doubt in my mind that those who are so vocal about The war being about Oil, are going to be the ones screaming the loudest when the flow stops. If they are going to Scream no matter what. Should we really care about the why?
If invading Iraq was all about oil where is it? We have 150K troops in Iraq. If it's all about the oil, surely we could have secured the oil fields, pipelines and transport routes and rebuilt the production infrastructure by now.
If it was all about the oil those fields ought to be producing at top capacity and cutting the throats of the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela and Russia; all of which are cutting ours and Europe's throats.
I fully agree that alternative energy sources need to be developed. That is news 30 years old. In the mean time (and the time is indeed mean) we need to diminish the financial ability of our enemies to do us harm.
Let the Iraqi oil flow. Let the price for oil plummet. Let us hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who wish us ill and lets us work like coolies to make oil irrelevant.
The article by Robert Spencer was not at FrontPageMagazine -- I was mistaken and I hope you didn't spend a lot of time looking -- but can be found at the link below. Spencer takes the "No" side to the question "Does President Bush Have a Realistic Plan For Bringing Democracy To the Middle East."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_19/ai_100111653
Karl2
You are correct in all the reasons why oil is important. My point is that it is time we decide it worthwhile to change, by reducing, at least temporarily, perhaps permanently, our standard of living so that oil becomes less important.
The U.S. still has abundant energy resources to access should we choose to do so. If Americans became inconvenienced long enough with long lines at the gas stations, regular power outages, restrictions on certain high energy uses, you would see the objections to new energy development disappear. There would be environmental costs for sure. But we don't even get to these possibilities because we treat access to middle eastern oil as something so important, it is worthwhile go to war to keep.
As for national security, we have ben stockpiling the strategic petroleum reserve for many years. If there was an imminent threat to National Security do you think the environmental concerns could be overidden and access to ANWAR would make sense? I do.
We only "need" middle eastern oil because we do not want to pay the higher costs of doing without.
Wellington,
Yes, if democracy took hold in Iraq our efforts would be worthwhile. In your prior posts here at JW I have seen your assessment of Islam and what makes it so dangerous to the west. I also recall your legal background and from this I cannot understand how you could conclude that democracy is even possible in Iraq. Sharia law was made part of the Iraq constitution. How is democracy even possible? The Iraq constitution would have to be either replaced or denuded.
Davegreybeard,
We already choose the political order. The Iraq constitution is a sad joke. It won't work. The ultimate ownership of that oil wealth and those lands that you want to protect now will be determined by forces beyond our control when we leave. Our presence is delaying that day of reckoning. And in the meantime Americans die. It will be the same result whether we leave today or in a few years. We are buying time with lives.
"If invading Iraq was all about oil where is it?"
"If it was all about the oil those fields ought to be producing at top capacity and cutting the throats of the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela and Russia; all of which are cutting ours and Europe's throats."
USBeast see this:
Iraq Oil Exceeds Pre-War Output
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm
Flowerknife says:
"There is no doubt in my mind that those who are so vocal about The war being about Oil, are going to be the ones screaming the loudest when the flow stops."
I think the Iraq war is about oil now, where it was not initially. As I said above, I am willing to go without and change my standard of living. No "screaming" from me if it will shield us from the oil weapon. Maybe others will fit your theory, but not me.
USorThem: Again, thanks for your comments. I'm closer to your line of thinking than perhaps you realize. I don't like Islam. I think the best thing a Muslim can do is leave Islam (which I'm only too aware would mean death under one of the worst legal systems of all time---Sharia). I'm all for banning more Muslims from coming to America, though I'm fully conscious of just how difficult that will be to accomplish both constitutionally and legally. Nonetheless, I think it possible to establish something along the lines of a working democracy in Iraq. You, quite understandably and correctly, mentioned that Sharia is part of the new Iraq constitution. Troubling indeed. There are three options with respect to this: 1) it is removed from the constituition (not likely); 2) it is kept in it but somewhat to mostly ignored (possible); 3) Sharia becomes the dominant feature of the constitution and folks like you and Hugh have been right all along (which I have conceded as possible on many occasions).
I think it's a very close call whether true democracy can function in some majority Muslim countries. And if most Muslims around the world don't get their act together, and soon, and realize that some of what is in their religion will absolutely, positively never be implemented or accepted in most countries of the world (e.g., Sharia replacing various nations' constitutions or the continuance of the free preaching of Islam in non-Islamic countries without total reciprocity for other faiths to preach their creeds openly and without fear in Islamic nations), then to hell with them all. Bring it on I say to them. Might as well get this over sooner rather than later. My patience with Islam is running out. To the majority of Muslims around the world I say clean up your act big time or know you will face opposition as you never have in your 1400 year history. This is not a threat. It is a certainty.
UsorThem, thanks for the link, but production levels higher than before the war is not much to brag about. Pre-war infrastructure was falling apart and Saddam was milking it for all it was worth. Also, given the abuses of the "Oil for Food" program, can we really be certain what pre-war levels were?
Wellington:
If getting out of Iraq is "impracticable as long as America, Japan and so many other nations are dependent on Middle Eastern oil", then why aren't those nations as committed as the US? If they're so dependent on ME oil, what are they doing to ensure stability?
There will come a day when the US military simply cannot do what the world expects. The free ride will be over. The militaristic (in the eyes of the much more civilized Europeans) Americans will have to pull out of not just Iraq, but a lot of other places, too. What then?
The original question stands: what do people mean by "getting out" of Iraq? Do we leave the area or "pull back" to Europe or Qatar? What does the latter accomplish? The Dems who insist the war end want us to pull back to bases in the area and remain on standby. What's the point? Either we're in or we're out. If we're in, we should be fighting for our own interests and no one else's. We're not the only ones with a stake in Middle East oil. Plenty of other countries are too and they also have the means to ensure that stability. They can afford their own military. They should have more than "token" forces in this fight. The world of 1945 is long gone. The US simply cannot afford to play the role some people want it to play, even as they snipe at any mistakes our soldiers make. They can't have it both ways anymore.
IRAN STOPPED WORKING ON A NUCLEAR BOMB YEARS AGO!
NEWS FLASH--VIA THE 'NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE" (NIE)
A BRILLIANT PROPAGANDA STROKE!
That is, propaganda in the true meaning of the term. The word originated from a papal "propagation of the faith" effort. The best example of propaganda is advertising. This is persuasion, the getting you to try a product and then to regularly use it.
If the product is found out to be not as portrayed, then the persuasion fails. If similarly we find that something that is being sold to us--news, an idea, an analysis or interpretation of a situation--is found to be based on something that is not true, then we won't buy it nor any more material coming from that source.
Which brings us back to the recent NIE report that was apparently accepted without as much as a murmur of doubt by the President and the American intelligence community.
All this time, we had been hearing--made to believe by our Government via its intelligence sources--that Iran was working on a nuclear bomb to blow Israel to smithereens. Ahmadinejad said so, unabashedly and that then we--the U.S.--were next.
What to do? Preemptive strike flashed into our minds. Why not? Cripple their effort to wipe us out, kill our children, etc. Rumor flashed that Bush would do something before his term expired.
Then--apparently out of the blue--came the NIE report allaying all our fears: Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon years ago. All its current effort was concentrated on nuclear development for peaceful purposes--energy, perhaps (as if they who are sitting on more oil than they can use needed that). Bush mouthed it, he made us believe that he believed it.
Now, we need no longer fear Iran, no longer concern ourselves with that problem. It no longer existed. Iran was not a menace.
Iran could go on working on their nuclear bomb without having to worry about sanctions. The propaganda stroke--persuading us that Iran was only interested in peaceful nuclear uses--was successful.
Not everybody bought into that NIE report. John Bolton said that the "peaceful" nuclear work going on was the one that would finally yield the weapon that Iran was preparing for--they are getting the long-range missiles together to deliver that device to two targets: Israel and the U.S.
It makes sense--for Iran. Both countries have Jews living in them, and Jews are the enemies of Mohammedanism, according to Mohammed himself.
Other disbelievers, besides former UN ambassador John Bolton, are the UK and Israel. Their intelligence told them something else: nuclear development was going ahead in Iran, full steam. The line between "peaceful" nukes and nuclear bombs is fine to non-existent.
So, we--here in the U.S.--are left dangling. Is it true, what the NIE report said? Is Bush a willing dupe of the intelligence agencies--the CIA, etc., who have no use for him?
No longer were we certain that Iran is our enemy. Doubt had been sown into our collective consciousness.
If you haven't read them yet, go read the non-U.S. reaction to the NIE report. Better to be safe than sorry, that is, go along with Israel (target #1) and the Brits (probably better intel than we have). That the CIA culture hates Bush is hinted at, and that in this fashion they have prevented any further thought of attacking Iran also.
The propaganda--whether by Iran or the CIA--worked, we feel relieved--or do we? We are no longer as sure as before that Iran was close to getting nukes. So it--the propaganda--did its job.
PMK: Sympathetic to your queries. Very. One pays a high price for being the great power. Rome found this out time and time again (I'm far more sympathetic to the Roman Empire than many for this very reason), as did Spain, then France, then Britain and now us. I'm often amused at all the annoying and imbecilic criticisms of my nation, which I think the greatest political entity in world history, because they rarely take into account that the great power at any point in time has things to act upon which others have the luxury of not even having to think about. As an example, if the United States Navy didn't patrol the Persian Gulf area with regularity, then oil supplies to sundry countries across the world that need Middle Eastern oil would either not get them or get them at exorbitant prices, with concomitant collapse in world markets and massive rise in unemployment worldwide as a result. As Mark Steyn has written, a world without America would be a world held hostage by the tyrants of the earth.
And then there is the moral imperative. America is an extraordinarily decent polity. As that brilliant Englishman, Paul Johnson, wrote in the dedication page of his "A History of the American People,"------"This book is dedicated to the people of America-----strong, outspoken, intense in their convictions, sometimes wrong-headed but always generous and brave, with a passion for justice no nation has ever matched." Your understandable frustration with so many other countries not fending for themselves is due to not only our great power status but also to the fact that America is the most selfless great power in history, withering comments from detractors of America who foolishly expect total altruism or else notwithstanding. In short, America is too good for almost all the rest of the world. And this is due not so much to the fact that America is great (though it is), but rather to the fact that so much of the world is so pathetic, including Europe, which started two world wars we had to finish, reneged on almost all its debts to us, gave us such winning ideologies as Marxism and Nazism and couldn't even solve a backyard brawl in the Balkans in the 1990s without us having to step in to resolve it tactically, if not strategically.
Would I like much of the rest of the world to go away? You bet I would. I'd like to exile the Islamic world to Mars. Hey, wouldn't you? And what about so much of the rest of the world? There are those in Europe who appreciate us, but not nearly enough. Shame on those who don't. Any European who is free would not be free but for America. Europeans know this or should know it. Ditto for those in Japan (which, to its credit, does not ordinarily descend to the levels of ingratitude that so many European countries do), South Korea, Taiwan, The Philippines and the list goes on and on. Russia is reverting to its usual the-whole-world-is against-us mentality (thus justifying authoritarainism at home, which is happening rapidly under Putin, a man who understands power but who is clueless about America and true freedom), China is far too collectivist as usual and also doesn't comprehend the importance of freedom and Latin America (including, unfortunately, Mexico) and Africa are as about as unimpressive as ever.
Nonetheless, we have obligations and interests. It would be nice if others helped more but that probably won't happen. And isolationism would create at least as many problems as our situation now. Nonetheless, think there's any chance we could tell the rest of the world to go away? I for one would love it.
Hugh,
Thanks, I got the article. I am in the process of digesting it and formulating a (hopefully) cogent response.
USorThem,
YOU ARE IN ERROR in your statement “Sharia law was made part of the Iraq constitution”. What the document REALLY says, as stated in the Iraqi Constitution:
“Article 2 A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam”
This is QUITE different from incorporating Sharia law into the Constitution.
You are also confused, as evidenced in your statement:
“How is democracy even possible? The Iraq constitution would have to be either replaced or denuded.”
READ THE CONSITUTION – this is not difficult. What it ATCUALLY states is:
“Article 2 B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy”
So we have no law against Islam and no law against democracy mandated in the same document.
It remains to be determined which will prevail, so place your bets - chose wisely.
Kill the Jihadi, educate the Muslim
Deus Vult!
“Article 2 A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam”
This is QUITE different from incorporating Sharia law into the Constitution."
-- from a posting above
No, it isn't. It makes the "established provisions of Islam" -- to be determined, of course, by clerics not elected officials -- the highest law of the land. Just as no American law may remain in force, if declared by the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, this provision of the Iraqi Constitution puts, above that Constitution, a still higher law: the "established provisions of Islam." That is, the "established provisions of Islam" are, in Iraq today, equivalent to our Constitution -- above that something called the Iraqi consitution.
Remember Australia, which has been back-to-back with the USA when others have walked away from you.
mareeS: I and millions of other Americans do remember Australia, a staunch friend in war and peace for a long time now. Sure we've had our differences. What nations do not? But Australia is one of the nobler nations on earth (damn athletic too) and Americans by and large have a very high opinion of her.
Hugh wrote:
“That is, the "established provisions of Islam" are, in Iraq today, equivalent to our Constitution -- above that something called the Iraqi constitution.”
I must respectfully disagree.
Islam and democracy are BOTH in the Iraqi Constitution. One is not stated as being above the other. This may change due to court interpretations in the future, but at the moment the document states that no law shall be made against Islam AND no law shall be made against democracy. Islam is no more “above” the Iraqi constitution than democracy.
We all know there is a conflict here. Time will reveal how this will be resolved, but it is not a forgone conclusion (at least to me) that Islam will triumph. If Islam is a poison pill for democracy, then certainly incorporating a mandate for democracy in an Islamic nation’s constitution is a poison pill for Islam.
Hugh,
I agree with everything in your article with the exception of your use of the word "chiliasm".
"Chiliasm" is defined:
chil·i·asm (kĭl'ē-āz'əm)
n. Christianity
1. The doctrine stating that Jesus will reign on earth for 1,000 years.
2. The belief in the Christian doctrine of the millennium mentioned in the Book of Revelations
Ahmadinejad subscribes to the belief that the 12th Imam aka "Mahdi" will return to Earth, this is definately not in the "Christian" doctrine, nor do I think Ahmadinejad is reading the Book of Revelations.
The Americans have done an about turn on their Islamic foreign policy - once again they have demonstrated a lack of staying power - as in Vietnam - a few body bags and the gig is up.
It seems OBL was right in his estimation of the American people - fundamentally weak, spoiled decadent.
The Americans love to have the Glory but have never been up to putting in the hard work that is necessary to achieve it. So they will cut and run - the Islamists will leave them alone , for a while! and "old Europe " will have to defend itself on its own.
Maybe the Americans will do what they did in WWII - stay out until the Eleventh hour when the war is won then jump in at the last moment and claim all the glory - my old dad was right f**** yanks good for nothing!!
I would suggest that the US finds itself in the Position England was in WWII. Fighting a Major war on its own, with mild support from others. It is our Forces doing the heavy lifting in all the Theaters of operation and footing the bill.
We have help, but it is really marginal when you look at the big picture. Europe as a whole should be able to field forces at least on par with our own. But they refuse to do so. With many of them completely unwilling to even fire a shot.
The MSM and their Allies in Government have made every effort to prevent the Nations ability to progress any policy forward in the War.
The best example is how one side of the Political spectrum harps about how our Military is broken. While making sure that it never gets fixed. Do we hear them ask their fellow Countrymen to serve? No, actually quite the opposite. From the School yard to the Parents. Just ask your Children how the Issue is treated in School. The Anti American sentiment on our College Campus has its roots in our tax payer funded Middle Schools.
When was the last time you heard one of the Preening Politicians ever ask anyone to serve? Or for that matter, present a Bill to expand the the active duty ranks. What is the likely reaction by the MSM if anyone were to be so brazen as to even bring it up?
President Bush has had my support for the simple reason that he is the only Political figure willing to do anything with regards to Radical Islam. The rest of the Political spectrum has been neutered and spayed. The NIE report is the last tug on the Rug under the Presidents Feet.
I often ask myself how any self respecting Military Officer could serve a Demoncratic President after the "Gen Betrayus" affair. Especially if it is Sen. Hitlery.
May God help the United States of America. We are going to need it.
KM asked in an above post, "I am interested to see how those who ascribe and believe in prophecy are interpreting these events."
My rule when dealing with prophecy is that no prophecy is fully understood until it is fulfilled, and while the words may be inerrant my hearing may be faulty and being human is to err.
MY own take is that the events outlined in Biblical prophecy are that the forces that lead to the crescendo of events are led by Russia with a coalition of international forces. What seems to be missing in all of that is the peace that Israel enjoys at that time, wether the peace arises from security measures taken unilaterally by Israel or if it arises from diplomatic efforts, the texts are clear that at the time of the invasion, Israel is experiencing a peace that for now seems far away.
Ezek, 38 39,
johnmacII,
FUNNY!
Next time the US stays out of some conflict, please don't complain about "lazy" Americans.
As the saying goes, you want something done right?
DO IT YOURSELF.
The candidate that promises to send that message to all Europeans and to our neighbor to the north will win in a landslide.
The Americans, as I type, are about to throw the bone of KOSOVA to the Islamists. Appeasment in its most basic form. Aided by the EU, they think that they can curry favour with this, for them, painless gift of part of Serbia to the Islamic menace. Probably old Georgy boy has been having some head-to-head with his adoptive uncles in the Saudi family and came up with the idea.
But this will backfire on them for sure - it will be resisted by Serbia backed by Russia and a few other European powers who see this cowardly act for what it is.
There will be a war and Kosova will be retaken back into the Christian world and this time bombing from 20000ft will have no effect as the Serbs will definitely have right on there side.
When its all over and done the Europeans will be shown, along with everyone else the impotence of American power - a truly bad move for the Americans and for the Christian world in general but the yanks don't seem to see past their first move these days - are there no chess players left in the USA these days?.
Only those who desperately want to believe the NIE put any faith in its accuracy. The rest of us see it clearly for what it is, nonsense.
Only those who desperately want to believe the NIE put any faith in its accuracy. The rest of us see it clearly for what it is, nonsense.