Four years of Pentagon financial support made the fatwa [prohibiting Muslims from killing fellow Muslims] possible, White said.The Pentagon paid for the meetings in various locations, spokesman Bryan Whitman said. He said White "believes he is very close to getting Sunni and (Shiite) religious leaders to sign on to this fatwa. It has the potential to be very positive." Monday, Jerry Jones, a special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, called the draft fatwa a "tour de force."... -- from this article
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, or perhaps early on in the invasion, according to Woodward's book, President Bush is said to have replied, when someone in his presence mentioned "the Sunnis" and "the Shi'a" -- "I thought they were all Muslims." Something of the same level of ignorance was displayed by Paul Wolfowitz, who said that there was no "internal conflict" in Iraq between groups that need be worried about, once Saddam Hussein had been removed (see my article "Paul Wolfowitz: After Such Ignorance, What Forgiveness?").
And then there was the inimitable Condoleezza Rice, who a year or two ago said of the Sunni-Shi'a clash that "they would just have to overcome that." It was, as she saw it, just that simple.
So progress, of a sort, has been made. Over the past several years, our Pentagon experts have worked tirelessly, spared no expense, in Iraq to prevent the Sunnis from killing the Shi'a, and vice-versa. And now we learn that Islam of course has nothing to do with any of the killing that goes on by Muslims of Infidels, anywhere in the world. To make that perfectly clear to Infidels and Muslims alike, Rice has sent out a memorandum prohibiting use of the word "Jihad" and other words, such as "muhajideen," that are formed from the same root, so that no one gets any ideas that the promptings of Islam are involved.
However, we also have just learned from the article linked above that all this time the Pentagon has realized that when Sunnis kill Shi'a, or Shi'a kill Sunnis, then the promptings of Islam, of Islamic rules, of "fatwa" issued by clerics, are of course absolutely indispensable. And that is why the American government has spent the past four years, apparently, trying to see if fatwas might be issued to ban Muslim-on-Muslim violence.
And this makes sense, if you think it makes sense for the American government to spend 2-3 trillion dollars, and 4,000 dead, and tens of thousands of seriously wounded, in order to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East --"ordinary moms and dads" who want such "freedom" in our good old American sense so desperately, with such ardor. And they also want, of coursem toys and good things to eat -- all paid for, apparently, by the Americans, to the tune so far of fifty billion dollars in "reconstruction" money, while the Iraqi government, despite the price of oil now double what it was a year or two ago, simply cannot afford to pony up a cent. Why should it, when the Infidels can be taken for every cent they've got?
Yes, it is quite an achievement to have Sunni lions and Shi'a lions lie down with each other. If achieved, just think: it could have consequences not only in Iraq, but in Pakistan, where for decades a Sunni terrorist group, Sipah-e-Sahaba, has been attacking Shi'a professionals. It could bring peace to the Yemen, where Sunnis and Shi'a tribes have been, and now are, fighting with each other. It could bring calm to the oil-bearing Eastern Province (al-Hasa) of Saudi Arabia, where that country's disaffected and ill-treated Shi'a minority lives. It could ease the worries of the Sunni ruler of Bahrain, who lords it over a population that is 70-75% Shi'a. It could relieve the Sunni rulers of Kuwait, with a similarly disaffected Shi'a group that constitutes 25% of the population. It could do wonders in Lebanon, where Hizballah threatens not only Israel across the border, and not only the Christians and Druze within Lebanon, but also the Sunni merchant class.
What could be better?
What could be more idiotic an achievement, akin to scoring a goal for the opposite team?
The Americans who are currently in charge of policy lack the wit, lack the knowledge, lack the imagination, and certainly lack the necessary ruthlessness that they should possess, to think of ways -- every day, every waking hour -- to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islamic Jihad. Abba Eban -- missing the point of Jihad -- famously described the "Palestinian" Arabs as "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
In Iraq, the pre-existing fissures -- sectarian and ethnic -- provide the surest way, at present, to divide and demoralize, and thereby weaken, the Camp of Islamic Jihad. The ethnic split -- Kurds resentful of their long mistreatment by Arabs -- could, if it led to full Kurdish autonomy, inspire other non-Arab Muslims not only to throw off the Arab yoke, but also to think more deeply about Islam as a vehicle for Arab linguistic, cultural, economic, and political imperialism. Given that 80% of the world's Muslims are not Arabs, this realization has powerful possible appeal in weakening the hold of Islam on non-Arabs, whose ethnic identity does not reinforce, but rather works against, Islam. And this may be particularly important, not only among the Kurds in Iraq, and Berbers in North Africa, but also with sub-Saharan blacks (see Darfur), and with the Iranians, who having experienced Islam under the Islamic Republic of Iran, may in large numbers find something, anything -- Christianity, freethinking, Baha'iism, even a return to Zoroastrianism as the pre-Islamic Persian state religion -- more acceptable than Islam, especially an Islam clearly, accurately painted as a vehicle for Arab imperialism.
But Gates, Rice, Bush and all their brilliant "strategic" thinkers are having none of it. They want to make sure that peace reigns over the world, the camp, of Islam and hence the camp of Jihad. They want to bring stability, even an unheard-of unity, and a shared prosperity, to Iraq. Why? Because such unity and such prosperity will inevitably lead to a better situation for Infidels worldwide. Why? Oh, because. Just because.
Stop asking. We're in the Pentagon. We're in the State Department. We know what we're talking about. Just shut up. Know your place.
Helping the enemy to build a united front against us. Clever!
The enemy?
THE ENEMY?
The enemy is not the moslem world, but the factionalized zealotry within. The best way to defeat this "enemy" is to ignore it until it goes away. Instead of fighting this war on Islam, we need to concentrate on our own domestic wars, such as the war on poverty, the war for education reform, the war for health care reform, and the war against making the ozone layer disappear. While it may be cute to follow these little stories, the inherent ignorance and lack of multiculturalism is quite sickening. People wake up and smell the world, it is a beautiful place. Thanks for coming out.
-Jonesy
"The best way to defeat this "enemy" is to ignore it until it goes away"
bwahahahahah..I disagree..
There's an article by Pepe Escobar over at Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB29Ak02.html that may provide a clue about the strategic thinking that underlies US actions. The article discusses Kosovo, which has seen much comment on this site in the past, although not recently, and the real reasons the US and EU acquiesced in its splitting from Serbia. It seems that the political and strategic calculus used in Kosovo is based on delivering energy from the Caspian region to Europe and the US along a pathway that bypasses the Bosporus and Dardanelles. The seeming irrationality of creating an Islamic government on the edge of Europe, and thus ignoring the lessons learned over centuries of bloody conflict that finally halted the barbarians, takes on a different light when interpreted using this set of geopolitical considerations. I haven't yet decided whether to put much stock in the views of the article, but somehow it seems to ring true. It would be interesting to hear comments from JW readers about this.
If the ATO article is in any way close in its assessment of the underlying motives that continue to drive our intrusion into this part of the world (including Iraq), it would appear that those very issues that the readers of JW/DW and similar sites regard as supremely important play little or no role in the thinking that goes on in the back rooms of State. If you are the Secretary of State and your job is to run interference for international business, the religious dynamics of the countries we've injected ourselves are merely an irritating distraction, unless of course you can enlist them in some way to do your bidding (think mujahedin-Afghanistan-80's). And if your strategic models don't have a box in them labeled "religion", either because no one has yet become convinced of its importance in the policical arena or taken the time to undertake a study to actually incorporate data showing that it is, and which is that is plainly obvious to everyone else, and you further lack the intellect to grok the big picture in any case, then you get silly statements such as Condi's famous "they should just learn how to get along."
I will be glad to see her depart the scene, although I would bet that she has become addicted to being in the spotlight and will find a way to continue in politics somehow. My hope would be that she would follow Madeline Albright, however, and fade into much deserved obscurity.
"lack of multiculturalism is quite sickening"
wrong again, it is the effort to establish multiculturalism that is sickening. it is this effort in futility that has created such turmoil in the the civilized world. Islam is not compatible with civilization. Everywhere it is allowed to enter, the adherents to the Religion of Peace immediately set up shop to destroy all that is Non Muslim, and install all that is Muslim. Muslims allowed into civilized countries through the failed policies of multiculturalism have caused nothing but death, destruction, and mahem..of course, the western governments apparently are afraid to close the doors of immigration and are afraid to start deporting those whose violate the laws of countries they enter. The conflicts in the Middle East are but the tip of the Iceberg and will soon engulf western civilization due largely to the efforts of the followers of the Peaceful Religion of Islam..Western Peoples are beginning to feel the need for Muslim backlash. People are tiring fast of the insanity brought to their countries of the failed efforts of "multiculturalism".
M-U-l-t-i-c-u-l-t-u-r-a-l-i-s-m....its a joke if Islam is involved. There is little or no problem with other people from other cultures settling in western countries-they adapt to the laws and customs of the host countries quickly, problems occur as soon as Muslims move into the neighborhoods..The Muslims do not want to adapt, they want to enforce..Islam is a real threat to civilization, a civilization that does not want to revert to the 7th century, a civilization that does not want to blindly follow the path set down by a 7th century caravan raider and murderer of innocent peoples, a man not a god. And no man has ever been perfect. not one..Allah has created nothing but pain and death for his people.
I am not interested in Allah..he is nothing but bad news.
Jonesy,
That was one of the better summaries of Leftist propaganda I've seen recently. Are you sure you didn't accidentally log onto the wrong blog?
I am sure I did not log into the wrong blog. I like to come here and stir up trouble. I am really just playing devil's advocate, as I am a nihilist. You may call me a troll, but I think I am something more.
And in response to pulsar182's propaganda right-wing-racist summary...do me a favor...replace 'Islam' with 'Christianity', 'muslim' with 'Christian', 'raider' with 'carpenter', and, well, i think the equation still might work.
What passes for discourse these days is what is TRULY sickening.
People with blinders on are truly sickening.
Why don't you go stir up trouble somewhere else?
"People with blinders on are truly sickening.
Why don't you go stir up trouble somewhere else? "
Because I need to fully be enlightened on this subject, and I feel that the only way to do so is to create an open dialog with the opposition. Believe me, I am stirring up as much trouble with the left wingers.
Rice has sent out a memorandum prohibiting use of the word "Jihad" and other words, such as "muhajideen," that are formed from the same root, so that no one gets any ideas that the promptings of Islam are involved.
Hugh, a typo, right? MUJAHIDEEN, not muhajideen.
jonesy,
I trust that you are also posting your comments at Muslim sites, to "open dialog with the (REAL) opposition," being the equal opportunity troublemaker that you claim to be, or would you rather just rip infidels to shreds?
now now,
everyone knows that Muslims dont blog. :-)
c/o theonecalledjonesy and his Jonesy Report
I have a mental image of Jonesy vomiting in his fucking corn flakes, and then eating them in true multiculturalist fashion.
"...I am a nihilist." Posted by: theonecalledjonesy
So what's your point Jonesy?
After all as a nihilist you find it all meaningless, and all pointless. About the same way I find your arguments for "Multiculturalism". And Jonesy, "Multiculturalism" is the same thing as taking every substance in your house and mixing it and wondering why you have raw sewage. Something just don't mix well, for example ammonia and bleach, or Islamofascism and FREEDOM of SPEECH, FREEDOM of RELIGION AND FREEDOM of THOUGHT.
As for "ignoring" the enemy, they will not go away. This tactic has been tried and has failed as the enemy has design to conquer and rule, and I'm sorry Jonesy but the Utopian Nightmare you advocate would also be a prime target for them as a rival to world domination.
But hey, it's all meaningless and pointless to you as a true "nihilist" or is that an anarchist?
"replace 'Islam' with 'Christianity', 'muslim' with 'Christian', 'raider' with 'carpenter', and, well, i think the equation still might work"
That's a statement that I hear quite often from liberals.
But it really doesn't stand up to analysis.
Say something, anything, bad about Jesus or Christianity, or Christians in public anywhere in the U.S. and see how many people start rioting. There won't be any; we are used to people saying that kind of stuff about us.
Publish a cartoon with a non-flattering image of Mohamed, or, as in this case, mention that Mohamed was a "raider", or even mention that muslims seem to have a predilection for violent behaviour. NOW sit back and watch the rioting begin.
Beyond that, there's the whole "jihad" issue. We can spend the rest of our lives debating whether violent jihad is or is not in keeping with the "true" teachings of islam, but that question is totally irrelevant. Maybe jihadists misunderstand their religion, maybe they don't. Either way, all over the world, horrific acts of violence are being committed in the name of islam.
Now tell me about all the violence being committed in the name of Christ. Anyone?
Obviously, Christians commit crimes, too. Occasionally, they even murder people. But here's the thing. You will have to look really hard to find an example of someone committing murder because they believe Jesus told them to do it. How hard do you have to look to find an example of someone committing murder because they believe Allah told them to do it?
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, or perhaps early on in the invasion, according to Woodward's book, President Bush is said to have replied, when someone in his presence mentioned "the Sunnis" and "the Shi'a" -- "I thought they were all Muslims."
It's just a guess but, based on my own experience, anyone who could read a newspaper during the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent taking of American diplomats hostage should have learned at least the names Sunni and Shia, even if they didn't quite understand what they meant.
The dozen years between the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq also provided many opportunities for anyone who could read to understand that there were two main branches of Islam. Didn't Daddy ever tell him about the no-fly zones in Iraq, one of which was to protect Shia Arabs?
Exactly when did George W. put down the bottle?
Eastview -
I cannot credit the administration with deep strategic thinking with respect to Kosovo when there is so little evidence of deep thinking in anything else it has undertaken. Unfortunately, it appears that 'I thought they were all muslims' is as deep as the thinking gets in the present White House.
When President Bush first used the phrase, 'muslim moms and dads', I was astounded at the equation of enlightened Westerners and nomadic, throat-cutting, mohammedans living in goatskin tents. In 1999, we nominated and elected a telegenic, unaccomplished rube to the White House. Today, he is less telegenic - but no wiser than eight years ago.
"Hugh, a typo, right? MUJAHIDEEN, not muhajideen."
-- from a posting above
Yes.
If you stick around Jonesy, and stop trying to stir the pot, you might just pick up the education you so desperately need.
The best way to defeat this "enemy" is to ignore it until it goes away.
Like standing on a railway line and waiting for the train to go away.
Jonesy, after you've matured enough to go beyond playing the guitar perhaps you'll realize the issues discussed on this site are serious ones. You obviously are not an equal opportunity troller, as your web site shows. You appear to have lied in your statement above that you are an equal opportunity troller, and the one thing no one on this site will abide is a willful liar. This will be my last response directly to you, and I hope that others will similarly ignore you henceforth.
I'd still be interested in anyone's thoughts on the Kosovo story mentioned in my post near the top of the comments section. It speaks to the issue of the main point of this thread, namely the relationship between the Department of State's inane public utterings and its underlying policies. Anyone?
Can someone quietly be shown the door? He has entertained us long enough.
Hugh-- I agree. Banned him earlier today.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/05/re-fitzgerald-pentagon-scores-goal-for.html