Ignorance, whether willful or not, from the major "architects" of the Iraq venture. From Diana West:
So there I was, listening to a few of the major "architects" of the war in Iraq -- Paul Wolfowitz, formerly No. 2 man at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld; Douglas J. Feith, formerly No. 3 man at the Pentagon under Rumsfeld; Peter Rodman, another former senior adviser to Rumsfeld; and Dan Senor, former senior adviser to Paul Bremer of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). They had assembled at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., for a discussion of Feith's new book, "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism," but what they were drawn to discuss was what went wrong with the war in Iraq.A rather large topic. Would it cover, perhaps, such grand themes as the multicultural Big Lie that insists Western ways may be grafted -- presto! -- onto Islamic cultures? Or maybe the difficulties inherent in the Western-style, humane projection of power against seventh-century terrorist barbarians?
No.
The main discussion I heard turned more or less on one extremely narrow point of historic contention. It concerned the CPA rule of Iraq, which came to an end almost exactly four years ago. Wolfowitz and Feith, and Rodman to a less explicit degree, agreed that this period of American governance -- that is, the interlude before Iraq officially became sovereign -- was the fatal flaw, the fly in the ointment, the monkey wrench, the skunk at the garden party, the bad penny and overall cause of all of America's troubles in Iraq. It wasn't the overweening Bush administration plan for Jeffersonizing the Fertile Crescent, or our leaders' misreading of the "democratic ally" potential therein. It was the 14-month-reign of the CPA that caused all our woes. The CPA, the argument goes, in effect created the Sunni insurgency, which later gave rise to the Sunni-Shiite wars, and which ultimately required the added infusion of American troops known as the surge.
If I'm following this theory correctly, there is absolutely nothing in Iraqi history, politics, religion, sectarianism or culture that manifested itself in the bloody insurgency that followed the removal of Saddam Hussein. According to Feith & Co., it was only the American face on (and muscle behind) initial efforts to bring order, civil society and air conditioning to Iraq that made the newly ejected-from-power Sunnis (and others) organize, shoot, stab, blow up, maim and make violence a fact of Iraqi life to this day, four years into Iraqi sovereignty.
This sounds a bit like the asinine theory that tells us U.S. foreign policy made 19 jihadists attack us on 9/11. But isn't there also something a little goofy about the notion that if only the United States hadn't run an occupation government for a year, everything in Iraq would be hunky-dory? Not surprisingly, the CPA's Senor didn't agree with the Feithian proposition, arguing that the lack of a U.S. counterinsurgency strategy was a bigger problem. He didn't get much argument that this was a problem; indeed, Wolfowitz agreed the United States was, as he put it a trifle breezily, "pretty much clueless on counterinsurgency."
The classic clueless moment, however, came later in answer to a question from the floor: Did the administration ever tell Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to bar combatants from crossing their borders into Iraq -- or else? And if not ("not" is clearly the answer since these borders have been Grand Central Station for jihadists), why not? Wolfowitz owned up that the United States had said something or other at some point, but, overall, the consensus on the dais came down to a big, shrugging non-answer.
I got one of those answers myself, at least from Feith. I asked: What did these gentlemen think the United States would ultimately get out of Iraq in exchange for our massive investment of blood and treasure? And had they learned anything to make them doubt the president's often-repeated promise that Iraq would become an "ally" in the "war on terror"? Shrug. Not interested in answering.
Looking back, there was a narrowness in the scope of discussion that time constraints alone can't explain. It was as though the men believed every clue to heartbreak in Iraq could be found in the chain of events as they had already occurred -- in papers already generated, debates already argued, rounds of infighting already waged, decisions already executed. In other words, to these men, there would seem to be nothing new worth pondering -- like, for instance, the havoc Islamic ways wreak on Western-style nation-building.
Shrug.
Diana West is one astute lady who has once again ‘hit the nail square on its head”! "Iraqi War Architects” indeed – shrug!
An excellent example of clear thinking and concise writing. Diana West for President!
Too bad that "clueless" has already been taken as a film title.
The title could be: "Clueless in Iraq".
People forget that religion matters. This is a serious political error in the West. Jewish and Christian understanding of how God works, and the agency of human beings is different from Muslims. Even folks who don't believe in the Christian/Jewish God often have a defacto JudeoChristian cosmology.
We believe that God is active within salvation history in a rational (although mysterious way) and is not so transcendent that human beings do not have some sort of agency in the world (although flawed by orgininal sin, there still is free will). It is therefore valuable for us to plan and participate in God's ongoing mission in the world.
The Muslim god is so transcendent that Muslims tend to avoid long term planning. Read some books on doing business in the Middle East and you'll see this dynamic explained. Whatever happens, is god's will so why plan. Remember in the 1990's when all those people died in the tunnel in Mecca. A Saudi prince said, "Those who died in the tunnel, if they had not died there, they all would have died at the same time somewhere else since it is god's will. Personal agency is a minimalist concept in Islamic thought and this pervades their societies.
Revenge and justice are also quite different in Islam, since forgiveness is not an overarching concept. While Christians (more than Jews) and Jews have been disobedient and sought revenge, it is a concept that is forbidden in both religions.
There are other issues to consider too, however the lack of progress in Iraq, the rabid revenge, and the blaming of the US for what the Iraqi's have done with freedom, could have been predicted. In this respect, the planners have some blood on their hands for being naive regarding how Islamic theology impoverishes the human beings who live under its diminished and often depraved world view.
Like most Americans, I believe my country is a noble nation. And it was noble to want to end the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and replace it with a free and prosperous Iraq. And, of course, it was in our self-interest to do so as well. (Note to critics of American foreign policy: It is unrealistic and morally myopic to think no self-interest is a pre-condition to be considered altruistic and enlightened). But the elephant in the room that so many to this day still refuse to see is whether a Muslim society can become a true democracy. Honestly, I don't know for certain; much of the time I think not. But I do know that if such a thing is possible that it must be done in spite of Islam, not because of it. And respecting this the planners for war in Iraq were not as aware or knowledgeable as they should have been.
The "shrug" as the only reply on the part of these Grand Strategic Thinkers is telling. It appears that the most important questions, the ones not asked then, are still not to be asked, for there is no answer.
Such questions include the following:
1) How likely is it that "freedom" in anything like the Western sense, including a "democracy" that goes beyond mere head-counting at the polls, but also includes guarantees for individual liberties, and for the rights of women, non-Muslims, and Muslim minorities, could be transplanted to a place suffused with Islam? Do any of those who were in charge of war planning realize that in Islam, political legitimacy is located not in the will expressed by the people, but by the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an, a will glossed by the Sunnah (roughly, the Hadith and Sira). Hint: in answering this question, do not rely on invoking the name of Bernard Lewis, who has in recent years written Op/Eds about "democracy" in the history of Islam, not only contradicting his own previous writings, but confusing the practice of Islamic rulers who, not unnaturally, would consult with others (non-Muslim despots have been known to do the same), but such consultation does not amount to something like Western advanced democracies.
2) Could you please explain when it is that you realized -- as Paul Wolfowitz is on record as having pooh-poohed -- that Iraq was riven by group strife, both ethnic and sectarian? When did you realize that the pre-existing fissures within Iraq would not respond easily to any effort to heal them, or minimize them, and that contrary to some, those fissures predate the reign of Saddam Hussein by some 1300 years, for the Sunni-Shi'a split, and the Arab supremacism that is part of Islam (and helps explain the long Arab mistreatment of the Kurds)go back to the first century of Islam.
3) Could you please explain -- not with a shrug, after two trillion dollars and 4,000 dead, and tens of thousands of wounded, a shrug simply will not do, is simply unacceptable -- how it is that the notion of creating a stable, prosperous, democratic Iraq -- unlikely as it might seem -- developed, and why it was believed that any Sunni Arab regime (and all the other Arab regimes are Sunni) would look favorably on the transfer of power from Sunnis to Shi'a that became inevitable once Saddam Hussein and his regime had been removed? What made you think that any Sunni Arab regime would find this transfer of power inspiring?
4) In focussing on Iraq, and the Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations project, did you give any thought to how this might effect, or have no effect at all, on the manifestations, all over the world, of Jihad -- that is, the struggle by Muslims, regarded as a central duty, to spread Islam, to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam (including the legal and political institutions of Infidel nationo-states), and to ensure that everywhere, ultimately, Islam comes to dominate, and Muslims to rule? How, in what way, by what mechanism, would the apparent Administration goals for Iraq contribute, for example, to a greater effort in the nations of Western Europe to withstand, and counter, such instruments of Jihad as the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest?
5) Did you, in fact, in all of your many meetings, or in the years since, when out of power you have all had a chance to reflect, and to ponder, and to learn a bit more about Islam than you did when you decided that Ahmad Chalabi was a swell fellow, and one would merely have to get rid of that "brutal regime," and offer the bounty of American largesse, and American soldiers rebuilding this, and constructing that, all paid for by American taxpayers no doubt delighted to help in this effort which would, as the day doth follow night, roll back the appeal of Al-Qaeda -- which is of course our only worry, or at least, terrorism" is our only worry, and Al Qaeda is, we all know, don't we, the most important terror group -- so that it would never come again, and we, the world's non-Muslims, could once again resume with the world's Muslims the happy and amicable and peaceful relations that without such "perverters" of a "great religion" as Al Qaeda would come again, and reign for all time.
6) Did any of you think to go beyond Bernard Lewis -- say, to J. B. Kelly, or to a dozen others -- for advice on the wisdom of the Iraq venture, that is not the initial invasion, but the decision to remain in Iraq after February 2004, by which time Saddam Hussein had been captured, his sons killed, the game of Fifty-Two Pick-Up successfully completed, and most importantly, the country of Iraq had been scoured, to the satisfaction of David Kay and others, and weapons of mass destruction not found, so that the original mission, the one that Congress voted to approve, was at that point over, and the switch to another, messianic mission, that continues to this day with diminishing hope and increasing expense in men, money, materiel, and morale (both civilian and military), would not have occurred, and some of the political capital squandered in Tarbaby Iraq might have been left and invested in more important matters, such as domestic surveillance of Muslims, and attempts to coordinate policies designed to weaken the Camp of Islam with the threatened-from-within nations of Western Europe?
7) How many of you, busy with your self-justifying memoirs, have taken the time over the past four or three or two or one year, to read about Islam? How many have read Bat Ye'or's "The Dhimmi" or "Islam and Dhimmitude" or "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" or "Eurabia"? How many have read any of Robert Spencer's books on the Qur'an, on Islam, on Muhammad, where the Islamic texts, and Muslim commentators, are allowed to speak for themselvesa? How many have read "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq, or followed with interest the books, or appearances, or websites of, inter alios, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina?
8) How many of you have thought about the ideology of Islam, and gone beyond the bernardlewis-fouadajami closed circle to others, including those Western scholars of Islam who studied, and wrote, in the century, roughly 1870-`970, before the Great Inhibition stifled discussion?
9) Could you tell us, please, what would be wrong in wishing to see, for example, sectarian strife continue indefinitely in Iraq, without American lives and money being spent to prevent this, given that the Sunni Arabs will never acquiesce in the loss of power to the Shi'a Arabs, and the Shi'a Arabs, now that they control Baghdad and most of the country, and the major oilfields, have no need to meet Sunni demands, and no desire too, given the way the Sunnis have treated them during the entire history of modern Iraq, and for 1200 years before that?
10) Could you tell us, please, why sectarian and ethnic fissures within the Camp of Islam are not to be encouraged rather than discouraged, or at the very least not to be actively fought, in order to keep the Camp of Islam off balance?
There are ten questions.
That's enough for now.
No shrugs please. Answers.
But there will be more.
There are other issues to consider too, however the lack of progress in Iraq, the rabid revenge, and the blaming of the US for what the Iraqi's have done with freedom, could have been predicted. In this respect, the planners have some blood on their hands for being naive regarding how Islamic theology impoverishes the human beings who live under its diminished and often depraved world view.
by James Martel
It's hard to disagree but there are two things to consider: Turkey and Japan. How many of these people were convinced that Turkey is an example of a Muslim democracy and that it "shows" how democracy and Islam can coexist? The Turks lived under a brutal regime for centuries and today are members of NATO. How many times did we hear how secular Iraq was, in comparison with most of the ME countries, suggesting that Islam was secondary?
Then there was the argument over democracy. Those who argued that some parts of the world could only run under strong autocratic rulers were countered with Japan.
It didn't matter that both Japan and Turkey spent decades under authoritarian rule on their way to democracy. Japan was destroyed by war and occupied by the US military. Turkey lived mainly under military rule.
I don't know that there was a right way or even a safe way to handle Iraq. Dealing with dictators didn't make us safe. Would we have been better off with Saddam still in charge, no doubt with sanctions lifted by now or still skimming from the oil for food program, and with US forces still flying over the northern and southern areas?
It was a no-win situation but was ignoring it preferable? Ignoring it got us 9/11. Think of why our troops were in Saudi Arabia: Saddam.
A wonderful article by Diana West and it got me thinking. A couple of days ago I was bored so picked up Strategy by B.H. Liddell Hart, which was sitting on my library shelf. I had not read the book in years, but several paragraphs in the preface gave me pause. It was if everything came into focus in relation to the stupidity of the Iraqi campaign. This article just re-opened it again.
Below (in quotes) is from the preface of Strategy by B.H. Liddell Hart (2nd revised ed.)
“The idea of the indirect approach is closely related to all problems of the influence of mind upon mind- the most influential factor in human history. Yet it is hard to reconcile with another lesson: that true conclusions can only be reached, or approached, by pursuing the truth without regard to where it may lead or what its effects may be-on different interests.
History bears witness to the vital part that the ‘prophets’ have played in human progress-which is evidence of the ultimate practical value of expressing unreservedly the truth as one sees it. Yet it also becomes clear that the acceptance and spreading of their vision has always depended on another class of men-‘leaders’ who had to be philosophical strategist, striking a compromise between truth and men’s receptivity to it. Their effect has often depended as much on their own limitations in perceiving the truth as on their practical wisdom in proclaiming it.
The prophets must be stoned; that is their lot, and the test of their self-fulfillment. But a leader who is stoned may merely prove that he has failed in his function through a deficiency of wisdom, or through confusing his function with that of a prophet. Time alone can tell whether the effect of such a sacrifice redeems the apparent failure as a leader that does honour to him as a man. At the least, he avoids the more common fault of leaders-that of sacrificing the truth to expediency without ultimate advantage to the cause. For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought.
Is there a practical way of combining progress towards the attainment of truth with progress towards its acceptance? A possible solution of the problem is suggested by reflection on strategic principles-which point to the importance of maintaining an object consistently and, also, of pursuing it in a way adapted to circumstances. Opposition to the truth is inevitable, especially of it takes the form of a new idea, but the degree of resistance can be diminished-by giving thought not only to the aim but to the method of approach. Avoid a frontal attack on a long established position; instead, seek to turn it by flank movement, so that a more penetrable side is exposed to the thrust of truth. But, in any such indirect approach, take care not to diverge from the truth-for nothing is more fatal to its real advancement than to lapse in untruths.
The meaning of these reflections may be made clearer by illustration from one’s own experience. Looking back on the stages by which various fresh ideas gained acceptance, it can be seen that the process was eased when they could be presented, not as something radically new, but as the revival in modern terms of a time-honoured principle or practice that had been forgotten. This required not deception, but care to trace the connection-since ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. A notable example was the way that opposition to mechanization was diminished by showing that the mobile armoured vehicle-the fast moving tank-was fundamentally the heir of the armoured horseman, and thus the natural means of reviving the decisive role which cavalry had played in past ages.” (The end)
The prophets are: Robert Spencer (on Islam) and Hugh Fitzgerald (on Iraq), yet the leadership is people like Bush. The strategy of this war was faulty from day one, because “….the more common fault of leaders-that of sacrificing the truth to expediency without ultimate advantage to the cause. For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought.”. You see our leaders are too busy being tactful, and not truthful. If they were truthful then we would admit that Islam is why Iraq keeps failing. It is Islam that holds back the people from successes. It is Islam that prevents Iraq from ever being a true ally. No amount of money and dead American troops will change that with the current grand strategy. We can leave next year, we can leave in hundred years, but Iraq will keep failing, until Islam is changed, or removed from the equation. To accept that truth, however, means a real war and a real change in strategy. It means a world war, however, that does not mean it has to be a blood bath. The Hugh Fitzgerald strategy is an indirect approach. It attacks the weak points of Islam, not its strong points, thus making our task much easier then one might think.
For all those who defend the current strategy in Iraq ask yourself this: Do you think Islam is the problem? If you do, then why continually support a flawed strategy in Iraq? Is it because you are being “tactful” and wish not to offend? If so, then you are doing more damage then you could imagine to the ultimate cause, which is the defeat of Islamic aggression. You have created a parallel universe called Iraq. Where Muslims become our allies despite all the evidence…
That is an untruth…
OT, Be careful where you take photographs.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/jihadists-kidnap-3-men-in-new-york-city.html#links
Jihadists Kidnap 3 Men in New York City
3 Americans were kidnapped in front of a New York City Mosque recently.
Their crime-- Taking photos outside the mosque.
Bos Smith in front of Masjid At-Taqwa before he was dragged into the basement for questioning. (Right Truth)
Angrry jihadists kidnapped 3 Americans and dragged them into the basement of the Masjid At-Taqwa Mosque in Brooklyn for questioning. The imam of this mosque, Siraj Wahaj, appears to have been an unidicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing.
Imagine!
Canada Free Press and Sharia Finance Watch reported:
If you tarry in front of the Masjid At-Taqwa in the Bedford-Stuyvesant district and dare to take a photo, you might get hauled away by a group of angry Muslims in Islamic attire to the basement of the facility where a group of twenty “security guards” in karate suits will interrogate you.
This sounds preposterous.
But it happened on a weekend in late April at 3:00 in the afternoon.
Ali Kareem, the head of security for Siraj Wahaj’s mosque, conducted the grilling. A small, muscular man with a wispy black beard that has been dyed red with henna, Kareem demanded to know the reason why a trio of kafirs had dared to photograph the building on a public street without securing his permission.
He further insisted on securing our identities and obtaining our motives for such a violation of Islamic space.
Being surrounded by a group of militant guards in a mosque basement from which there is no means of escape is not a comforting place to be for a Wall Street financier.
We tried to explain that we found the neighborhood with its halal meat vendors and food stores; Islamic dress shops, featuring the latest styles in burqas and hijabs; Muslim souvenir outlets, replete with bumper stickers stating “Don’t Be Caught Dead Without Islam”; and Middle Eastern restaurants offering a variety of goat dishes to be rather quaint and interesting.
This explanation was not sufficient.
Kareem was impatient and did not want a detailed explanation of the reason for our excursion (simple sight-seeing) or a graphic account of the sights we had seen and photographed.
“I ask the questions here,” he said, “and you provide the answers.”
Realizing that we were in a bit of a pickle, my companion explained that we were interested in various religions and knew Siraj Wahaj, the imam of the mosque, was a prominent Muslim figure whom we would like to interview for a news outlet.
This didn’t work too well since we could not produce a business card from a wacko blog, let alone credentials from a national publication.
At last, we blurted out that we were admirers of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him) and wanted to obtain information about conversion. We were even knowledgeable enough to blurt out “Salaam” and “Allahu akbar.”
The last utterance seemed to be the “Open Sesame” that got us out of the basement and back to Bedford Street, where we managed to take a picture of the mosque before hailing a cab and making a getaway.
The experience was disconcerting. Surely, anyone who takes a picture of St. Patrick’s Cathedral or the Riverside Church is not hauled off to a basement for questioning by a threatening figure in a karate uniform and a band of Ninjas.
What is taking place within Masjid At-Taqwa?
greatcometof1577: Interesting and thoughtful post. A question for you since you ended by implying that Muslims as allies is not a good or practical idea: Are you prepared to never have any Muslims as allies? Follow-up question (please excuse its length): Is it not possible that there is no good solution to the mega-problem which is Islam and so the West will simply have to choose the least bad option among a bad bunch and thus reasonable minds can differ in particular respecting 1) winnning some Muslims over who observe just a shell of their religion against other Muslims who are true believers or 2) giving up on all Muslims, knowing full well that not to pursue a divide and conquer strategy (option 1 above) will very likely mean driving all Muslims into oppostion against the West?
greatcometof1577 is right. Islam is the problem.
You can not build bricks without straw. Muslims don't have the moral straw for to sustain a modern nation.
Admittedly, I was among those favoring the military effort to establish a democratic form of government in Iraq. And believing that the Iraqi people would embrace freedom once they were rid of Saddam.
At that time, I had little to no understanding of Islam. (Much less that so-called "radical Islam" is in many ways "true Islam")
Having said this, I still believe that Saddam had to go. Saddam didn't comply or adhere to any of the UN resolutions. By his own admission, he wanted the world to believe that he had WMD. And he admitted that he had planned to reconstitute his full WMD program in a few short year. He also acknowledged that he planned to acquire nuclear weaponry. And he bought the UN via the oil for food corruption. So he knew that they would never take any meaningful action against his dictatorship.
It would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, to topple his regime if we had waited a few more years. Waiting is *exactly* what Saddam had expected that we'd do. And his sons, the future leaders of Iraq, would likely have been worse than Saddam. So I credit President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for having the judgment and leadership to topple his regime now - rather than pass the problem along to subsequent generations. Many of those critical of President Bush and P.M. Blair would have been the first to criticize and blame them had we been attacked directly or indirectly from Saddam.
But "helping" an Islamic-based nation form a new government seems beyond our scope. And yet I can't help but to feel compassion for those people living in Iraq that truly want freedom and to rid themselves of Islamic rule (terror). I truly don't want to abandon them. Because if we don't help, then who will?
'I truly don't want to abandon them. Because if we don't help, then who will?'
-- from a posting above
If you really wish to "help Muslims" -- in Iraq or elsewhere -- what should you do? What, ideally, would you most wish for them, to allow them to respect and work to protect, individual liberties, to possess the ideological basis for opposing despotism, to no longer have to endure economic paralysis, to no longer have to live in a world where the relation of Muslim man to Muslim woman is of superior to inferior, with that superior able to wreak his will, in a thousand ways, including corporal punishment, rape, and even murder (to preserve his, or his family's, "honor"), to no longer have to regard all non-Muslims as creatures to be tricked, to be dispossessed, to be reduced ideally to a state of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity; to be allowed to encourage, in one's self, artistic expression, free and skeptical inquiry, and a sense of the self that goes beyond the hideous collectivism of Islam, where one is regarded by others, and tends to regard oneself, as a soldier enrolled in the army of Islam who must further The Cause of Islam, and never betray it in any way, no matter what private doubts one may harbor, but must never express.
What would you wish for such people? Surely, you would wish for them that the conditions be established that would allow many of them to fight their mental and emotional way free from Islam itself, for it is Islam itself which imprisons them.
And how would or could you do this? You can't do it by giving them aid, by rescuing them constantly from their own inshallah-fatalism. You can't do it by imposing from above, or attempting to transfer, Western-style advanced democracy to them. You can't do it yourself; no Infidels can.
But Infidels can refrain from doing those things that prolong the life of Islam, that make Islam stronger. And Islam is stronger whenever we fail to take advantage, we Infidels, of Islam's weaknesses. We do not have to do a thing in Iraq in order to exploit the pre-existing fissures, ethnnic and sectarian (which are two of the three main fissures within the Camp of Islam -- the third is the econommic divide between the oil-rich Muslim states, and all the other Muslim states).
We can inform ourselves, thoroughly, about the texts and tenets of Islam, about the attitudes and atmospherics of Muslims, even of those who never or seldom attend mosques, but who are raised up in societies suffused with Islam, and are keenly aware that they are Muslims (why? because they are told that they are, and therefore...they are), and that means they owe their loyalty to Islam and to the Umma, the Community of Believers, and at the same time, they owe undying hostility toward all that is outside of Islam, toward all Infidels, even Infidels capable of exhibiting, and exhibiting repeatedly, unfeigned and great kindness toward Muslims.
We would wish, you and I, that the conditions would be created that would force Muslims themselves to recognize, in small numbers at first, and then in ever-larger numbers, certain home truths about Islam. For non-Arab Muslims, we would wish that they would more and more clearly see the ways in which Islam is, and always has been, despite its universalist pretensions, a vehicle for Arab linguistic, cultural, economic, and political imperialism. For non-Arab and Arab Muslims, one would wish that they would see that what makes despotism so obviously a natural feature of Muslim political life, and economic stasis so obviously -- even despite the OPEC trillions that disguise but do not completely hide, the economic failures of Muslim states -- rooted in the inshallah-fatalism, and long history of relying on economic exploitation of Infidels, either through the imposed Jizyah, or the variant disguised Jizyahs -- such as the Bumiputra system which Chinese and Indians must endure in Malaysia -- or the massive foreign aid from Infidels that many Muslims, including those spoiled children of the "international community," those shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, the local Arabs who carefully renamed themselves after the Six-Day War the "Palestinian people" and have been soaking the Infidels, by the billions -- billions that might otherwise have gone to the deserving poor, in sub-Saharan Africa, or Latin America -- because Infidels have swallowed the Arab propaganda and think they owe that entirely factitious "Palestinian people" a living, when that "people" devotes most of its energies to war-making and hysterical hatred and takes, as its reason for being, not building a state, but destroying another State, the State of Israel, an Infidel nation-state that dares to exhibit the desire to remain in existence, as an Infidel nation-state, on territory once possessed by Muslims, and therefore, in their eyes, essential to recover.
You would want, if you wished those Muslims well, to help create the conditions that would force them, little by little, to begin to make the connection between their own political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures - failures that despite the gigantic sacrifices and expenses on Iraq's behalf, are exhibited and will be exhibited, if one only has eyes to see, yesterday, today, tomorrow -- as being caused by Islam itself.
Islam is to blame for the woes of Muslims. And it is also to blame for many of the woes, nowadays, that non-Muslims experience at the hands of Muslims. We can take care of the latter, mainly by simply educating ourselves and helping to educate others. As to the former, we should do nothing to prevent Muslims from enduring the full weight of their own failures, and of being forced, partly through the insistence of Infidels, but partly through the recognition, by their most advanced members (see Ataturk), that Islam itself is the problem, and it must be constrained, at the very least, and possibly, as in Iran where the ranks of the disaffected grow, identities other than that provided by Islam, and faiths other than Islam, can be adopted, and Islam itself jettisoned, step by grim step.
The Issue with Iraq was never a Religious one. Iraq was a Hostile Nation State protected by the UN and the EU.Irrespective of the fact that the UN was perfectly fine letting us Bomb Iraq for 12 Years while getting rich themselves repairing the damage and selling replacements.
If Multi-Cultural Dogma is the culprit behind the failure of the Administration to understand what it was getting into. Then why has it not become a Casualty of War that it should be? Iraq proves the falsehood of its core principles.
Is the Administration solely to blame or does the Fourth Estate and the Alphabet Media carry a greater burden?
Who in the Bush Administration had the big Mouth about fixing what we broke? Who jumped all over it? Who is Quiet today and who is still all over it, only in the opposite way.
In some ways, everyone here owes Bush a level of gratitude. Without him, few, if any of us, would be here today.
Unfortunately, the 4th Estate keeps plugging along, singing their Song. Framing the Issue in front of a Black Hole that sucks the reality of the World away for the many who stand before it.
I think that those who practice Islam are receiving a good hard look at their perpetual dark side. The loonies are coagulating out of the Masses.
Hugh,
I should have been more clear in my previous statement. When I wrote:
'I truly don't want to abandon them. Because if we don't help, then who will?'
I really meant that I don't want to abandon the non-muslims who truly wish for change and already recognize the illness of Islam. I have no idea how many people are living in Iraq that reject Islam. But surely there must be some.
I agree that we should try to educate people everywhere of the actual evil and wickedness that is inherent to Islam. And in large part, thanks goes to you and Robert for being so instrumental. Speaking for myself, I had never even heard of the Koran until about 10 years ago. So I was completely ignorant of its ideology. I bought into the message that Islam is "a religion of peace" hook, line, and sinker. My assumptions of Islam were based on my own premises and beliefs. And I projected (naively) these onto Islam as well. But in the past several years, I have yet to see *any* evidence to contradict anything that I've learned here and via other sources. All the while I have seen *much* evidence which substantiates the message that Islam is not a religion of peace. I'm no longer mystified by the "irrational" behavior which has long plagued the middle east.
But can we do anything tangible to help and assist the subset of population currently living in the middle east that rejects Islam. And already realizes the illness and wickedness of Islam and wishes to escape it? These people may not have the financial means to escape their homeland.
Hugh: The inescapable conclusion of your last post is that the very best thing a Muslim can do for his humanity is to leave Islam. And the very best thing a non-Muslim can do for Muslims is to attempt to show them the way out of the spiritual and emotional prison which is their faith. I concur but oh what a difficult task it's going to be.
Hugh's second posting above may be summed up in three words:
Consequences. Tough Love.
'I truly don't want to abandon them. Because if we don't help, then who will?'
The Cool Ghoul,
But we did help them. We captured Saddam and we killed his sons (both with the help of brave Iraqi informers). We stayed long enough to give them a chance to build something new.
What they do with that chance is their business. If we stop helping them then maybe they'll begin to help themselves.
We are constantly told about how secular Iraqis are and how peaceful most Muslims are. This is their chance to show us and themselves what they've got. If they truly want peace and freedom and a chance at democracy then they will dispose of the killers in their midst. If they don't then we know where they stand.
If the belief system that is Islam is more important to them than freedom then there is nothing we can do to help them. Our values systems are incompatible. If we value our own freedom then there is only one possible outcome: dar-al-Islam and dar-al-everyone-else and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Wellington
You know I was going to do a big response, but just read Hugh above (as you have done). There is no need for me to attempt to add to that. What I would say is what Hugh keeps saying (over and over again): Does it hurt the house of Islam? If it does, it must be exploited. There are many ways, religious, cultural, ethnic, economic, and militarily.
Never forget we are in the position power...we just have not figured it out yet.
A precipitous American withdrawal form Iraq will be seen by all, Muslim and Infidel alike, as a defeat for America and Western values and a resounding victory for Islam.
Such a defeat would do us catastrophic, devastating and possibly irreversable harm.
If the Worlds’ only superpower and proclaimed champion of democracy cannot prevail against Jihad in Iraq, it will not prevail against Islam anywhere. What confidence we have in ourselves to prevail in this fight will be destroyed and we will have no appetite to continue the battle elsewhere - or anywhere. Those leftists, liberals, multiculturalists and others among us who seek our own defeat (for the betterment of the World of course) will have won the day.
We will suffer the demoralization that inevitably and inescapably comes to the defeated.
Such a victory would provide immense and incalculable strength and hope to the camp of Islam.
Islam will have the proof it needs to show the World that it is indeed “the strong horse”. The recruiting power of Islam will increase a hundred fold and it will gain new and more fanatical Jihadis by the hundreds thousands. All of the Ulema the Mullahs, the Imams, the Osamas and those like them that preach war and hate against the West will be vindicated – they will become beacons which the Believers, both new and existing, will flock to by the millions.
Muslims around the globe will find renewed and unshakable faith in the eventual victory of Islam by Jihad – and they may well be correct
The Biggest harm we can do to Islam is sit in its living room. Letting the household know exactly what we find unacceptable.
Islam really only goes after those they perceive are weaker than themselves. So let us all run away as fast as we can and hope they don't notice.
Davegreybeard: Am in sympathy with your above post. Even assuming going into Iraq was a bad idea, leaving precipitously now will insure that the Muslim world (and American haters in general) will look upon the ultimate dhimmi as weak and irresolute (with sundry dire consequences). America has no choice at present but to proceed on the assumption that we can work with some Muslims against others, that some Mohammedans will eventually assert their humanity above their wretched religion (shhh!--don't let them know) and align themselves with the good guys against the forces of spiritual darkness. It's a gamble, but turning our back on the entire Muslim world in the early twenty-first century (even though the dar-al-Islam would deserve it) would be an even greater gamble at this point in time. Does life at times leave you with only lousy options or what?
God, what a monstrosity Islam is for all mankind. Damn Mohammed. The world has enough problems as it is without his invidious creed plaguing it as it has for some 1400 years now.
Davegreybeard
If you had been at the battle of Long Island you would have told Washington not the cross the East River, because the redcoats will laugh at us if we run. God help us all if you had advised the Brits at Dunkirk to hold firm....
We are not fighting Islam in Iraq and we are not fighting Jihad in Iraq. Hell our own state dept. says the word is "bad" and can't be used anymore. So how hell can we be fighting a concept if our own pentagon and state dept. prevents anyone from using the word. What kind idiotic concept is that? In World War II, FDR says we cannot use the word Nazis because ordinary Germans might get offended and hate us. So instead we fight to stop what… Blitzkrieg? To save the world from the horrors of lighting warfare? Then after we take over Germany and kill Hitler, Hermann Goering gets voted into office on the Good Nazi Party Ticket…and Truman does a sword dance in front him.
Oh brother…
Correction above...I meant to say..."lightning warfare"...
“The Biggest harm we can do to Islam is sit in its living room. Letting the household know exactly what we find unacceptable.”
Posted by: flowerknife_us
AYE, and let us sit JUST THERE and discuss at length and in detail the very things that need to be discussed! This even if it takes us awhile to formulate a proper response (and we have not yet) let us sit JUST THERE - for that IS A MESSAGE in and of itself.
“We are not fighting Islam in Iraq and we are not fighting Jihad in Iraq.”
Only you and other confused Infidels say this. Jihadis proclaim to the World that THEY are fighting JIHAD in Iraq – listen to them, for in this they speak the truth.
“God help us all if you had advised the Brits at Dunkirk to hold firm....”
There is a time to advance and a time to withdraw - freedom and victory hang on the wisdom of our choice.
I know this for certain, now is not the time to withdraw.
Davegreybeard
I said WE ARE NOT fighting Jihad in Iraq, they of course are. What we are fighting in Iraq is "terror". Islamist are free to do what they do.
Big difference. How else can explain why Sadr is still walking and talking? How else can you explain why the Iraqi constitution is Islamic and not secular? How else can you explain why women are getting put into their place and Christians are fleeing?
We have already lost and you don't realize it yet, but if we left and stopped giving them support the place would fall apart. That is a good thing. Kurds fighting everyone, Shia fighting Sunnis, Persians vs. Arabs...etc etc...
And we don't have spend much money to make it happen either. Stability in the Islamic world is a bad thing.
Davegreybeard,
Why should we care how the world will view an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq? Will it make them hate us any more or fear us any less then they do already? I think not.
The world's only superpower is not omnipotent. It can't fight jihadists in Iraq without the aid of Iraqis.
The world's only superpower doesn't have the resources needed to defeat people who fight in civilian clothes and then run away and scream how innocent they are if a soldier fires at them.
The world's only superpower cannot help people who won't help themselves.
The world's only superpower cannot do the job of decent people all over the world: fighting for the right to life. If they won't fight, then why should we fight for them?
It's not 1945 anymore.
It's not 1965 anymore.
It's not 1985 anymore.
It's time "the world's only superpower" acted like one and defended its own people from Islam around the world. That means telling Muslims all around the world that Mecca won't be there the next time they want to make the hajj if they don't get rid of jihadism NOW. It means leaving Iraq and telling the Iraqis it's time for them to fight for their own country if they want it so badly. They're offended by the "occupation", which they define as foreign troops on their soil. We'll remove that burden from them. It's time we stopped worrying about world opinion. The world was supposed to go Communist the moment we left Vietnam. It didn't. It will survive our withdrawal from Iraq. We can't help people who won't help themselves.
“We have already lost and you don't realize it...”
Correct you are on this point. We are winning and you don’t realize it yet.
“Why should we care how the world will view an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq?”
We shouldn’t and I don’t.
What I do care about, a great deal, is how our actions will affect our Jihadi enemy. As I have stated previously, our premature withdrawal would give our enemy a victory and an immense advantage that they could not otherwise gain.
“The world was supposed to go Communist the moment we left Vietnam. It didn't.”
You are still fighting the last war, General PMK. Iraq ain’t Viet Nam. North Viet Nam was fighting for a country; the Jihadis are fighting for the World.
The NVA never attacked New York and never intended to follow us home.
The Jihadis did and most assuredly will.
Davegreybeard:
What are we still fighting for in iraq? It's not to bring Western democracy to the middle east, as bush once said. That dream died w/ the iraqi constitution (but was actually doomed from the start b/c islam is fundamentally incompatible w/ democracy). Is it to build a pro-U.S. ally in iraq that will oppose iran? That will never happen, even if we stayed there 100 years (which shows mccain is as lost as bush is).
I suppose we're still fighting to prevent iraq from falling completely into iran's lap. but what exactly will iran inherit? an unstable country, at the least, or, with a little help from the U.S., a country that will descend into chaos, in which case iraq becomes iran's headache. a mere fraction of the resources we save by withdrawing could be devoted to destabilizing iran directly, as Hugh has pointed out, by funneling aid, possibly including weapons, to iran's disaffected ethnic/religious minorities.
I suppose, also, that we're still fighting to prevent U.S. & the West, including our military, from becoming demoralized & to prevent the jihadists/islam from claiming victory. This I will concede. But to claim, as you do, that
"[i]f the Worlds’ only superpower and proclaimed champion of democracy cannot prevail against Jihad in Iraq, it will not prevail against Islam anywhere. What confidence we have in ourselves to prevail in this fight will be destroyed and we will have no appetite to continue the battle elsewhere - or anywhere."
is absurd. Who has ever claimed that withdrawing from iraq means bring all our resources home & pulling up the drawbridge? If we were to withdraw from iraq & instead undertake the following actions, I believe that U.S. & Western morale, now weighed down by the undeniable stalemate in iraq, would improve considerably. Furthermore, we would strike a far more injurious & unambiguous blow against jihadist islam.
1. Attack & wipe out the janjaweed in Darfur, and make clear that we are not just preventing genocide, but preventing islamically-motivated genocide against animist & Christian Africans.
2. Lend sufficient resources & military advisers to the combined Ethiopian/Somali gov't forces in Somalia to defeat the Somali islamic jihadists.
3. send in 1 or possibly 2 military ships camouflaged as, say, a cruise ship, to destroy any pirate vessel (probably affiliated w/ al qaeda) off the Somali coast & every one of its crew. no prisoners; no quarter.
4. help the Philippines defeat MILF once & for all.
We are in Iraq to show them the way forward in life.
As well as using their territory to confront Iran with Conventional means.
Phase one was removing a Convention armed Iraq.
Phase 2 is dividing Tribal structure within Society as a whole.
The Sunni's put their money on a losing Horse and Lost. Al-Quida was split and generally neutralized. now we see Sadar getting his fair share of attention. Iran is exposed.
All this is going on and the Alphabet Media tells you something else.
The Alphabet Media already openly Pimps for Hamas. Do you really expect them to protray our withdrawal from Iraq as anything other than in the most critical light? They will clamor the loudest for us to pay war reparations.
Sure, let us run away and hope they don't notice. Right.
I find it difficult to believe that so many here would find that outcome as being unlikely. If Vegas were giving Odds. I know where my fortune would go.
Davegreybeard
"Correct you are on this point. We are winning and you don’t realize it yet."
Winning what? Beating who?
WE are not fighting Jihad in Iraq...
WE are not fighting Islamist in Iraq...
WE are not protecting non-muslims in Iraq...
WE are not forcing western values on the Iraqis...
Please...tell me what ARE we doing in Iraq except giving billions of dollars to muslims and contractors?
Wait, I get it! Are you a contractor?
flowerknife wrote:
"As well as using their territory to confront Iran with Conventional means. ... Iran is exposed."
Uh, iran's destabilizing role in iraq has been known for years, as has their headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons. and yet bush has not used our position in iraq to punish iran. far from it, he is searching for a modus vivendi with iran in iraq.
"We are in Iraq to show them the way forward in life."
You, bush & cheney must be the last people on Earth to actually believe this. This is the epitome of a fool's errand for several reasons, not the least of which is, as Hugh has noted, the utter incompatibility of the "way forward," as understood in the West, with islam. what could possibly lead you to believe that muslims would allow us Infidels to "show them the way forward in life?" They have what they perceive to be their own "way forward," & it's called islam.
Even if there were a 10% chance that iraq would follow the Western way forward (and I think now that the chance is less than 10%), I would oppose devoting American men, money & material to that effort. The U.S. doesn't bestride the world militarily or economically the way it did after WWII. Our stature in the eyes of the rest of the world is also much diminished. We simply can't afford to expend our resources on long shots they way we once could. The free-falling dollar is proof of that.
I would like to see anyone opposed to America staying in Iraq try telling that either to all the American soldiers who believe remaining there is essential to American security or to the Kurds who depend on the American presence for their very survival. Kodak moments each and I'd like to be there.
Wellington
Name the place and time.
You see Wellington, people like “Davegreybeard” and “flowerknife_us” are what I call “bleeding heart hawks”. They invade a country, start building bridges and schools before the population has been pacified and the enemy crushed. Then they ask our soldiers to fight under impossible rules of engagement for impossible goals. That really ticks me off. If we are going fight…then you must hold nothing back. If you really want a democratic Iraq and really want a future ally, then the influence of Islam in Iraq must be crushed. It will have to be ruthless. Instead they have political parties and win elections. The constitution is in truth Islamic. Sadr is a TV star…
If our troops have died for nothing, it is only because those who keep supporting this debacle don’t have the stomach for a real war. You guys are just not ruthless enough. Before anyone calls me a butcher, please remember how we beat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese…it was not with winning hearts and minds. You guys had your chance, now it is time for the Fitzgerald "tough love" program.
“You see Wellington, people like “Davegreybeard” and “flowerknife_us” are what I call “bleeding heart hawks”…”
greatcometof1577,
(“bleeding heart hawks” now THAT pushed a button)
I am as frustrated as you are, probably more so, at our inability to name our enemy. I am also angered by our foolish decision allow the inclusion of Sharia in the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a perfect campaign and it desperately needs correction. But an imperfect campaign is far preferable to handing the enemy a resounding victory while we suffer a catastrophic defeat.
This “bleeding heart hawk” spent a year as an infantry lieutenant in Viet Nam. I was at first, XO of a five-man, U.S. military advisory team, then its commander. We ate, slept and patrolled with the South Vietnamese Army, in the jungles, both North and South of Saigon.
I learned a little about “winning hearts and minds” from our Vietnamese Troopers. I also learned a little about combat and what it costs from the U.S. Army.
But I learned a lot more about AMERICAN DEFEAT and the cost of THAT from a Democrat U.S. Congress. In the after years, I have watched our painful National history unfold:
You see we, as a Nation, are still paying the price of that defeat to this day. You can see the cost of that defeat in the “blame America first” crowd and you can see it in our lack of appreciation for the freedom we enjoy and in the good and true value of our democratic system of government. You can see it in our fellow countrymen who work to undermine our Nation and actively aid our Jihadi enemy. You can see it throughout our schools and universities – our children are taught that we live in a badly flawed country who’s founders were corrupt men, liars and slavers, a country that declares unjust wars against innocent people. You can see it most blatantly in our news media that never miss an opportunity to portray America as corrupt, evil, greedy, and worse. If they can find nothing to twist into this message they will make it up out of whole cloth. This same news media shields our enemy’s true nature from the world so that good and evil are inverted.
You can see the cost of our defeat in the obscene numbers of Americans who will not defend this country either physically or verbally.
We have spent our account in full. We cannot sustain another defeat and expect to avoid the horrible consequences. Consequences that will compound a hundredfold the ones from which we already suffer. Do not pretend that this will not happen – it will and we will indeed become the Worlds’ “Great Satan”. If you think we have little credibility in the World NOW – wait till you see what we look like after the Jihadis defeat us in Iraq!
It is true that we have failed to name the enemy and that our message is far from clear at this point.
But our cause is good and just and we fight an evil that afflicts all mankind – most who post here know this. This is not a battle that we can walk away from, for as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, it will follow us. We must deal with the devil or he will deal with us.
“So let us gather our resolve and turn events toward victory.”
"Bleeding Heart Hawks" know there is no place to run to and no place to hide if they could.
"Sadar is a TV star" Well, who's fault is that? The Forth Estate and the Alphabet Media hold that honor. They always make the looser into the winner.
Just let us know what the options are when your out of breath and gasping for air from running away.
“Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.”
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
"I would like to see anyone opposed to America staying in Iraq try telling that either to all the American soldiers who believe remaining there is essential to American security or to the Kurds who depend on the American presence for their very survival."
If the cost of upholding our obligation to the Kurds is 160,000 U.S. soldiers stationed permanently in iraq, I'm not willing to support that. I would be willing to support them to the tune of military advisers, intelligence, military equipment, and possibly a few thousand U.S. troops, but that's it.
As far as convincing the U.S. soldiers who believe remaining in iraq is essential to American security that it isn't, I would think that an entire day with Spencer, discussing the religion of islam, and Fitzerald, discussing the history of islam, would be sufficient to convince the vast majority of skeptical soldiers that the iraq war in fact isn't essential to American security, but actually weakens it, and that many other actions -- some military -- are essential to our security, beginning with the proper identification of the enemy. This exercise is likely to hurt military morale in the short term, I admit. But as the true enemy becomes clearer to us, as our strategy evolves toward the sensible (weaken the camp of islam), and as our goals are better defined, we will deploy our finite resources to greater effect. Successes will follow, which over time will boost morale far above its current state.
Davegreybeard
"This is not a perfect campaign and it desperately needs correction. But an imperfect campaign is far preferable to handing the enemy a resounding victory while we suffer a catastrophic defeat."
Wrong. The campaign such as the one we are engaged in now, in Iraq, will lead to disaster. Either we start fighting or we get out. Money does not grow on trees nor does soldiers. There is only a limited amount of men in any society who have the physical health and bravery to fight. It is a limited supply. While we goof around in Iraq, the armies of Islam are marching on and growing stronger. Arabian nations grow in wealth from the oil trade then use the money fund Islamic aggression. What do you plan to do about that? Islamic forces are getting closer to control of the African uranium trade and deposits. What are we going to do about that? Muslims continue to invade United States and Europe by way of immigration. What are we going to do about that? And many more!
You see just Iraq, in the same way some strategist only observed Vietnam. We won the cold war. Vietnam was just a battle in that war. In the same way Iraq is just a battle in this war. Battles can be lost and are lost all the time in wars, but the war itself can never be lost. We lost Vietnam. The sky did not fall! Most of the hippies who smoked pot during that time will be dead soon. If we had stayed in Vietnam using the same strategy we were using we would have used up our forces. It was not worth the cost, nor was it worth sacrificing the war for one battle. Outside of pride, what do the forces of Islam really gain if we leave Iraq? Nothing! They get back nothing, for it was something they never really lost in the first place and something we never took. Iraq is still in the hands of the forces of Islam. We are there on the ground, but the people are still followers of Islam.
“When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.” Sun Tzu
Davegreybeard
Those liberals, left wing hippies etc...
They are the "other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."
No Vietnam...then the history of the United States would be much different. The left wing was handed a victory the second we marched off into the jungles of south east asia without a clue on how we would win the battle.
Battles are won or lost before the first shots are fired.
Good points have been made here by both sides respecting the question of America remaining in Iraq. If we do stay, we must be as effective (and knowledgeable) as possible. If we leave, it would be foolish to think that that in itself solves things, though short term it would save American lives and be less costly. One thing's for certain: Islam is a creature like no other and the world is in one hell of a mess because over a billion people believe a seventh-century, delusional merchant was God's annointed one.
I've begun to think that Marxism and Nazism are stritcly the junior varsity of hideous ideologies in comparison to Islam. Still, one equation remains: we either fight with some Muslims against others (all the while subtly and not so subtly marginalizing the faith of such allies as much as possible a la Ataturk) or we essentially take on all Muslims in a final Old West showdown (yeah, they'll keep killing a lot of each other but they'll have more than enough left over to come after the rest of the world). Which will it be?
Davegreybeard,
You speak at length of the price the U.S. would pay on the domestic front for withdrawing from iraq. you may be right. but wars have to be justified by what they accomplish on the battlefield, and I have no idea what would constitute victory in iraq. If we're just there to kill those who would kill us there, then we shouldn't be there. We could stay in iraq 20 years, killing jihadists all the while, and have really accomplished very little, certainly very little compared to the tremendous cost in terms of men, money & material we are incurring. we can't turn iraq into a pro-US, anti-iran ally. Perhaps the most we can accomplish is to prevent iraq from falling completely within the orbit of iran, though our presence cannot prevent the formation of strong ties between shiite iraqis & their co-religionists in iran. So I return to the question: What exactly would an achievable victory in iraq look like?
An Iraqi democratic republic that is able to govern and sustain itself.
U.S. military bases on Iraqi soil, to maintain a “presence” and to keep an eye on the neighborhood – we will need these for the next phase.
Over the years, Robert & Hugh have presented a convincing case why islam will always oppose the very concept of democracy and democratic institutions. It is the will of their god as laid out in the koran, not the will of the people, that must be followed in an islamic society. There is no such thing as the inherent rights of man b/c under islam, we are all slaves to allah's whim.
Since democracy is the mortal enemy of islam,it cannot be imposed on an islamic society, even by force, except by destroying islam itself. We obviously haven't done this -- and won't do it -- in iraq or afghanistan. But since presenting the appearance of democracy to the Americans keeps the money flowing, the iraqis & afghans will hold periodic elections, which evidently is enough to satisfy bush that these societies have a vibrant, healthy democracy. This is faux democracy. It cannot possibly serve as a light unto neighboring muslim countries, which at any rate have never shown the slightest qualms about crushing any nascent democratic movements.
And as for our military presence on the ground in iraq, it seems more hostage to, rather than threat to, iran. Haven't you noticed that bush's tough talk against iran stopped many, many months ago? now why would that be if our forces in iraq were as a gun pointed at the iranian regime? It doesn't take much of an imagination to see that instead we have entered into an arrangement w/ iran where they stop killing our troops through their iraqi proxies, while we, in turn, tone down the tough talk, even as their nuclear program races ahead. and why would iran not pursue the same strategy in iraq that it executed so successfully in lebanon through hezbollah?
“Since democracy is the mortal enemy of Islam, it cannot be imposed on an islamic society, even by force, except by destroying islam itself. We obviously haven't done this -- and won't do it –“
We agree on these points, except for the last.
We MUST work for the destruction of Islam. We can achieve this by defeating Jihadis whenever and wherever we find ourselves in conflict with them, either by their choice or ours. But mainly Islam will be destroyed by exposing it and Muhammad for what they are – an evil, self-destructive ideology created by a murdering, raping, misogynist pedophile.
To expose Islam, Infidels must first know what it is themselves. This is happening, at a painfully slow rate, but it is happening. When a sufficient “critical mass” of Infidels come to see the true nature of Islam, pressure will be put on our leaders to adopt a more sensible policy – to achieve the destruction of Islam.
In the mean time, democracies imposed by force in Afghanistan and Iraq will serve to weaken Islam somewhat, as will the presence of Infidel troops in the middle of Dar al-Islam. When we finally realize that we must confront and destroy the ideology of Islam, these countries will be essential beachheads in the continuing conflict.
So we come full circle to the main point on which all of us agree – the most critical objective, to achieve victory over Islam, is to expose the truth about it and Muhammad to the World.
Democracy may very possibly be able to exist with a shell of Islam, though not its essence. If democracy can't even exist with a ghost of Mohammed's creed, then it's war on the entire Islamic faith. It's one of the two. I vote for the former for now, with the overriding intention being splitting the Islamic world and introducing its more sane members to the assertion of their humanity over their totalitarian beliefs. I'm ready to go to the other option, though, without too much notice. Either way troubled times lie ahead and neither option is devoid of tragedy as the world moves into an extra uncertain future.
Wellington:
Why can't we fight a cold war w/ the muslim world along the lines that Hugh has suggested, with occasional limited use of fire & steel, where necessary, such as in afghanistan in 2002? I'd rather not fight or forcibly convert 1 billion muslims. Far better to isolate ourselves as much as possible from them by limiting trade & such to the absolute minimum. Since they love islam so much, let them enjoy it in its pure form, unadulterated by Western money, technology, medicine, education, etc.
I've linked back to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/05/re-west-iraq-war-architects-shrug-off.html
“Why can't we fight a cold war w/ the muslim world along the lines that Hugh has suggested, with occasional limited use of fire & steel, where necessary, such as in afghanistan in 2002?”
“Far better to isolate ourselves as much as possible…”
Because they have declared Jihad on us ‘till death or dhimitude -
AND they are building nukes...
“Ambush Theory”
When you find yourself in the “kill zone” you have two options:
1. Attempt to hide (isolate yourself from the enemy as much as possible) and pretend that the overwhelming reality of your swiftly approaching death is not occurring.
2. Attack the enemy with all the strength and violence that you can command –
Knowing that this is the only course of action with which you have any chance of survival.
We are in the “kill zone” – chose your strategy.
You wrote that "[w]e MUST work for the destruction of Islam," yet admit that we haven't been doing it. Three points. First, it's too late to start now. Sharia has already enshrined as the legal touchstone in afghanistan & iraq. Second, the American public is so sick of this war that it simply would not tolerate the expansion of the mission & objectives that you call for. And finally, after over $1 trillion, 4000 military deaths, tens of thousands of casualties, and a military that is seriously overextended by its own admission, the U.S. gov't is clearly moving AWAY from confronting islam, much less destroying or seriously weakening it. The proof of this retreat lies in the DHS's latest fiasco of banning the word "jihadist," and any other terms that might imply a connection between islam & terrorism.
"When a sufficient “critical mass” of Infidels come to see the true nature of Islam, pressure will be put on our leaders to adopt a more sensible policy – to achieve the destruction of Islam." You're making an assumption here that I think is unwarranted. Look at illegal immigration now. The overwhelming number of Americans do not want amnesty for illegals, yet our "leaders" continue to push it. I wouldn't have thought it possible a few years ago, but I now realize that the governing elite can & do give the middle finger to the American people on matters of national import & fully expect to get away with it.
BTW, when I argue for fighting a cold war, instead of a hot one, I in no way mean to suggest that we allow iran to develop nukes. As a last resort we bomb the hell out of them. But, as Hugh has repeatedly indicated, there's probably much we can do w/out committing troops to destabilize iran internally by fomenting unrest among the disaffected ethnic groups w/in its borders.
sheik yer booty: Thanks for your response. I don't believe a cold war strategy will work against radical Muslims as it did against the Soviets because at least the latter enjoyed life and weren't crazy; they were "merely" terribly wrong and deeply Machiavellian. Enthusiastic Muslims are more than prepared to be martyrs for their wretched creed-------in huge bunches and with WMDs by their side. By the way, I don't expect to convert a billion Muslims (nice thought though). I just want to turn some of the more reasonble among them against the nutjobs in their own religion. It's pure divide and conquer stuff. The alternative to this is taking them all on sooner or later. But through it all, the West must have no illusions about Islam. It's bad to the bone and thus Muslim immigration to the West must cease one way or another.