Afghanistan to U.S.: You ain't goin' after Iran from here

Nothing like having "Democratic" allies in the middle east.

Throw them all into one pot, they are all the same.

Well, of course, for a moment I though this story was, well, *this* story: "Pakistan to U.S.: You ain't huntin' for Osama here", which I'm sure was the whole point.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021757.php#comments

Our "partners in the war on terror"--Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia--seem to be working out about as well as Syria, and Lebanon, and Egypt, and Fattah--you know, our "partners for peace in the Middle East".

With friends like these, you already have enemies.

If it is Karzai's contention that allowing the Americans to attack Iran from Afghani soil endangers Afghanistan, then two questions are posed:

1) why has Karzai been so insistent on suggesting that American forces attack Pakistan for its continued support of the Taliban and "intervention" in Afghanistan. Does he fear only Iranian retaliation, but not that from Pakistan?

2) Why would he fear Iranian retaliation? If the Americans were to attack Iraq's nuclear program, such an attack would be thorough, and would leave Iran in little position to send forces out of the country -- they would all be needed at home, now that the Americans had demonstrated not only their ability to harm the Islamic Republic of Iran, but their willingness to do so.

Afghanistan's government, having had many tens of billions spent on it, tells the Americans they cannot launch attacks on Iran from Afghanistan.

Pakistan's government, having had many tens of billions spent on it, tells the Americans that they cannot attack the Taliban or al Qaeda inside Pakistan.

Conclusions to be drawn about the nature of Islam, and the nature of the Muslim recipients of one's generosity and proferred support of every kind?

You know what they are.

Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, stop immigration from muslim countries (especially refugees of muslim on muslim violence) and stop paying the jizya.

Oh and withdraw and expel the U.N. for U.S. shore.

Karzai is hardly in any position to dictate. On the other hand, if Israel is left to do the Western world's dirty work - as seems likely, then the attack will most certainly come from the West, over Iraqi airspace.

Cornelius

“then the attack will most certainly come from the West, over Iraqi airspace.”

How much you want to bet the Israelis will not get permission, and will thus have to do it by evading Iraqi air defenses (such as they are) just like in the Saddam days. What will all those Shia in Iraq do when Israel bombs Iran?

Looks like our muslim friends are in truth not friends at all....wow who would have known!

Withdraw all forces from Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Both have proven conclusively that they can never be trusted as US allies. If they're so enamored of Iran, the Afghans can be subsumed by Iran. Who will notice? Who will care? Why should we?

I thought the Afghans were Sunnis. So the Shia-Sunni "divide" is a farce.

PMK

No it is not a farce, however the infidel-muslim divide is greater. That is greatness of the Fitzgerald plan. No non-muslims in the way, means back to good ole fashioned Sunni-Shia slaughter.

In fact, before 9-11 the Iranians and Taliban were already in a semi-shooting war. We should have gone in, and killed who we needed to kill and gotten out. Same with Iraq and hopefully one day...Pakistan.

Karzai worries too much. He will get along with Iran a whole lot better when we are done with them. If there is anyone left to even get along with.

As if the fiasco in Iraq were not enough, Barack Obama now wishes to prove he is "tough on Islam." But he hasn't thought through Islam, hasn't really thought about it at all, save in relation to his "search" for his "identity," but instead has been a child of Chicago, a community organizer in Chicago, for whom the great world is largely an abstraction, and so too is history, the kind of history that many of those whose exposure to education is the vocational training that law school provides, never acquired a taste for studying.

No, Barack Obama will not suggest that we calmly, sensibly, dispassionately exploit the pre-existing fissures -- sectarian, ethnic, and economic -- within the Camp of Islam, cut off all American aid -- disguised Jizyah -- to every Muslim polity and people (Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, the "Palestinian" Authority), possibly seize and hold Darfur and the southern Sudan for a referendum on independence, halt all Muslim immigration, and together with the countries of Western Europe, work to diminish the Muslim presence in those lands, by demanding allegiance to the Infidel nation-state, and an end to any allegiance to the Shari'a, which in letter and spirit flatly contradicts every principle of the advanced Western democracies.

No, in order to prove he is "tough" on Islam Barack Obama intends to continue talking only about Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, that is to continue the idiotic Bush policy of reducing self-defense against Jihad as being a "war on terror," and ignoring, just as Bush has done, the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

And what does Obama propose? Out of Iraq, yes, but obviously not for the reasons one would wish (nonetheless, let's pocket that withdrawal anyway, because objectively what will happen in Iraq after that withdrawal will further divide and demoralize Islam from within), but then, with another ten thousand or more troops, he, Obama, wishes to raise the level of American participation in Afghanistan.

That's not good. Neither he nor McCain appears capable of stepping back, taking some time to quietly study Islam, and then thinking entirely afresh about Iraq, about Afghanistan, and about what is happening in Western Europe.

"In fact, before 9-11 the Iranians and Taliban were already in a semi-shooting war."

greatcometof1577,

Okay but that's the Taliban. The Taliban was too extreme even for most Sunnis as well as Shia. Karzai isn't Taliban, or is he?

So Karzai is effectively telling the US: you're not allowed to attack Iran because I have first dibs?

It's still a farce because some of them have tried to get Westerners to believe that each sect hates or fears the other more than it does us. But it's as you said: they hate infidels first and foremost.
The farce comes in believing that we can use that divide to our own advantage. Even the family that has the bitterest feuds will join together against outsiders.

And what does Obama propose? Out of Iraq, yes, but obviously not for the reasons one would wish (nonetheless, let's pocket that withdrawal anyway, because objectively what will happen in Iraq after that withdrawal will further divide and demoralize Islam from within), but then, with another ten thousand or more troops, he, Obama, wishes to raise the level of American participation in Afghanistan.
by Hugh

Obama is all over the place. His interview with Fareed Zakaria had him denying we would ever get out of Iraq!

If we were to leave Iraq entirely, would that not cede the field to them and allow Iran to consolidate its gains in the region and in the country?

OBAMA: I don't think so. Look, first of all,
I have never talked about leaving the field entirely.
What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.

I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we're making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces -- so long as we're not training sectarian armies that are then fighting each other -- to protect our diplomats, to protect humanitarian efforts in the region.

So, nobody's talking about abandoning the field.

The farce comes in believing that we can use that divide to our own advantage. Even the family that has the bitterest feuds will join together against outsiders."
-- from a posting above

You are suggesting that as long as Infidels exist, Muslims will stay united? But that's not true. What matters is for Infidels not to be present, not to be nearby. The history of Islam shows all kinds of internecine warfare. It ceases to exist when one side either wipes out or thoroughly suppresses the other. In Iraq, the Shi'a had been suppressed for the entire history of modern Iraq. Now they have taken power. And they won't give it up. But as long as the Americans are there, those Americans can do all good they want, and no Sunnis and no Shi'a will be grateful, and as long as the Americans remain, each of the many side will attempt to use the Americans for its own purposes -- not just the Sunni and the Shi'a but subgroups within those larger groupings. When the Infidels remove themselves, carefully backing out of the barroom in which two warring clans were momentarily held apart and now will be held apart no longer -- (the result can range from permanent low-level hostilities to full-scale civil war) we'll see whether or not, as you suggest, the Muslims remain "united" against the now-out-of-sight Infidels.

As much as I love to see them fight each other.. how do we make sure that no "refugees" try to invade our Western countries as a result?

As for Karzai.. he should be taught a lesson.

Until then someone needs to read him the riot act behind closed doors. This is the way things are going to work and if you don't like it you can protect yourself with your own troops.
Of course we should use both Afg and Iraq as launching pads as strategy demands to take out the iranian nuclear threat.

as much as you might believe every word from Karzai, he is probably saying with it a wink and a nod to asure iranians that he is on their side, knowing full well iran like the pak will use afganistan as pawn when it suits them. its all smoke a mirrors, we need to understand that, and just ignore karzai and do what needs to be done to iran. l mean how can karzai even stop the US forces?

The real answer to the middle east may be what one of our top generals suggested...He said,"If they want to live in the 10th century lets put them there by leveling the place".

COMET1577: "How much you want to bet the Israelis will not get permission, and will thus have to do it by evading Iraqi air defenses (such as they are) just like in the Saddam days. What will all those Shia in Iraq do when Israel bombs Iran? Looks like our muslim friends are in truth not friends at all....wow who would have known!"

RESPONSE: France and Spain would not allow us to use their airspace to bomb Libya in the 80s...and they were fellow infidels and long-time allies. To suggest that Iraq and Afghanistan are expected - as erstwhile allies - to toe the line on every policy initiative emanating from Washington (much less Tel Aviv), particularly one so drastic as an attack on their neighbor, is to see the world in a terribly unsophisticated way.

Iraq has no functional airforce or air-defense system. Iraqi airspace will be breached without incident in the attack. Iraqi Shia's will no doubt voice their anger afterwards and there may even be a new round of fighting with the reconstituted Mahdi Army.

Small price for destroying Iran's nuclear program.

Cornelius

"To suggest that Iraq and Afghanistan are expected - as erstwhile allies - to toe the line on every policy initiative emanating from Washington (much less Tel Aviv), particularly one so drastic as an attack on their neighbor, is to see the world in a terribly unsophisticated way."

I would call that a lack of pacification. So are you telling me that for all the cash and lives we have spent, building bridges, schools, and god knows what else, that we cannot expect any of these folks to help us fight Iran, or even that bizarre phrase "Terror"? I mean poor Hugh was excoriated, attacked, punished, cursed, drawn and quartered, stoned, flogged..etc etc...by some folks here for wanting out of Iraq, because we needed that place as a base of operations to attack Iran.

What do they do for us, Cornelius?

"What matters is for Infidels not to be present, not to be nearby."

Hugh,
If infidels can't be nearby then Israel has to cease to exist, because it remains a primary uniter of all Muslims and it is most certainly "nearby". After Israel, the US has to go, because we are the great satan.
No matter how much the Shia and Sunni hate one another, both hate us even more.

Comet,

Don't worry about Hugh. He's extremely adept at defending himself.

COMET: "What do they do for us, Cornelius?"

RESPONSE: In the case of our allies in Iraq...

1) They fight and die alongside our soldiers against Al Qaeda (and earlier this year, against the Mahdi Army)

2) They deny Al Qaeda sanctuary from which to facilitate regional and world-wide terror

3) They deny - at least up until now - Tehran the ability to create a puppet state with massive oil resources...(I understand Maliki has attempted to establish good relations with Iran, but this is far from the puppet "Hezbollah" state southern Iraq could and probably would become were the Coalition to leave prematurely)

In the case of Afghanistan...

1) They fight and die alongside our soldiers against Al Qaeda and the Taliban

2) They're helping to prevent Al Qaeda and the Taliban from re-establishing their terror regime, from which more 9-11s would have been planned and executed...(sadly, Pakistan has supplanted Afghanistan as the new nexus of terrorism in the world, but instead of walking away from Afghanistan, the answer is to put new pressure on Pakistan)

PS - On Iraq...

4) They have allowed the Kurds to establish an autonomous, moderate state, free from Arab domination...to serve as a beacon for the Kurds in Iran in their own fight for autonomy and freedom

Ingrate!

For the benefit of any person new to this website, it is necessary to provide some Muslim texts that make clear what Robert, introducing the posted article, in his allusion to 'ties of religion' , doubtless has in mind.

Muslim loyalty to fellow Muslim, vis a vis the Infidels, is supposed to trump everything else. As with the mafia, one simply does *not* 'rat' on one's fellow gang-members to outsiders, especially the police, even though assassinations and every other kind of murderous internecine mayhem may be happening between different branches of 'the family'.

The locus classicus is Qur'an 48: 29, which does not command, but simply describes, how Muslims are supposed to treat one another, as opposed to treatment of Infidels:

'Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers, but merciful to one another".

Other Quran verses explicitly forbid befriending Infidels or taking them as allies:

Qur’an 3:118 “Believers! Take not into your intimacy those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, and Christians). They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin".

Qur'an 5: 51: "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Ibn Ishaq in his canonical Life of Mohammed. verse 231, states flatly:
“Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”

In the Hadith:

Bukhari:V5B59N572 “O Muslims, take not My enemies as friends, offering them kindness when they reject Allah, the Prophet Muhammad, and his Qur’an. And whoever does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray. You have come out to fight in My Cause, seeking My acceptance so do not be friendly with them, even in secret.” [60:1]

Mr Fitzgerald drew to our attention, at this website, three years ago, the following gem, originally discovered by S D Goitein in 1949 in 'the New East, an Arab monthly periodical describing itself as the 'organ of the academic youth of the East':


"Let us fight fanatically for our religion; let us love a man-because he is a Moslem; let us honor a man- because he is a Moslem; let us prefer him to anyone else-because he is a Moslem; and never let us make friends with unbelievers, because they have nothing but evil for us."

Such 'friendship' and 'alliance' as any non-Muslim nation may obtain from any entity within the islamosphere, is merely temporary, dependent on that nation's being perceived as an overwhelming threat (too powerful to fight, therefore requiring to be deceived by temporising, and lured into weakening other Infidel powers: China is probably seen this way, at the moment), or else as dhimmi (aid is taken for granted or arrogantly demanded, with threats, as if it were jizya - and woe unto you if you cease paying: the EU, UK and increasingly the USA seem to be seen in this light - the only way to test it, is to stop all 'aid' and observe the reaction).

However, as for the much-vaunted Muslim in-house 'compassion' and brotherhood and friendship...Hugh has mentioned the many fissures in the House of islam, so let us allow the great French sociologist Jacques Ellul, discussing jihad in the foreword which he wrote for Bat Yeor's "Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam", in 1991, to have the last word:

"since the jihad is not solely an external war, it can break out within the Muslim world itself - and wars among Muslims have been numerous, but always with the same features...the jihad is an institution and not an event, that is to say, it is part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world."

The jihad is 'inner struggle', all right; from the Shiite-Sunni division, all the way down through interdynastic, intradynastic, intertribal and intrafamilial strife. J

Cornelius

So is that best we can do? Prevent Al Qaeda from setting a few crappy bases up in Iraq and Afghanistan? So we have lost several thousand troops, spent billions upon billions of dollars, have extended our national guard…hell we even handed out soccer balls, and you are telling me that is it? Oh, wait we also are preventing Iran from getting trapped in Iraq just like we are.

Here is what we are not preventing by being in Iraq and Afghanistan…

(1) Iran getting a nuke
(2) Pakistan giving away nukes (or information, technology etc.)
(3) Saudi Arabia funding fast jihad
(4) Saudi Arabia funding slow jihad, like propaganda groups in the west, mosque building projects in west, paying off our political leaders in the west for all sorts of stuff they want
(5) Muslim immigration (related to no. 4 above)
(6) Jihadist wars in Sudan, Thailand, Philippines, Balkans, Israel, Lebanon, Kashmir, Western China, Southern Russia and others.
(7) Religious (non-muslim) minorities in Muslim nations (including Iraq and Afghanistan) are being oppressed.
(8) Western Pakistan as Taliban II
(9) The increased influence of Islam in the daily life of normal Iraqis, Turks, etc.
(10) The most important of all: Our continued slavery to our Arabian masters because of their oil.

The simple fact is the current plan is just too expensive and too time consuming for the meager results you have listed. We have bigger issues that need to be tackled first. The only thing we are doing now is wasting a boat load of cash, becuase our leaders are not willing to do what needs to be done in those nations to achieve a real and lasting victory. That would mean a real war against Islam.

Some comments from the “loyal opposition” to a few statements by Hugh, above:

“You are suggesting that as long as Infidels exist, Muslims will stay united?”

Absolutely Hugh and not to far below the surface you know this to be true also. This is because Islam cannot survive without an enemy – and us Infidels is IT! Remember, 9/11 happened AFTER our forces were out of Saudi Arabia. They were removed so as not to inflame delicate Muslim sensitivity to having Infidel soldiers in Dar al Islam. (Worked really well didn’t it?) If we are foolish enough to leave Iraq and Afghanistan we only ensure that the inevitable attack on us is sooner, better planned and organized and much more deadly.

“What matters is for Infidels not to be present, not to be nearby”

This is the trap of “if they can’t see us, they will leave us alone”. This is not true and for the same reasons as stated above – they NEED us as an enemy.

As you have pointed out many times, the massive influx oil of cash coupled with the spiritual weakness of the West has them feeling empowered, feeling so close to victory that they can taste it – it will not be denied because the prey chooses to run and hide so as to “not to be present, not to be nearby”

As I have stated before, I am not happy with the mention of Sharia in both the Iraqi and Afghan Constitutions. I am somewhat disappointed at the way our combat operations are limited and constrained by political correctness. I am outraged by our proclivity to charge our brave troopers with trumped up “war crimes” in public show trials. I am angry and frustrated that we cannot, we WILL NOT name and define our enemy.

But the best place, the VERY BEST PLACE for our Armed Forces to be right now is exactly where they are, in the MIDDLE of dar al Islam – a rifle shot away from Iran AND Pakistan.

Reducing Iran makes the Sunni-Shia conflict "fair". Insuring their ability to conflict with each other for a much longer affair.

Comet,

Most of the issues you've listed are not dependent upon our presence (or lack of) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll certainly admit that #1 is, though it needn't be (our bases in Iraq and Afghanistan could and should be the linch-pin of a successful attack on Iran)...and that #7 is a tragedy, but one that would probably be made worse by our absence.

Preventing #2 would mean invading Pakistan or somehow imposing an anti-proliferation regime without invasion...and is there not a staggering contradiction between advocating withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan while advocating invasion or an intense involvement in Pakistan, if that is indeed what you're advocating?

You also seem to want us to engage the Jihadists on the far corners of the world (#6), and yet want to withdraw from where Jihad is at its most intense.

#s 3,4,5,8,9 & 10 are issues entirely separate from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, though you are certainly correct that all need addressing.

Davegreybeard,
As I recall, 9/11 happened while our troops were still in Saudi Arabia. It was one of OBL's excuses for the attack.

Our forces completely left Saudi Arabia AFTER 9/11, not before. In fact, they left after Saddam was deposed. With Saddam out of power there was no need to monitor the no-fly zones over the northern and southern sections of Iraq and so there was no need for those Saudi bases.
It was one achievement of the Iraq war - we got out of Saudi Arabia. The war opposed by Muslims everywhere got the US off their sacred soil.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0501goodbye.htm

You are correct PMK.

I must have dreamed the other scenario.