Sending very expensive-to-recruit-train-maintain-and-outfit Western troops to Iraq, and keeping them there to attempt to attain a goal impossible of attainment, is, to say the least, unwise. The Sunnis will never acquiesce in their loss of power to the despised Shi'a.
And the Shi'a Arabs, who constitute 60-65% of the population in Iraq (and hence about 80% of the Arab population), will never surrender the power, and the money that comes with the power, that they acquired -- inevitably and inexorably acquired -- once Saddam Hussein's regime had been overturned.
The current American government -- and by the looks of it, either of the two alternative successors to the Bush Administration -- fail to grasp this. They fail, furthermore, to grasp that being worried about "chaos" and "violence" that would follow "an American pull-out" misses the point.
Chaos and violence in the Arab and Muslim world, chaos and violence that weakens that world, that causes men, money, materiel to be used up not by Americans and other Infidels, but by Muslims fighting with each other, is not a bad thing, but a good thing.
We interrupt this posting to ask, for the hundredth time, the following question:
Was the Iran-Iraq War a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing, from the point of view of Infidels?
Answer: it was a very Good Thing. It should have gone on forever.
Now back to our regularly-scheduled posting.
The failure of the Bush Administration to grasp this is in the main a failure of intelligence and imagination, but also a failure to admit that it has been wrong. And the claque, the so-called "neoconservative claque," of the boots-kagans-kristols, won’t admit it either. Because they are in the "Spreading Democracy in the Muslim World" racket and their funds and therefore their personal well-being depend on their continuing to argue for and at this point to pretend to believe in some version, perhaps a little toned down, of the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, they will never admit they were wrong.
And the anointed Republican candidate, John McCain, himself a military man, continues to think of "war" only in the most obvious military terms, as in Iraq, as in Afghanistan. He does not realize that the permanent war that Islam is requires its followers to engage in -- see Qur'an, see Hadith, see the Sira -- whenever Muslims possess the necessary wherewithal, continues and gains strength, as we squander our men, money, materiel, and morale, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The Jihad is not a tangential but a central duty. It is the "struggle" to spread Islam, not in one place, not in the Middle East alone, but everywhere. It is waged in order to remove all the obstacles to the spread, and then to the permanent dominance, of Islam -- including such obstacles as the legal and political institutions of Infidels that are flatly contradicted by both the letter and the spirit of the Shari'a. And among the greatest of those obstacles are he Constitution of the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's not something fabricated by "Islamophobes." It's clearly in the texts and tenets. And those texts, those tenets, have been acted on, over the past 1350 years, in most unambiguous ways, in the conquest of lands possessed by non-Muslims, and then in the subjugation of non-Muslims (where they were not killed or forcibly converted at once), who are reduced, where allowed to remain alive, to the status of dhimmis, a status that is one of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
McCain doesn't know this. Will anyone on his staff begin to explain it to him, so that he, in turn, can begin -- in time -- to make the appropriate signs that he has at last begun to understand that the mission in Iraq to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" was one of sentimental messianism, or messianic sentimentalism (take your pick)? That mission ignored the nature of Islam and the view of man, and of the ruler, that Islam implicates: the ruler is to be obeyed if he is a Muslim, and the legitimacy of any ruler depends not, as in Western democracy, on the expressed will of the people, but on the will expressed by Allah, through his medium Muhammad, in the Qur'an, and as further glossed by Muhammad in the Hadith, or as revealed by the details of Muhammad's life collected in the Sira.
There is a kind of "victory" that can be obtained by America, and by the West, in Iraq, but as I have written here a hundred times before, that "victory" depends not on staying but on going. That "victory" must be defined as ending in a situation that causes division and demoralization within the Camp of Islam and Jihad. In Iraq there is a great chance, a great opportunity. For in Iraq there is permanent sectarian hostility and sometimes, open warfare. There is permanent ethnic hostility, between the supremacist Arabs and the non-Arab Kurds.
All the Americans have to do is recognize that if they continue in the present course, there is no end to this. They will be using up men, materiel, and money (now approaching, or perhaps having exceeded, two trillion dollars, spent, squandered, in Iraq -- money that might have gone, for example, to energy projects that would have made a real dent in the Muslim Money Weapon, that comes entirely from the sale of oil and gas) this year, next year, the year after. The officers and men in Iraq are spinning their wheels. And some of them know it. The morale problem in the army grows; 15,000 captains have not re-upped. The suicide rate, which tells us something, is up; morale is down. And it is down, in large part, because the American soldiers have come to understand, even if they do not yet understand why, that is not yet understood at high levels what Islam teaches, what Islam causes. It is not understood that the Iraqis will take and take and take, and whine and whine and whine, and use the Americans against their local enemies, but no real friendship can be expected, no loyalty -- only meretriciousness, only malevolence, only, in the end, the hostility that Muslims must feel toward all non-Muslims.
It is cruel, and it is stupid, for the American civilians, in the Pentagon and in the White House, and in Congress, to keep wasting mens' lives in a vain effort, an effort that is based on a refusal, a great unwillingness, to study the meaning, and then the menace, of Islam. McCain may think he understands it, but he doesn't. And those who calling themselves "conservatives" nonetheless keep loyally defending an indefensible and stupid and wasteful policy, often because they have a personal stake in this. They don't want to be shown up. They don't want to be judged as irrelevant. If you were an early enthusiast, and have stayed such, at this point it is almost impossible to allow yourself to realize how foolish and ignorant of Islam, how careless of fact, how negligent of, for example, the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest you have been. And you just won't do it. Nor will assorted operators, in every sense, who in their one-man or ten-man operations (ah, think of the donors, think of the need to maintain plausibility with the public, and the private, donors) who have a personal stake, even a financial one, in continued belief in the "democratization of the Muslim world" project. They're all in the same galere.
We have a chance, by leaving, to create a permanent fault-line between the forces of Sunni Islam (the local Sunnis being backed by Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., other Gulf Arabs, Jordan, Egypt, and Sunni Arabs in Syria who may be let out by their Alawite rulers to join co-religionists in Iraq, as a way of getting rid of some domestic enemies of the syncretistic Alawites) and Shi'a Islam (the Shi'a Arabs of Iraq are not all admirers of the Iranian regime, but the Iranian regime will feel compelled to help them against the Sunnis).
Make provisions to rescue, or protect, the Christians -- Assyrians, Chaldeans, even tiny non-Christian and non-Muslim sects such as the Mandeans. They can be moved into redoubts in the north, and armed, possibly in Kurdistan, if and only if the Kurds agree to protect them, and if and only if the Americans will, possibly over the horizon with air power, be there to be the final enforcers of that promise and to add a little protection of their own. Some may wish to leave, for Syria. I have suggested why an exchange of populations -- local Muslim Arabs in the "West Bank" for Arabic-speaking Assyrians and Chaldeans -- should not be dismissed but looked into. Let Israel be the protector of some of those hounded, persecuted, murdered Christians -- fellow non-Muslim victims of Muslims. That will be good for Israel, and good for the way in which the non-Muslims of the world will then begin to understand Islam, and the threat it poses to all non-Muslims.
As for Afghanistan, it's much the same kind of expensive waste. It's an impossible place, a primitive place. Build a school for girls. The next day, or next month, or next year, it will be blown up. Teachers will be dragged out and killed. Girl students will themselves be killed. Build a grid of roads, and the Taliban will use those roads. Put in more electricity, and the Taliban will exploit that to spread more easily, through computers and televisions, their message -- the message not of an Islam misunderstood, but simply an Islam taken seriously, in its every aspect.
Let the Uzbeks and Tadjiks fight with the Pashtun. Let one group of Pashtun fight another. Let the Hazara, whom the Taliban wished to wipe out, be supplied with enough weaponry to fight, in turn, the hyper-Sunnis of the Taliban. Let it be all against all.
And in Pakistan, don't keep pouring money into the meretricious Pakistani military. That was done for decades. In return, we got A. Q. Khan, and the Pakistani military's "Islamic bomb," and attacks on India supported by, paid for by, planned by, those in Pakistan.
Cut off all aid to Pakistan if there is not a complete change in attitude toward not only the Taliban, but toward all Pakistani mosques where hatred of Infidels is inculcated. Look for an Ataturk, and make sure the Pakistani military realizes that the decades of being taken in by them are over. We want our tens of billions back, and we want that money now -- or we want results. We in the West can cut airlinks to Pakistan -- no more toing and froing to Great Britain. We can halt all Pakistani immigration, and start to expel non-citizens from Pakistan, and then go from there, to find out which among those who have acquired citizenship committed perjury in their oath of loyalty, leaving only those who can swear allegiance to an Infidel nation-state and mean it -- which means that they are not going to be good Muslims, not those loyal, as they are supposed to be, only to Islam, only to fellow Muslims.
We can help the rebels in Baluchistan, who deserve a little help. Last year the Pakistani military murdered the most beloved tribal leader in Baluchistan, aged 79, and his son. We can do all kinds of things, including boycotting Pakistani goods -- so many of those rugs, after all, are made by child-labor, and according to reports, the children in question are often miserably treated Christians. Oh, and as for the Sunnis of Sipaha-e-Sahaba, the ones who specialize in killing the Shi'a? What would they do if they saw the Shi'a in Iran helping co-religionists in Iraq kill Sunnis? Do you think they wouldn't be inspired to seek revenge -- just a little?
There should be in the Pentagon, a wing, open only to non-Muslims, that will be the nerve-centers for listing, and studying ways to encourage, the Pre-Existing Divisions within the Camp of Islam. Start with Sunnis and Shi'a, and list all the places where there could be, are likely to be, more Sunni-Shi'a trouble if in Iraq a permanent simmering warfare, or perhaps not so simmering, between the two sects continues. List them all: Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (where several hundred thousand Shi'a live in the Eastern, oil-bearing, Province). List numbers, list groups, list resentments, list fears, of these Shi'a, or those Sunnis.
Have another room, devoted only to the matter of non-Arab Muslims and the various ways they have suffered from Arab supremacism, whether it be mass-murder (as with the Kurds and black African Muslims in Darfur), or cultural and linguistic supremacism, as with the Berbers in North Africa, or a combination of these, as well as the political exploitation of non-Arab Muslims by the Arabs who essentially dominate, even run, the O.I.C. and lay down the law about what constitute the most important Muslim causes.
And have still another room devoted to the economic resentments and splits within the Camp of Islam. The poorer Arabs have had those resentments dampened because they have been allowed to rely, for tens of billions in aid, on the Western world. That aid almost immediately took on the character of Jizyah: that is, a tax on non-Muslims, paid to Muslims, to buy temporary tolerance. The American government is now afraid -- afraid! -- to cut aid to malevolent Egypt, Jordan, meretricious Pakistan, the so-called "Palestinians" who are merely the "West Bank" and Gazan Arabs who are the shock troops of the pan-Arab and pan-Islamic Jihad against Israel.
And if the Infidels are "afraid" to end the Jizyah of what they still call "foreign aid," the recipients of that aid are not grateful for it. They do nothing to deserve it. They continue in Egypt and among the "Palestinians" to be viciously antisemitic and anti-American. We have heard enough nonsense about this line that reporters are sometimes fed and sometimes believe, because they know nothing of Islam: the line about how "we (Egyptians, Jordanians, "Palestinian" Arabs) don't like your government but we like the American people." Islam tells us otherwise. It tells us that as Infidels, no matter what aid we give, no matter how much we knock ourselves out for them in other ways, they will still hate us. Ah, those hundreds of billions, even trillions, spent to make Iraq a better place, a place where we will rebuild everything, schools, hospitals, power grids, roads and bridges, you name it! And what's more, we will rebuild, or build, the country, so that lions can lie down with other lions, as all of them feign for the gullible Infidels to have been lambs in the first place.
Basta.
The men in Iraq know it. The officers, or those not wedded to parroting the party line, know it. Many, pari passu with the increase in their knowledge of Islam, know it.
What is keeping those who presume to instruct us and to protect us (in the government) from finding out the same things, from studying the same things, that we have all done, at this and other websites? What? Too busy praising each other as the most important people in the world, and giving even a Tim Russert practically a State Funeral, or at least coverage worthy of Winston Churchill? What is it, exactly, that makes so many of those who report, or pontificate in columns, think they can continue to get away with such ignorance? Or those who remain ignorant in the executive branch, and the legislative branch, and even in the judicial branch -- where judges are going to have to find out a lot more about Islam if they are going to make sound judgments in terrorism cases?
After such ignorance (as noted before), what forgiveness?
"Chaos and violence in the Arab and Muslim world, chaos and violence that weakens that world, that causes men, money, materiel to be used up not by Americans and other Infidels, but by Muslims fighting with each other, is not a bad thing, but a good thing."
Oh yeah. But not PC to say as we're supposed to love the Mohammedans. They're people too, and just the same as us! Ordinary dads and pieces of uncovered meat.
*
"McCain doesn't know this. Will anyone on his staff begin to explain it to him"
No one on his staff knows anything about Islam!
Here we go again...Hugh on his Iraqi soap-box speaking in absolutes...
"The Sunnis will never acquiesce in their loss of power to the despised Shi'a..."
By all accounts, the Sunnis have accepted their newly reduced status in Iraq, have ended their cooperation with AQI, have bought into the system and are preparing to end their boycott of the gov't (if they haven't already). The Sunni tribes - relatively moderate and secular-leaning - are hoping to use the coming elections to displace the Iraq Islamic Party as the main voice of the Sunnis.
Hugh reminds one a bit of Barak Obama...ignoring the changing realities on the ground in Iraq.
Cut off all aid to Pakistan if there is not a complete change in attitude toward not only the Taliban, but toward all Pakistani mosques where hatred of Infidels is inculcated.
You'll never know that for years, if not decades. It would require concrete actions, such as taking control of the tribal areas, for them to prove their attitudes have changed. Otherwise, assume taqiyya. That's what happens with liars. No one believes them, even if they tell the truth.
Non-Arab Muslims may have suffered under Arab dominance but they're still Muslims. Are we to assume that they haven't inculcated the dream of one world ruled by Islam? Are Indonesian Muslims amenable to Westerners? The Turks aren't Arabs but they ruled a huge empire with Islam at its core. The Turks blocked the land routes into China, forcing Europeans to seek a water route, which led Columbus across the Atlantic.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 7, 2008 10:17 AM
Maybe you will enlighten us that why, after 5 years and al-Qaeda supposedly on the ropes, we still need 150K + plus troops in Iraq to deal with this "rag-tag" insurgency?
Ignoring 1400 hundred years of history, are we?
Ataturk was as successful as he was not only because of his establishment of a cult of personality, but also because of his replacement of Islam with Turkish nationalism. What exactly do you suggest Pakis replace Islam with and retain an identity distinct from India in its own right? De-Islamizing Pakistan is what would have to happen for all the reforms that you've outlined above.
Instead, why not just wait until India has a Hindutva government, and then work out a deal with them by which US takes out Paki nukes, India takes out Pakistan and stamps out Islam both there and within India itself? But that would also require an administration that itself knows what we in JW know about the ummah.
AWAKE: "Maybe you will enlighten us that why, after 5 years and al-Qaeda supposedly on the ropes, we still need 150K + plus troops in Iraq to deal with this "rag-tag" insurgency?"
RESPONSE: Are you actually suggesting that Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't on the ropes? My God. An army once 12,000 strong has been reduced to 1,200. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the continued US efforts in Iraq, to suggest we haven't made enormous progress in the last year is a sad case of myopia.
AWAKE: "Ignoring 1400 hundred years of history, are we?"
RESPONSE: Not at all. Islamic history is replete with periods of both antagonism AND cooperation between Sunni and Shia. Saladin united the Muslim world in his wars against the crusaders...Iraqi Shia's fought loyally for Saddam during the long, 8-year Iran-Iraq war...Shia Iran has cooperated with the Al Qaeda almost since the inception of the latter...and on and on.
Excellent.
The Shia-Sunni unity that you reference only happened when there were Infidels to be killed, as was the case with the crusaders, when Saladin not only united Shia and Sunni, but Turks and Kurds as well. Iran has been supporting its own terrorists such as Hizbullah, and both Iran and al Qaeda have been supporting Hamas, but Iran itself had been opposed to al Qaeda, particularly in Afghanistan, where they pretty much fought a proxy war: the al Qaeda backing the Taliban, and Iran backing the Shia Hazara Hizb e Wahdat of Abdul Karim Khalili. I'd also like to see evidence that the Iraqi Shia fought loyally on the side of Saddam: evidently, his own intelligence told him otherwise. Besides, Saddam didn't feel that Iran was any source of inspiration to the Iraqi Shia when the Pahlevis were in power, but once the Ayatollahs arrived, they had every reason to worry.
Also, given that Shia-Sunni unity only happens in the context of a destructive cause, such as an anti-Infidel enterprise, be it US troops in Iraq, the existance of Israel, et al, why do you think Shia-Sunni unity is a good thing? Why not just get US troops out of there, and let the locals fight it out? After all, when 2 Mohammedans fight each other, it implies 2 less Mohammedans available for the Jihad. Isn't that something you think desirable?
@Cornelius -
I, too, thought like you do about the 'cooperation' between Shia and Sunni and thought it was a BAD THING for the West. Then I read The Shia Revival - How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future by Vali Nasr. Now, I don't subscribe to all that he writes in the book (after all, Karen Armstrong gave it a good review!), but the clear and concise dissection of the past, present and future dynamics of the Shia/Sunni conflict was very enlightening to me. For instance - Saladin did not 'unite' the muslim world because before he came along,
'...the Shia Fatimid dynasty dominated North Africa and the Levant from its seat in Cairo. There were prominent Shia communities in Fatimid domains that stretched in an arc from Tunisia through Egypt and the cities that dot the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The Fatimids' loss of Jerusalem to the First Crusade in 1099 led to the unraveling of their dominion. When the Sunni Ayubids and their Kurdish general Saladin triumphantly dislodged the Crusaders from Jerusalem in 1187, their victory guaranteed Sunni domination over the region down to modern times. So many Shias turned to Sunnism that Shiism disappeared from North Africa, and lost its anchor in the main urban centers of the Levant as well....The balance between Shiism and Sunnism was thus determined by how rulers associated with each sect fared in the face of a military challenge....'from the book.
I would suggest that you read the book and maybe, just maybe, you'll change your view also. Hugh is right - Sunni's will NEVER allow Shia to rule over them in any way, shape or form and they'll die trying to change the dynamics back to their favor. Let the conflicts begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Are you actually suggesting that Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't on the ropes? My God."
Absolutely not. I am inquiring why we need 150K + troops to finish off the 1,200 or so stragglers as you put them at?
I am also inquiring as to why after the Taleban was routed in Afghanistan several years ago, they are re-emerging?
Al-Qaeda is merely a football team, but the premier league is all of Islam. There is no reliable Sunni/Shia/Al-Qaeda distinction that one can make and al-Qaeda's ranks are endelessly replenishable from a pool of over a billion Muslims worldwide.
Sure al-Qaeda may change their brand name in the future, but Islam will surely not.
Speaking of the Iran/Iraq conflict in the 1980's, to which the US cleverly supplied arms to both sides, I cannot recall a quieter time for the Jihad since Iran's hostage episode in the 70's 'till now.
The bottom line is 150K + boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for how much longer, and to achieve what specific goal exactly?
Response?
Good people on the same side debating details.
Very informative.
Where in the US Constitution does it talk about jizya payments or any 'foreign aid' with taxpayers money? Stop jizya, and all forms of 'foreign aid' except in a 'real' humanitarian crisis. Americans are generous to a fault, but hate getting ripped off. Every nickel going to jiza is a rip off...
Steal a cheap postage stamp and go to jail, steal billions for jiza and get high office, a fancy car and a nice house...That kind of crime pays handsomely...
Infidel Pride,
On the contrary, there have been extended periods of Shia-Sunni co-existence throughout Islamic history. In fact, after the early violence of the schism in the 7th century, the rule has been an uneasy co-existence punctuated by periods of episodic blood-letting. The doctrinal differences between Sunni and Shia are not going to disappear, but we would be fools to view their interactions through a rigid, dogmatic prism.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's bombing of the Khobar Towers in Riyhad was planned and directed from Iran. Today, much of Al Qaeda's senior leadership has found sanctuary in Iran...(unless you actually believe the Iranians that they are under "house arrest"). And you yourself have confirmed the growing cooperation between Shia Iran and Sunni Hamas.
During the Iran-Iraq war, there is absolutely no evidence of any mass defection of Iraqi Shia soldiers to the enemy...which one would expect if your Shia-Sunni schism is the defining feature of Muslim identity. Even those Iraqi Shias who were captured in battle never turned and fought for the Iranians. They languished in camps for years until the majority were repatriated as part of a deal.
INFIDEL PRIDE: "...why do you think Shia-Sunni unity is a good thing? Why not just get US troops out of there, and let the locals fight it out? After all, when 2 Mohammedans fight each other, it implies 2 less Mohammedans available for the Jihad. Isn't that something you think desirable?"
RESPONSE: Your assumption - mirroring Hugh's - is that if we leave Iraq, Shia and Sunni will consume their energies in fratricide. It's possible. But it's just as possible that one side (probably the Shia, with Iran's help) could quickly vanquish the other...or that the most radical elements of both groups could join forces to impose a fanatical regime on the country.
No sir, no argument ever presented on these pages has convinced me that turning Iraq over to AQI and/or Iran is in the best interests of the USA.
INFIDEL PRIDE: "The bottom line is 150K + boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for how much longer, and to achieve what specific goal exactly?
Response?"
RESPONSE: Goal? To prevent either country from becoming the terrorist operational hub that Afghanistan was in the 90s and led directly to 9-11.
Cornelius wrote:
"In fact, after the early violence of the schism in the 7th century, the rule has been an uneasy co-existence punctuated by periods of episodic blood-letting."
Methinks one of those blood-letting periods is in short order then.
Cornelius wrote:
"Goal? To prevent either country from becoming the terrorist operational hub that Afghanistan was in the 90s and led directly to 9-11."
Two points here. First, the fact that the terrorist operational hub that led to 9/11, that you refer to, is an erroneous argument. The 9/11 terrorists were insiders and jihadist training will continue to occur worldwide whether a "hub" exists in Iraq or not. Jihad will exist as long as Islam remains as it is. Your contention thatb this ends in Iraq is naive.
Second and most importantly, your proposition, for it fails as a goal, seems open-ended and perhaps even pepetual. There has to be a time for the Maliki-led government to put up or shut up. maybe after the last 1200 AQ members are crushed?
AWAKE: "First, the fact that the terrorist operational hub that led to 9/11, that you refer to, is an erroneous argument. The 9/11 terrorists were insiders..."
RESPONSE: Afghanistan was the operational hub of Al Qaeda. It was where the leadership was safely embedded and where Muslims from all over the world came from for training and indoctrination.
AWAKE: "...jihadist training will continue to occur worldwide whether a "hub" exists in Iraq or not.
RESPONSE: True. Right now, northwest Pakistan is the nexus for terrorist training. It is a huge problem. But in countries that are not active supporters of Al Qaeda, such training - if it occurs at all - does so only in an under-the-radar capacity, and is thus correspondingly constricted.
Geo-political realities prevent us at this time from destroying terrorist havens in Pakistan, but to suggest that because they exist in Pakistan, we should be impervious to their existence elsewhere, is tantamount to saying that because Stalin had Poland in tow, we might as well have given him Finland and Sweden.
Allowing Iraq to become either a Jihadi state or an appendage of Iran will have far-reaching regional and even global repercussions. Advocates of withdrawal seem impervious to this.
AWAKE: "...Jihad will exist as long as Islam remains as it is. Your contention that this ends in Iraq is naive."
RESPONSE: I've never contended that Jihad will "end in Iraq". I merely contend that Iraq is one theater of Jihad....one in which you, Hugh and others here wish to concede.
We have 150k Troops in Iraq and Afcrapistan because of Iran.
The United States has managed to do any number of Impossible things. Especially those the detractors and critics are most vocal about.
When Iran is reduces to size and the balance of power in the Middle East reaches some equilibrium, then we can leave and let them fight over the remains.
At that point, Oil from the area will be problematic at best. Volatility in the area will force investment in less hazardous areas. Like Domestically available locations.
Cornelius
You said (in answer to another commentor)
“Allowing Iraq to become either a Jihadi state or an appendage of Iran will have far-reaching regional and even global repercussions. Advocates of withdrawal seem impervious to this.”
This is because the advocates of withdrawal understand that…
Iraq is a jihad state, so is Saudi Arabia (who we support), so is Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Albania, Kosovo, Sudan, Turkistan, UAE, Yemen, etc etc…too many to count.
You don’t seem to be advocating putting troops in all these nations to bring the wonders of democracy to those humble lands. Why is Iraq so much different then those? Why are you so much more worried about the influence of Iran in Iraq as opposed to that of Saudi Arabia? Is it because you are such a die-hard GOP homer that no matter what Iraq has become your Alamo? That no matter what (even if it means getting Obama elected) people like you will go down with the ship.
Why are you so intent on protecting Sunnis from the Shia? Why are you so intent on protecting those Saudi Arabian masters from Iranian aggression? If this was about protecting Americans and Israelis why not just bomb the hell out of Iran? Why keep over hundred thousand troops tied down and not let them DO ANYTHING about Iran?
Your logic mystifies me!
Greatcometof1577,
The fact that you are unable to make any distinction between a country like Jordan, whose King has established diplomatic relations with Israel and who forbids the use of Jordanian territory to attacks Israel...and a country like Syria, which is actively aiding and abetting Palestinian terrorism...reveals the same appalling blind spot that seems to afflict Hugh when he advocates cutting all support for Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
King Abdullah is far from perfect, but like Maliki in Iraq and Karzai in Afghanistan, he is infinitely preferable to the radical players that would replace him were we to withdraw our support. You seem to think all Muslims are equally committed to violent Jihad (terrorism) and therefore equally malevolent. This is a rigid, inflexible and entirely unrealistic view of the Islamic world...it is essentially ceding the entirety of the Islamic world to the extremists...and is the ultimate folly.
Wonderful and constructive debate going on here. I find myself siding with Cornelius overall becaue I've long thought we can follow a divide and conquer strategy, but I respect those who have posted contra to his position. One thing's for sure after reading these posts above and that is that Islam is a burden to America, to the West and to the world as no other major faith even remotely is.
Muslims reading this post take note: Your religion is really screwed up. And more and more non-Muslims are coming to realize this daily, weekly, monthly, yearly. You should all be ashamed but most of you wont't be. And the onus on mankind's shoulders due to the existence of Islam will thus continue into the indefinite future. In the meantime, what to do with Muslims, who collectively refuse to grow up, will elicit lively debate, as here.
Cornelius
The more dangerous form of Islam is the squishy form. At least the radical Muslims can be easily identified as the enemy, it is the people like Maliki and Karzai who present the greatest danger to us winning this war. They keep alive the image that (just maybe) there is a “moderate” Islam out there. Maliki must be a moderate because he is wearing a western style suit, or Karzai is great because he can speak English. Yet in the end analysis, Islam (and what it brings) is still alive and well in those lands. The enemy is still in control.
You just don’t seem to understand that Islam and its way of life is hostile to our way of life. It does not matter if it is the “moderate” version or the “radical” version. The most preferable thing to do is for us to call a spade a spade, and stop this farce of trying to define what is preferable in Iraq.
Let me state it this way: The greatest danger to the United States is Saudi Arabia. They are the economic heart of jihad around the world. Even if the Iranians should gain a nuke, it will never surpass the danger of both the fast and slow jihad that is funded by the Arabians (A nation we protect and support). I hear nothing from you about how you plan to deal with this, and instead it is all about the Iranians and the Shia crescent. I hate to tell you this, but there is a lot more Sunnis in this world than Shia. The Iranians, who have not won a significant offensive war since the 1700s, based on your analysis are going to somehow conquer all in their path. Do you really think the Arabians and Turks will allow this to go unchallenged?
I am all for protecting Americans and Israelis by bombing Iran back to the stone age, but I am not for helping Muslims understand each other, I am not for aiding any Islamic dominated country (moderate or radical) unless it divides the house of Islam, and I am not for saving Arabian ass from a possible beat down from their Iranian neighbors, or saving Shia ass from the counter attack that would ensue from their Sunni Arab neighbors.
We have better things to do with our time...
greatcometof1577: If you don't mind my butting in, may I ask if you are prepared to simply declare openly that all of Islam is invidious and thus working with any Muslims against other Muslims should be off the table? By the way, I am very sympathetic to your argument that "moderate" Islam is as nefarious to Western freedoms as is radical Islam. Perhaps even more so. I have argued several times here at JW that demographic jihad, rather than terror jihad, is the real enemy. But it's a sticky situation, no, respecting what to do with those Muslims who are prepared to align themselves with America against the total nutjobs that Islam produces in spades?
But it's a sticky situation, no, respecting what to do with those Muslims who are prepared to align themselves with America against the total nutjobs that Islam produces in spades?
by Wellington
Your scenario puts us in the position of the frog in the pot of water. The "moderate" Muslims are letting the water heat up gradually. They start out all peaceful and then you get the demands - for footbaths, to avoid customers who carry alcohol, etc. All seem perfectly harmless and each one by itself probably is. Put them together and BAM! We're under sharia law and we never saw it coming.
The violent ones throw us in the pot of boiling water right away. We have enough sense to jump out.
I would ask: what part of Islam can you accept? It's not that the people are evil. It's the doctrine. Those who follow that doctrine must be dealt with.
Either they believe in taqiyya or they don't.
Either they believe in Islamic supremacy or they don't.
Either they believe killing in the name of Islam is valid or they don't.
If they do, then we can't negotiate with them.
If they don't, they're not really Muslims and they need to come out and say so. There can be no "social Islam" when the doctrine, at its core, calls for our destruction.
How do you trust someone who sits by as others kill in the name of his own god and just says it's not his problem? Meanwhile, if the killers win, he'll say he was with them all along.
PMK: The way you put it (and you put it well) it appears we can accept nothing from the Islamic world which redounds to our benefit. This is all part of the reason why I privately (and sometimes not so privately) curse all of Islam. It seems time and again that the Islamic religion puts us into a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation.
Believe me, PMK, there are many occasions I catch myself thinking that the civilized portion of the world should just declare war on all of Islam and get it over with (and before energy independence is achieved it would make it even extra dicey). But, of course, much of the civilized portion of the world doesn't yet even know of the great dilemma we're in, thus helping to prove my contention that Islam is the "perfect storm" of totalitarian ideologies. Really, if you tried to come up with an ideology which is more menacing, uncompromising, rapacious, malevolently effective, and yet very deceptive in the way in which it advances itself, that had as its ultimate design complete world supremacy by stealth or overt action, could you think of anything more fitting the requirement in this regard than Islam? I think not.
Too bad that seventh-century Arab merchant named Mohammed didn't die an early death by accident. Think what the world would have been spared. I'd put Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler in this same category of people whose premature death would have been a boon for humanity. Damn. Missed opportunity.
COMET: "You just don’t seem to understand that Islam and its way of life is hostile to our way of life."
RESPONSE: Incorrect. I fully comprehend that Islam is antithetical to human freedom and have written as much on these pages many times.
COMET: "It does not matter if it is the “moderate” version or the “radical” version."
RESPONSE: Again, incorrect. "Moderate" Islam gives a degree of space to currents that are at variance to Islamic doctrine. Hence (for example), alcohol can be purchased and consumed in Turkey, but will get you lashes in Iran...the hajib is almost unheard of in downtown Tunis, but is mandatory in the Saudi Arabia,...and enjoying music and television is legal in Afghanistan under Karzai, but would get you arrested under the Taliban.
I don't believe that Islam as a doctrine can be reformed, but I do believe that some Muslim countries can and do marginalize Islam in the functioning of their societies. But according to your outlook, Tunisia - which cooperates with US intelligence in every way imaginable to track terrorist plots...is no different than Iran, which is a pathological facilitator of terrorism.
The same goes for your view of Karzai and Maliki. Unlike their respective enemies, they are not in the business of facilitating terrorism around the world. This distinguishes them profoundly from the Taliban and AQI....but apparently, not in your eyes.
Flexibility and dexterity of outlook will continue to be essential in our struggle against Islamic supremacism. Give it a try.
Wellington
I am ready to call it what it is. Slavery is slavery, Nazism is Nazism, and Islam is Islam...
There is no moderate slavery, or moderate Nazism is there? It is time to confront this in the open and let the chips fall where they may. Call it what it is....and if those so called "moderate" muslims don't like it...too bad.
Cornelius
“The same goes for your view of Karzai and Maliki. Unlike their respective enemies, they are not in the business of facilitating terrorism around the world. This distinguishes them profoundly from the Taliban and AQI....but apparently, not in your eyes.”
Correct, not in my eyes. They are in the business of promoting Islam and its expansion. This good cop/bad cop stuff does not impress me one bit. Remember this story:
“Honor killing in Iraq: Father murders 17-year-old girl for loving British soldier”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020806.php
Here is a quote from the story….
"Not much can be done when we have an honour killing case," said Sergeant Ali Jabbar of Basra police. "You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws. The father has very good contacts inside the Basra government and it wasn't hard for him to be released and what he did to be forgotten."
Here is another link on the same story and another quote...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020969.php
“Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. 'They are men and know what honour is,' he said.”.
.........................................
We just have different values and it is a conflict that is bound to happen. The sooner we get to that “inflexible hard-line” position of mine (and many others) and stop putting up with this kind of crap in the name “of being flexible” is the day we start winning this war. It is time we enforce our values upon them, or get out and save our own culture, but we can’t just keep riding the fence and going “oh shucks” I don’t want to offend those so-called moderate Muslims, and so called friends like Karzai and Maliki.
I tired of humiliating ourselves to make these folks feel empowered.
We are living in the Kobayashi Maru Era.
Vince
I guess we can always cheat?
Noone beats GC 1577 on logic. Therefore I must maintain that any discourse is an affirmation of GC 1577'S AWESOMENESS.
How could I possibly be wrong?
Just saying, is all.
Well Comet, I'll certainly agree that in terms of things like immigration, one size fits all as far as Muslims are concerned...there is simply no way to know who is a moderate and who is an extremist and therefore, all should be excluded.
But when it comes to the conduct of statecraft, treating Tunisia, a truly moderate Muslim country whose cooperation with the West on the issue of terrorism, has been nothing short of stellar...as no different than Iran,...simply because both are Islamic...is the worst kind of myopia.
As for Karzai and Maliki "promoting Islam and its expansion"...once again, this is simply incorrect. Both are busy just trying to consolidate control over their respective countries. It is their enemies, the Taliban and AQI, who want to promote and expand Islam...and these are the groups who would be empowered by your withdrawal strategy.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate the debate and the contributions of Wellington and others.
Karzai, Maliki, and even our supposed allies such as Tunisia are operating from positions of weakness. Islamic doctrine allows them all to cooperate with us until such time as the caliphate and Islamic predominance can be achieved.
The Saudis aren't our allies because they believe in freedom or democracy. They are allied with the US because they can't protect themselves from their enemies in the region, even as they send their civilians into the US to promote Islam at the expense of American freedom. Saudi Arabia would be the 19th province of Iraq absent American security guarantees. It is the classic case of: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The moral of the story: they are not our allies. We don't share the same goals. Each side is using the other to achieve its own ends.
PMK,
My God man, do you know anything about Tunisia? The former President went on national television to break the daytime Ramadan fast...to serve as an example for the entire nation; the current President has denounced the wearing of head scarves as "against Tunisia's traditions"...(obviously a reference to the last hundred years of colonial and post-colonial secularism). As previously stated, the country's cooperation against global terrorism is unsurpassed in the Muslim world.
Yet, you're eager to lump this country together with Iran and Saudi Arabia...simply because the populace is Muslim. By your standards, there is no possible way for any Muslim society to ever prove itself and qualify as a friend and ally. This kind of dogmatic and rigid world-view is most definitely a recipe for strategic failure.
Cornelius,
It's not the leaders you have to worry about. It's the people.
By your standards, there is no possible way for any Muslim society to ever prove itself and qualify as a friend and ally.
Cornelius,
In a nutshell. Thank taqiyyah. We cannot trust them any longer. We have trusted too many of them and been burned each and every time.
Whether you like it or not, Islam is a danger to your way of life. It certainly is to mine.
The LEADER denounced the headscarves. What are the imams saying in the mosques? How many of the people long to follow the example of Iran and Pakistan?
By all means, let's throw Tunisia's leadership, the state apparatus that maintains it, and all those ordinary people who support the regime's attempts to keep Islam out of the public sphere...to the wolves.
Makes perfect sense.
So, although Saudi Arabia is the economic supplier of Wahhabism to the world, we should shut them out even though they allow our troops to be stationed there?
Remember, folks, this is why UBL was pissed at KSA in the first place...
Who is a moderate muslim? I suppose there are many ways to define them, but one definition I would NOT agree with is someone who dresses in a western style, consumes or is tolerant of alcohol, or other lifestyle choices. I'm more inclined to use a litmus test, such as the following: Does a muslim agree with & support our fundamental freedoms, especially our freedom of speech? If he does, then he's a moderate muslim. If he doesn't, then he's not, even though most of us would hesitate to label him an extremist b/c he deplores the use of violence to conquer the West.
There is abundant evidence that muslims in the West regularly avail themselves of the freedom of speech when they denounce us & condemn us to hell. But what is their attitude toward this freedom when the shoe's on the other foot, & Westerners (in their own countries) criticize islam? I'm not sure, b/c so few individual muslims, & from what I can see, no muslim organizations, voice their support for free speech when it comes under attack by the likes of cair & other muslims & muslim organizations in response to a statement or gesture by the Pope, or a film by Geert Wilders.
We've seen this pattern before. cair does not encourage American muslims to cooperate with law enforcement. Is their position ever criticized by so-called moderate American muslims? muslim organizations have nothing to say about the innumerable terrorist attacks committed worldwide by muslims willing to kill & be killed for allah. Where are the so-called moderate muslims demanding that the organizations that purport to represent them denounce these attacks in unequivocal terms? muslims worldwide condemned the mo-toons & the film "Fitna," Yet where were the moderate muslims who, though decrying the cartoons and the film, defended their right to be created under our fundamental right to freedom of speech & conscience?
The criterion that I applied to individual muslims & their organizations can also be applied to countries. obviously pakistan & saudi arabia are unquestionably islamist extremist countries. What about our long-time ally, jordan? Well, judging by their unprecedented step of calling for an international arrest warrant for Geert Wilders b/c he dared to tell the truth about islam in "Fitna," jordan is not a moderate muslim country as I would define it. They have chosen sides, & it's not with the West.
This classification of jordan does not mean the West should treat them as an enemy. Just that we don't cut them any slack. Strictly quid pro quo relationship. jordan wants to arrest Wilders for "slandering" islam? Fine. Then we reduce or eliminate foreign aid. If their attitudes toward the U.S. harden more in response, then at least the mask is off & we know where they stand. If muslim Tunisia is helping us, we continue helping them. But this Fantasy-Based Policy of continually treating a muslim country as a true friend of the West even when they act against our interests, purely out of fear that if we punish them for their hostile acts, we will drive them into the extremist camp, must end.
As for the imminent demise of al queda in iraq (aqi), what's to discuss? They've been a sideshow for years. As Hugh noted years ago, when they started attacking their erstwhile allies, the iraqi sunnis, their fate was sealed. For without the sunnis, all 3 of iraq's major ethnic/religious groups, who can be just as ruthless as aqi, wanted aqi eliminated, so aqi's demise was just a question of time.
Our attention should be focused on other matters, such as the fact that iraq recently awarded bidding rights on oil projects to 42 companies, only 6 of which were American. Furthermore, if the MSM source of this news is accurate, most iraqis firmly believe the primary reason the U.S. invaded iraq was for the oil. So the iraqis, principally the iraqi shia, are going to treat the U.S. as a colonial power, despite the fact that we freed them from saddam's iron grip & allowed them to gain control of iraq. Those who believe that iraq will be a faithful ally of the West are dreaming, just like bush.
At some point you are going to have to draw a hard line on Islam. If we do not, the slow jihad will continue without much interference. Muslim will continue to immigrate to the west. Western leaders will continue the PC/MC plan. Arabian oil money will continue to buy assets, politicians and lobbyist in the west. The result will be a slow watering down of western values, balkanization of Europe, and in the end a possible defeat of western civilization. In our efforts to prop up countries like Tunisia, Iraq and Afghanistan, we are in effect leading ourselves to our own doom. You cannot continue to be allies with them, and still be truthful about Islam. You must do one or the other.
If Robert Spencer was magically made the American president tomorrow, do you think Tunisia would be still remain an ally? After what he has said (which is the truth) about Islam? The answer is a big fat no!