Hugh,
most of the blogs that I have read from soldiers in Iraq have been generally positive about the fight for Iraq.

Are you aware of any that have the opposing viewpoint?

I'm always very interested in hearing what people in the field have to say.

Posted by: treehugger at June 25, 2005 11:42 AM

Hugh, most of the blogs that I have read from soldiers in Iraq have been generally positive about the fight for Iraq.

Are you aware of any that have the opposing viewpoint?

I'm always very interested in hearing what people in the field have to say.
Posted by: treehugger

Young troops, especially support or rear echelon troops are usally gungho.

There is another factor, it is called denial, and the need for recognition. Troops who serve, especially in combat, want recognition, glory.

War for them is usually the only significant thing in their lives, it is how they define themselves for the rest of their life. You can see them as old men showing up on 4th of July parades with beards tattered uniforms, marching proudly as honor guards with their VFW hats on.

I personally think it is sad, if a person counts as the only significant thing in his or her life is their service in wartime or combat.

I'm retired, a Viet Nam vet, 26 years service, enlisted and officer. I've seen the horrors of war, what happens to men when hit by munitions and I've made quite a bit of it happen.

I don't define myself by my service, I don't parade, I don't glorify it or demand recognition for it, I retired from the service and went on to build a new life, and a new identity. My service career and VN are part of my past, an interesting learning experience but that is all.

Those bloggers who support the war, have to, otherwise they invalidate their own "sacrifice", and would be admitting that they were fools.

People in general, can't negate themselves, by an admission of gullibility, stupidity, error.

And these bloggers will blog forever on Iraq, because it is the only thing of significance in their insignificant life.

I've watched old farts on the History channel talk about WWII or Korea, bragging how in 30 minutes of combat "they became a man".

Became a man? What kind of image do morons have of manhood anyway, when they define it by exposure to death and violence?

Chris Hedges said it well in War is the force that gives us meaning.. "War is necrophilia".

Tis true, for the first couple of years after I came back from VN, I was swaggering with machismo bravado, utttering such stupid and inhuman remarks as "I love the smell of naplam in the morning"..

It took me a decade or more to realize, how brainwashed, how foolish, how immature I was, it took me a decade or more to realize that war didn't make me a man, it made me an animal, ir dehumanized me. I took me a decade or more to realize that I didn't "sacrifice" anything, that I in fact was a gullible fool, but that thought didn't seep in, even when I was hauling my companions and trying to stuff the squirming intestines of a comrade back into his belly.

I think Hugh hit it, when he said

And what's more, the soldiers -- the discerning ones, the ones who take in their experience and make sense of it -- quickly realized that the Iraqi contractors and others were not out for Iraq, but demonstrated a fantastic "selfishness" (that is the word I have heard from soldiers), interested only in their own well-being, and after that, in that of their family, and after that, in their tribe, and that was the extent of their loyalty and interest

There are discerning people, and there are immature, brainwashed believers, and then there are those who don't have a mind and hardly a thought at all, they just moooo ve around with the herd.

Posted by: Giaour at June 25, 2005 12:17 PM

Giaour-

How does one confront the forces of chaos and evil that exist in the world without warriors?

The "old farts" talking about WWII saved us from becoming a subsidiary of Germany/Japan.
The "young fools" in Iraq are attempting to put together a stable society out of a former dictatorship.

An impossible task? Maybe.
But those young fools may actually create a better history then those of us who are safely here at home.

Posted by: treehugger at June 25, 2005 12:49 PM

Giaour contd....

What is your definition of the appropriate use of US military force?

Do you think that we should stay out of all foreign military entanglements, and risk the lives of our young men and women only when the US is directly threatened?

What about Afghanistan?

Posted by: treehugger at June 25, 2005 1:03 PM

I personally think it is sad, if a person counts as the only significant thing in his or her life is their service in wartime or combat.

Posted by: Giaour

Yes - but what about the ones who put a stop to the filling of mass graves? mass rapes? and other brutalities toooo horrid to mention?

What should be said about those who sacrifice themselves to put a stop to such brutalities?

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2005 1:28 PM

How does one confront the forces of chaos and evil that exist in the world without warriors?

Posted by: treehugger

Shouldn't it begin first with an onslaught of truth about the 'cause' that of the enemy?

009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?

009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.

004.104 And slacken not in following up the enemy: If ye are suffering hardships, they are suffering similar hardships.

As long as the Koran has free reign - they will keep persuing

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2005 1:33 PM

Beth-

Warriors don't have to be people with guns.
I consider Ayan Hirsi Ali to be a warrior of truth. So is Robert Spencer.

So were the people who gave aid and comfort to the Jews in WWII.

However, there are times when people with guns are necessary. Otherwise, you end up like the women in Afghanistan, cowed and powerless.

Posted by: treehugger at June 25, 2005 1:41 PM

treehugger Hi

I totally agree.

As far as I'm concerned - there are the truest of heroes in Iraq - who have risked themselves to put a stop to a real life MONSTER!

Those heroes by the way - shame the pants off of all of the big mouths who preach about 'gulags' and 'humanitarian' rights abuses.

ALL mouth - NO action!

But I also believe [and am a bit upset] that there is no war on the cause that is creating so much havock!

As long as the Koran has free reign - there is going to be bloodshed - and vicious bloodshed at that!

Here's my proof [which ALSO shames the pants off of all the voices of this world - being 'humanitarian' groups - media giants - political and 'religious' leaders]

002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?

009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.

004.104 And slacken not in following up the enemy: If ye are suffering hardships, they are suffering similar hardships.

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight [jihad], smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

As long as the Koran has free reign - they will keep persuing.

Where's the 'war' effort in attacking it?

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2005 2:05 PM

The Koran is loaded with teachings that violate ALL humanitarian laws.

Then there are those who use the most absurd [but clever] defense that exists - The Bible is no better

The Old Testament itself will cut any one to the quick - who claims it teaches humans to be violent with each other.

And they can't even produce one single New Testament Scripture where humans are aloud to be violent with each other.

So what is the problem? with placing the Koran upon their own 'humanitarain' tables - taking council using their very own laws - to condemn it?

Less they all have VOMIT upon their tables.

Sorry - but the Truth does hurt - in this world

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2005 2:29 PM

VOMIT= 'humanitarian' laws that they wrote - which mean absolutely nothing - but CRAP!

Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2005 3:00 PM

As the father of an active duty Marine in and out of Iraq and knowledgeable of the state of affairs, I can say that Mr Fitzgerald is out of touch. His comments smack of political agenda notwithstanding some of the erudite arguments regarding the cultural contradictions between factions and their histories of conflict.

The fact is that we are in the process of making progressive gains. I am sorry if Mr Fitzgerald went thru a period of "machismo and immaturity", but, sir, please speak for yourself and not the rest of the very intelligent fighting forces that are doing the job they are doing. Your comments reek of derision and stereotyping.

I would suggest you check out the commentary of Bernard Lewis himself in Foreign Affairs 2 issues ago. He basically submits that the common denominator of Democracy is the antidote for the terrorism that will likely remain active for a decade or more from now. But, sir, the implication you offer to basically "cut and run" all the while accusing active duty troops of living in a world of mach denial is far from the needed realities of the situation that it is actually laughable.

Using "more honey and less vinegar" does make sense, and very knowledgeable people with the credentials in foreign policy to back it up, feel that incentives are being underutilized to bring about the cultural changes that Mr Fitz finds so improbable given the immiscibility of Kurds and Sunnis. But the US is the predominant foreign power in the Middle East and is well-positioned to make these things work. However, this cannot and will not be done from a position of weakness--even Mr Fitz should know that given his profound expertise in understanding Arab cultures. Changes are need to add this dimension, yes. But berating our military as trapped in their own "wounded pride" is neither accurate nor helpful. Methinks you speak for yourself more than about what is really happening in Iraq.

Posted by: Killshot at June 25, 2005 3:14 PM

Killshot-

Actually, it was Giaour who posted that second bit I believe you are responding to.

Posted by: treehugger at June 25, 2005 3:29 PM

Fixing the unfixable

This article is right on the money as far as indicating that Iraq is a fictitious country contrived by Britain. My time in Iraq has shown me that even within the main groups, Sunni Arabs, Shiites, and Kurds, there is no such thing as unity, not even among the tribes themselves. For the most part, Iraqis tend to have direct loyalty to their sub-clans or to one of the many armed groups which are also linked through clan loyalists in a particular area.

The clan and tribal chiefs have a lot of power, which American forces were late to discover much less capitalize on that local power structure. We came in with a bunch of useless carpetbaggers who sold us a bill of goods about their actual local support and destroyed our credibility from the onset with the true power brokers on the local level. Our “intelligence” apparatus was geared toward a single purpose, finding WMDs and Sadam to the exclusion of all else, even after the insurgency began to gather momentum.

I give the Military much credit for handling an impossible situation, and I give planners in the Pentagon and analysts a fat F. These Pentagon bozos tagged along with the military to make sure that even more foolishness would be injected in the volatile mix. These low and mid-level officials curtailed the military from doing positive things like weapon buy backs from the dealers who looted Iraqi military stores in the beginning of the occupation. They would not pay a 100$ a piece for a shell or a mortar round. I ask you: what is the price of an American life or even a single American limb? I saw first hand our disgusting failure in guarding weapon depots. These idiots would not even blow them up, because moving all these ordinates outside city limits was a great undertaking, and blowing them up wholesale inside the vast bases would be upsetting to the locals. We watched the looting with trucks for many days without raising a bureaucratic brow. We came in with dubious exiles, oblivious officials, and an inconspicuous projection of control.

Iraq is not a natural country in a region where unity and stability can only be imposed by ruthless Muslim dictators. I stress Muslim because even the most tyrannical of Muslim dictators does not garner a call of Jihad like a benign infidel government (i.e the Ottomans vs. western rule). I guess the only way America can impose peace and unity on Iraq is to follow these impossible steps:

1) Declare America a Muslim country, convert everyone, and impose Sheria.
2) Make an example out of a few Iraqi towns by leveling them to the ground and slaughtering their populations (like Al-asad and Saddam)
3) Every town that have a patrol attacked in its vicinity would be subjected to troop withdrawal to be followed by massive arterially bombardment. (Sadaam in the Kurdish areas)
4) Starve the people: the hungrier they become, the weaker there resolve would be, and the more eager baggers they be.
5) Fill the country with both monuments to Bush and build even more mosques without building a single hospital or school.
6) Buy off and threaten, and if necessary decimate tribal, religious, and civic leadership.
7) Keep the people distracted from their misery by talk of Jihad on Israel
8) Target groups with separatist intentions with Stalinist’s purges and campaigns of assimilation
9) Build up the cult of the leader (Bush, the Khalif) along with a complementary investment in Islamization to counter nationalist or ethnic inclinations (the Ottomans).

If we are not prepared to take these steps we can not keep Iraq unified and subdued.

Posted by: have_mercy at June 25, 2005 4:32 PM

"I believe that nationalism in Iraq can be created. But it must it must be WELL planned, nurtured, and protected, until the roots take hold, and can survive on its own.

Iraq has been planted. Now it must be nurtured and protected…..."

The state of Iraq was created by Sir Percy Cox and the British in 1920. In the 1920s, as the letters of Gertrude Bell make clear, the Shi'a were already furious at being placed by the British under Sunni rule. In the 1920s, the Kurds were already distrubed. The vilayet of Mosul was included in this Iraqi state, rather than allowing Turkey to retain it, partly because of the Christian Assyrians in the north, who had been badly treated by the Turks (as it happened, they would also be massacred, in 1933, by the Arabs). The vilayet of Basra was included because the Government of India (i.e., the British) wanted it as a breadbasket which could help feed the troops. So there they were, the vilayets of Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul, locked in an artifical arrangement.

But perhaps it would have worked. Perhaps, if the Arabs had not been Arabs, and Iraq one of the most unpleasant and violent places even by Middle Eastern Muslim standars, the Kurds and Arabs could have made a go of it. But what happened? The Kurds were persecuted. The Arab supremacist ideology that is part of Islam, that is carried by Islam (the Arab names, the requirement that the true Qur'an must be read in Arabic, the insistence that the Message was delivered by Allah to the Arabs, the "best of people," and that the model for all mankind, for all time, was a 7th century Arab, and his views, his words, his way of living, remained that model for everyone. The final draw, for the Kurds, was the mass-murder inflicted on them by Arabs (Saddam Hussein didn't do it himself -- he ordered it done, and many Arabs were happy to oblige), the Anfal Campaign ("Anfal" is the name of a Qur'anic sura). 182,000 Kurds were killed, hundreds of Kurdish villages destroyed. And all during this not a single Arab anywhere, in Iraq, or outside Iraq, and certainly not in the Arab League or in the Arab Press, uttered or published a single syllable of protest -- and later, that is exactly what Kanan Makiya wrote about in his own book. And that was not all that happened to the Kurds. Their oil, the oil that lay under their hereditary lands, was for decades stolen from them, and the revenues taken by the Sunni Arabs -- the same Arabs who helped to massacre them. And those Arabs were also moved in by the government, and went willingly, to arabize the Kurdish cities and villages.

And what do you think has been the reaction of the Kurds? Do you think there is single reason why they, who have a distinct culture, language, and history, and who have suffered dispossession, mass murder, and grand theft of their natural resources, should wish to remain, or could be persuaded to remain, as part of Iraq?

They will not. And they should not. The American government did not publicize the results of a referendum held in Kurdistan the same day as the elections last January. In that referendum, 98% of the Kurds voted for independence. That is what they want. They will not give that up. For now, they bide their time. But it would be very much to the advantage of the Infidel world to help them get that state, which would serve as a model for other non-Arab Muslims (as I have written repeatedly), including Berbers, and even those elsewhere who may bristle at the Arabs. The Iranians who now view Islam as an Arab curse, an import from an inferior and more primitive civilization to a higher one, will wish to couch their anti-Islamic feelings in precisely those terms. The Turks, who now realize they will never be allowed into the E.U. (or at least some of them do) have nowhere to turn to, and need America now, and will simply have to adjust to a free Kurdistan. They have nowhere else to go -- for if they side with the Arabs, they will definitely be kept out of the E.U. (some may think there is still a hope), and will get nothing, as no one who has sided with the Arabs ever has. Just ask all those black African countries that broke relations with Israel, that had had such an extensive and successful aid program to black Africa, after 1967. In return, from the Arabs, the black Africans got -- nothing. Nothing at all.

And what about that Sunni-Shi'a split I continually refer to? Why do those who criticize me think it is good to try to end that split, to make Iraq a shining city on a hill, for the Muslim world? What crazed strategy is this, when the oldest rule of warfare is divide et impera, divide and rule. The Muslims have been successful in splitting Western Europe from America, and that must be undone, and we must do more to split the Muslim world, causing the poorer states to resent the richer ones (by ceasing to give them aid, and forcing them to ask for that aid from the Saudis and others, and the intra-Arab resentments, as the sums felt due will not be forthcoming, can only grow), and the Shi'a to resent the Sunnis which may, if we are lucky, occupy and preoccupy the Muslims for some time -- as it happens, there are important Shi'a minorities right smack in the oil-producing regions of Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in Bahrain, and elsewhere. Again, I repeat: was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing from our point of view, or not?

When someone says "I believe nationalism in Iraq can be created" one wishes to ask: given the history of the Arab attacks and murders of Kurds, what will persuade the Kurds to stay in Iraq and become "nationalists"? Given the Sunni persecution and murder of Shi'a, especially but not only during the 35 years of Saddam Hussein's rule, what will persuade the Shi'a to become "nationalists" rather than the triumphalists, who now hold all the cards, and would like to do to the Sunni what was done by the Sunni to them? If the Shi'a now pretend to be "Iraqis" it is only because they make up 65% of the population. They voted, dutifully, in the election not because they had become true democrats, and believes in the Bill of Rights, but because Sistani told them to, and told them who to vote for -- and they are getting exactly what they have wanted, but it is not an Iraqi nation-state, but a government that is mostly Shi'a-controlled, and headed by an Iranian-connected Jaafari who has spent his entire life working for an Islamic party, the ideals of which are dear to him.

And if such an "Iraqi nationalism" were to be created because it is deemed "possible," how long would it take? And how much American money? And how many American soldiers? And how much attention that needs to be given to other things, and above all things, to other aspects of the world-wide expressions of a single impulse - the Jihad that is meant to spread Islam, and the rule of Islam and of Muslims, wherever and whenever possible, by weakening the resolve, by confusing the understanding, by undercutting and challenging sensible measures undertaken for security reasons, all over the Infidel lands. The Muslim groups are running circles around the clouded minds of Westerners. This can't go on.

Would it take ten years? Thirty years? Fifty years? Would it take another $300 billion that might be spent on energy projects to deprive the Saudis and others of the wherewithal to fund propaganda, pay for mosques and madrasas, even perhaps buy a few nuclear weapons from someone in Russia or Pakistan, if not to keep, then to hand off to some Islamic groups for their own pleasure and profit? Or would it take $500 billion, or more?

Shall we give Prime Minister Jaafari what he asked for, yesterday -- a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq, just like the one we, in the West, provided to fellow members of the West after World War II? Has it come to that? Have we allowed Jaafari and other Iraqis to believe that we owe them something, that we do not know that as Muslims they do not wish us well, and cannot wish us well, and that we have already spent a bloody fortune rescuing them from a monster, and the phony speeches, crafted in English by someone possibly in our government, that are so easy to utter and have nothing to do either with what Jaafari or most Iraqis think (they are whiners, they are ungrateful, they are altogether unpleasant and quick to pocket whatever they can get out of the all-too-innocent or willing Americans).

Shall Iraq be our collective Summer Project, our great big Americorps Abroad operation, for the next decade or two?

No, it should not.

I think I will simply repost here something I said in the original article, and that happens to have been posted by someone above:

..."There is no way to build real "nationalism" in Iraq. Instead, we should ruthlessly exploit the absence of such an identity, and take advantage -- by doing nothing to prevent -- of those natural fissures that stand permanently in the way of a stable, strong nation-state. It won't happen."

To me, it sounds even better, makes even better sense, the second time.

Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2005 7:43 PM

I'm so glad that someone of your caliber has written this. Hugh F., you have said far more eloquently and intelligently what I have struggled to say for a while. THANKS!!!!!

We need to leave "Iraq" as soon as possible. Listening to Rice (and Bush) prat on about spreading democracy in the Moslem world, you wonder if they believe that b.s. themselves. Heck, we beat the communists and the Nazis and Fascists, we can, if we want, easily beat the Moslems.

Thanks again!!

Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 25, 2005 8:44 PM

"As the father of an active duty Marine in and out of Iraq and knowledgeable of the state of affairs, I can say that Mr Fitzgerald is out of touch. His comments smack of political agenda notwithstanding some of the erudite arguments regarding the cultural contradictions between factions and their histories of conflict."
-- from a posting above

Comments:

1. This business of "as the father of an active duty Marine" cuts no ice with me, and is an illegitimate form of rhetorical appeal. A relative of mine, a very close relative, served in Iraq in the most unpleasant part of it. So what? Another relative of mine won the Medal of Honor in World War II. Others have been badly wounded. So what? Anyone, you or I or anyone, can discuss policy in Iraq, and our views are not to be judged superior to, or more deserving to be attended to, than those of intelligent people who have no relatives who served in Iraq, or won Medals of Honor in World War II, and for all I know never had a relative serve in the military ever. It doesn't matter. It doesn't convey expert knowledge. What counts is logic, evidence, and some understanding of the nature of the enemy, the tenets of Islam which inculcate hatred of Infidels, the history of Islamic conquest, and the history of those "model" Muslim states -- i.e., Kemalist Turkey -- that keep reverting to type, i.e. to Islam.

2. What is the "mission" in Iraq exactly? Is it to keep the country together? Why, when it may be far more to our advantage to let it split apart, or at least to let the Kurds split apart, and leave the oil-less Sunnis to scramble and try to make up with, or with the aid of Sunnis outside overwhelm, the equally sinister Shi'a who now want to rule the roost.

If that is the "mission" in Iraq-- which requires us to ignore the nature of Islam, and the specifics of modern Iraq and its makeup -- then a great deal else will be ignored or given less attention than such matters deserve. These include the most frightening possibility or even likelihood, of all -- the islamization of Europe. It includes the existence of people within this country who, being taught by their all-inclusive and pervasive belief-system (which is not merely a religion, but a guide and regulation of everyting) to owe their sole allegiance to the umma, the Community of Believers, cannot possibly offer true allegiance to an Infidel nation-state and still be believing Muslims, fully aware of, and adhering to, the tenets of Islam. They don't compute.

We would have to spend money in this "generation" that it would take to create this wonderful new (utterly impossible) Iraq, and hundreds of billions have already been spent. I don't know about you, but I'd rather fight my war against the Jihad without giving money to Muslims, and by being just a bit cleverer in my use of what money is available. The main problem are OPEC oil revenues. The Arabs and Muslims do not have real economies. They make, they produce, almost nothing. Inshallah-fatalism, centuries of reliance on economic exploitation of non-Muslims through the payment of jizya, and now the oil bonanza (entirely unmerited) and the updated or disguised jizya of foreign aid given to pracftically every Muslim country or group that happens not to sit on millions of barrels of oil -- give by Infidels that is, not by fellow Muslims -- well, that money is used, after the prostitutes and the arms salesmen and the builders of palaces have been paid, to buy armaments, to pay for mosques and madrasas in the West, and to hire armies of apoloigsts and propagandists -- politicians, businessmen, ex-intelligence and sometimes present intelligence agents, journalists, academics, the works. We need not to become "energy independent" (an impossiblity) but to actually diminish Saudi and other Muslim oil revenues. That can be done, but it requires a complete change in the mental makeup of our rulers, and requires them to see that this is a war, unlike any other in both its scope, and in the variety of instruments with which that war is conducted by the enemy, and must also be conducted by us. The view that a "war" means only, or mainly, battlefield exploits needs to be changed. It is wrong, and it is expensive, and it is dangerous. And it is self-defeating.

OPEC oil revenues can only be reduced if we apply the vast sums being squandered all over Iraq, not least in being handed out like confetti to Iraqi "contractors" whose work is often shoddy, and often not even checked (these are not "contracts" but bribes, essentially)-- if we are to ignore all that, and a good deal more, including the evidence of the world-wide Jihad in the Philippines, in the Caucasus, in parts of Latin America (and a great effort at converting Mexicans and others south of the border to Islam, as well as targeted groups -- immigrants and prisoners, for example, within this country), in order to, over a "generation" (what -- 10 years, 20 years -- how long does this crazy and obstinate refusal to see what is at stake, and how resources (men, money, materiel, morale, and attention) must be husbanded and applied with far greater intelligence, specific knowledge (I would love to know who, in the whole damn Pentagon, set to school and read Gertrude Bell, Philip Ireland, and Elie Kedourie, and why no one bothered to consult J. B. Kelly or quite a few others in Europe who have special knowledge to convey, and a record -- an unblemished record -- of seeing right through, and long ago, Saudi Arabia and other Arab and Muslim states. Bernard Lewis is not the last word on the subject, and relying only on his acolytes, or on "good" Muslims (e.g., Lt. Aboul-Enein, whose paper put out by the Army War College was an example of the higher taqiyya/kitman, perhaps -- let us be charitable -- unwitting), who will never be able to bring themselves to tell the full truth about Islam -- and may not even know it if they have grown up outside a Muslim society -- is madness.

Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2005 9:33 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald is right on the money here.

When the US proposed to invade Iraq my first thoughts were the American occupation general will never leave Iraq the way McArthur left Japan.

Its back to Islamic dogma and how it primitizes the intellect of the muslim. Even Montgomery Watt(now wash your mouth out) in his assessment of the muslim mind leaves the reader no doubt that that Islam produces a mind set (of course the inherent violence is completely removed) incapable of logic and reasoning.

The point is this - Bushido could be isolated and removed from Japanese culture (a good essay topic might be a comparison between the two).

The centrallity of Islam (hence jihad) cannot be removed from muslims, otherwise they will no longer be muslims. Islam has completely destroyed their previous culture(s) and there is nothing to fall back on. It doesn't take more than a small minority of ardent followers to reduce a muslim society into an Islamic state. Remember unlike in Nazi Germany, where the brown shirts were organized into battalions etc. which could be broken up, the Islamic brown shirts are a brother, sister, neighbour, father, mother and even 14 yr old son who are quite ready to slay any one who apostasizes or hinders Islam.

There is however one or two issues that Mr. Fitzgeral has missed. The first is that even if we stop buying arab oil and build hundreds of nuclear power stations (something which may happen - Queen's speech, despite not being mentioned in the UK electon campaign) China's (and the rest of Asia's) economy is growing. Cheap Chinnese labour will become even more relativley cheaper (the cost of alternative power sources will be an additional burden to our manufacturing costs and the price of oil will go down as overall demand decreases).
China will trade with the west, some of that money will buy arab oil to meet Asia's ever increasing energy needs, so the arabs will still receive 'petro-dollars' but in a more round about way. Admittedly their revenues will decrease, but they will still receive substantial amounts (I can't see China ever playing ball with us).

The secound is that I don't think that even the Iranians can ever shake off Islam. Even with mass protests the penalty of leaving Islam is death, (it MUST be death otherwise the cult collapses). The pasdaran will without question gun down tens of thousands if necessary and the Iranian populace will always choose the path of least resistance ('offer them death and they will bear fever' and if we act like dhimmis what chance have they got).

Naturally the west will be blamed for all their ills and the demented left will lap it up and ask why didn't we try the 'more intelligent' option of building bridges across the 'cultural divide'. Forgetting of course that for there to be real progress it's the muslims who have to cross the intellectual divide. While Islam remains 'protected' by law or PC-ness this has no chance. Muslims in the west must be exposed to logic and critical analysis. We shoud make the vile teachings of Islam a part of the national cirriculum. It is they who have to justify this barbarism, or find 'another way'. Without this debate going on in every muslim household/mind there will be no progress. All we are getting from the likes of the MCB is a form of intellectual hudna, Sacranie has no interest in crossing this divide, he just wants to buy more time untill the muslims grow in strength and the path of least resistance will become even more 'of an imperative' to the infidel states.

John Major, speaking before the invasion said it will never work, - its very rare to find a former prime minister (especially in his ilk and with so much at stake) critising Blair and a policy that the tories would have supported if they had been in power.

It seems to me that the policy needed to be tried, the alternative is just too ghastly for the 'ruling classes' (politicians, intellectuals, opinion forming strata of society, media, etc) to fathom.

At least when this 'building bridges across the cultural divide' has failed (and it cannot be any other way), then we can say we have tried everything - to no avail. Only when we openly consider more drastic meaures (VS Naipaul) might the muslims take a look at themselves, however if the Iranians get the bomb that might become problematic. That's probably why they want the bomb, not to use it, but it draws a line, which we can't cross, hence they can carry on salami slicing at our power and culture.

JV

Posted by: jv at June 25, 2005 11:13 PM

"As the leader of Iraq's first democratically elected government in more than 50 years, you are helping to lift your country from decades of fear and oppression."
.......
"The Prime Minister is a great Iraqi patriot, he's a friend of liberty, he's a strong partner for peace and freedom. For more than two decades, he served the cause of Iraqi freedom in exile as a fierce opponent of Saddam Hussein's tyranny."
.......
"his medical doctor now serves his people as he works to build a new Iraq."
.......
" told the Prime Minister that the American people share his democratic vision for Iraq. I told him of our nation's deep and abiding respect for Islam, for the people of Iraq, and for the potential of the nation that now belongs to them."
........
"tday we meet at a critical moment in the history of this proud nation."

What "proud nation"? Iraq is not a "proud nation." It is a collection of warring tribes. The Arabs have killed Kurds and now the Kurds want out. The Kurds have killed Turcomans. The Arabs and Kurds have killed Assyrian Christians. The Shi'a have killed Mandeans. The Sunni have killed Shi'a. The Shi'a have killed Sunni. The history of Iraq is the history of coups and counter-coups, of violent overthrows, and plotting in the palaces, and pogroms against Christians here, and Jews there. Nuri al-Said, the arch-plotter, himself dragged through the streets during the 1958 coup that also killed young Feisal. The coup that then overthrew the first coup. The coup that then overthrew that coup, and ultimately brought Saddam Hussein to power, and led to more bloodshed.

"This proud nation" whose Prime Minister comes, to people he despises as Infidels (or does he not believe in the list of the "unclean" that is at his master Sistani's website?), and asks, almost demands, after several hundred billion dollars have already been expended, for a "Marhsall Plan" even though Iraq's debts to Infidel countries (but note: not to fellow Muslim countries) have been completely cancelled, and even though Iraq sits on top of the second-largest oil reserves in the world and could certainly borrow against future revenues --no, he wants American taxpayers to pay for a Marhsall Plan because, you see, Iraq stands in precisely the same relation to America does as did England, France, Italy, and so on. How true.
........
"he Iraqis can take credit from [sic] some extraordinary achievements..."

Ask American officers and men what they think of their Iraqi counterparts and their "extraordinary achievements." Ask those who have been handing out the billions what they think of the "extraordinary achievements" of the Iraqis.
........
"very step of the way so far, the Iraqi people have met their strategic objectives..."

What? Because the Shi'a knew they were in the majority, and marched off on the orders of the clerics to take control through the ballot-box? Which great "strategic objectives" have these people, dawdling over offices, over who is to get control of what power and what loot (i.e., the oil ministry, the ministry for reconstruction, and so on), managed to meet?
........
I'm confident that the Iraqi people will continue to defy the skeptics as they assume greater responsibility for their security and build a new Iraq that represents their diversity."

"Diversity" -- at this point, possibly the most sickening word in the English language, given the purposes for which it is now invoked all over the Western world. Does this mean that the Sunni and the Shi'a and the Kurds will stick together -- even after the Americans stop protecting them from each other's full vengeance, and also stop handing out billions so that they begin to revert to type?
...........
"hey know a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will deal a severe blow to an ideology that lives on oppression and fear."

What "ideology" is that, pray tell, that lives on "oppression and fear." Is it Wahhabi Islam? Salafist Islam? Or could it be Islam itself, that seems to exist fairly well all over the Muslim world, but has least malevolent effects, apparently, in the poorest and most ignored Muslim countries, not in the richest ones -- in Mali and Mauritania, rather than Iran and Saudi Arabia.

How will a united Iraq, united through our efforts, our soldiers' lives, our money, "deal a severe blow" to the JIhad --- after 80 years of Kemalism, and every sort of aid from the United States, Turkey is both much more openly Muslim than it was, and precisely to that extent, and because of it, more and more hostile to the United States, its great ally and constant benefactor.

Of course Jaafari will read the script prepared for him. Of course he will tell us how much he values the lives of Americans sacrificed for his country. Guess what? He doesn't mean it. He's lying. He wants to use us, and get our money as well, for his own objectives. That's it. In his exile, he was plotting against Saddam Hussein, but he was plotting as a member of an Islamic Party. Remember Moqtada al Sadr? His father also plotted against Saddam Hussein, and was killed by Saddam Hussein, and so were Moqtada al Sadr's uncles. So what? Does that make Moqtada al Sadr a friend to Americans, or simply a thuggish version of the suaver Jaafari, who has learned, as so many Muslims do (let's not forget what Khomeini did the first year he came to power -- he actually sent a Christman message of good will to Infidel Christians, even though he was already long on record on explaining that the Qur'an says "Kill the Unbeliever" (see p. 11 of "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq).
,,,,,,,,,,,
"Te enemy's goal is to drive us out of Iraq before the Iraqis have established a secure, democratic government."

Are we quite sure that is the enemy's goal? And aren't there any, among that enemy, who share Bin Laden's view that the economic drain on the United States is a very important part of the Iraqi venture -- and Bin Laden has expressly discussed the economic damage he hopes to inflict on America?

And even if it were the enemy's goal to "drive the Americans" out, are we to craft our policy on the assumption that the enemy always knows exactly what it wants, never makes a miscalculation, and so we must never ever do what they seem to want, or claim to want?

Let me make a prediction. The minute the United States government shows that it understands what has been repeatedly argued here, and begins to withdraw from Iraq, and denies Jaafari his "Marshall Plan," and cuts aid to Egypt, and bombs what it can of the Iranian nuclear facilities, and perhaps makes preparations to seize the southern Sudan if the Sudanese government shows the slightest sign of violating the treaty it signed, and cracks down hard on Muslim immigration and begins to have urgent consultations with European countries on the problem of the "islamization of Europe," and increases its military aid and ties to India, and does a hundred other things to educate its own populace about the theory and practice of Islam -- the minute that happens, there will be shrill screams all over the Arab world, and of course from the worst, most hopelss appeasers all over this country, who will promptly exclaim that "we can't just leave them" and "we owe them something" and "having wrecked their country, we have to fix it up." Just look at the idiotic editorial in The New Duranty Times today, entitled "Three Things About Iraq," not one of which is true.

The first is: "The [Iraq] war had nothing to do with September 11." This is nonsense. However, the failure of the Administration to somehow make clear that it did not matter whether or not Mohammad Atta met in Prague with some Iraqi agent. It did not matter whether this or that Al Qaeda member had been given refuge in Iraq. What really mattered is this: Saddam Hussein was teh aggressive and well-armed Muslim leader of a Muslim country, and it was perfectly justified to assume that he was, in fact, either in possession of certain kinds of advanced weaponry (so-called WMD) or would soon acquire them -- and because he was the Muslim ruler of a Muslim country, we -- the United States -- given what we now know about Islam, and the possibility not only of regimes, but of figures within regimes, or even groups within countries that are given access by dissidents within that country -- we can never allow WMD to be acquired by any Muslim country. Period. That, however, has not been said, and in its place, the Administration continued to argue about the meeting in Prague, and similar irrelevancies and sillinesses. It is prevented from making its case because of its own inhibitions, and inability to "talk about Islam" slightly obliquely, so that it can do in a way that everyone can understand, but which still leaves, as far as aggressive Muslim groups, a little leeway. The obvious way to do this is to talk about "those who support JIhad" world-wide, and then pretend that you have no idea that Jihad is a central duty of Muslims. In other words, a little disingenuousness is called for. And what will Muslims then do -- explain that you are referring to Islam itself becaue we all believe in Jihad to spread Islam? They couldn't easily do that, could they?

The second point made by The New Duranty Times is that "the war has not made the world, or this nation, safter from terrorism." Yes, it has. And most of that achievement was attained in the first part of the war, when Saddam and henchmen were rounded up, the Iraqi army dissolved, arms projects uncovered, disrupted, destroyed, and weapons dumps seized, or destroyed. Yes, that was valuable. But that does not mean that continuing to stay in Iraq instead of leaving it to become a different kind of "model to the Muslim nations" -- not the one intended by the administration, but one where Kurds will declare their indepdnence from Arabs (and receive covert, or overt, support from the Americans) and where Shia will deal with Sunnis in a way the American soldiers would never permit themselves, and perhaps others will pile on from outside -- using up men, money, materiel, and morale, only this time all of them will be Muslim men, Muslim money, Muslim materiel, and with the disarray and divisions exposed and widened within Islam, Muslim morale that would suffer.

I will not bother with the third point. But I want to direct the attention of everyone to this statement in The New Duranty Times editorial:

"Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the adminstration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democraatic nation that could help stabilize the MIddle East."

Actually, that is precisely the worst, the most ill-considered, of all the justifications -- and one which is not only false, but actually does the opposite of what we should be trying to do. In fact, we don't have to do a thing. If we withdraw, the Iraqis may -- doubtfully -- come to some agreement, some permanent standoff among themselves. If that happens, then we can say -- we did it. We removed ourselves, and they are doing what those "brave, etc." Iraqis were supposed to do.

Or, in the alternative, they might be at each others throats, and small-scale civil war would probably end in a pullback of Sunnis and Shi a to their respective regions -- or not. In which case, the Sunni-Shi'a split will attract aid from co-sectarians abroad. Fine. Let the fissures widen.

It is amusing to see that some of my most agitated critics in this thread, who seem to find me such a "defeatist" while I find them inattentive to the larger problem, and the need to base policy on a real understanding both of Islam and of the nature of Iraq, and not what Administration officials continually prate and would have us believe by dint of mere repetition (it will not do; we are not fools; we can study, we can observe, and we can draw our own conclusions about whether or not making Iraq a little more pleasant for its inhabitants is a game worth the candle, while Islam is on the march in Europe and elsewhere).

So those of you who find The New Duranty Times echoing you about how important it is to "create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East" -- those of who, in other words, who want to see the world in the same way as the kind of people who write the editorials for The New Duranty Timies -- well, welcome to it, lock, stock, and cliche-ridden barrel.
............
Let's have just one more quote from that appalling speech quoted in full above:

"Prime Minister Jaafari is a bold man. I've enjoyed my discussions with the Prime Minister. He is a frank, open fellow who is willing to tell me what's on his mind. And what is on his mind is peace and security for the people of Iraq, and what is on his mind is a democratic future that is hopeful."

This has nothing to do with the real, the cunning Islamist and member of the Dawa Party for decades, this Ibrahim Jaafari.

One doesn't know which is worse: if Bush doesn't mean this nonsense, bu thinks he has to say it and try to convince others that it is true, or if Bush actually does mean this nonsense.

We are not fools. We are not sworn to blind loyalty. The menace of Islam is just a bit too important a matter for one to stick with this or that political figure or party.

There are fools to the left, and fools to the right. Both miss the point. Both fail to study and to think. Both are prodigal in wasting our resources, and in ignoring the real threat.

Not a plague on both their houses, or at least not a black plague -- but perhaps something else, a little pertussive distress, a sneezing fit, things like that?

Posted by: Hugh at June 25, 2005 11:17 PM

.....Don't expect people to be furious that $300 billion has already been committed -- and what would sums like that do for nuclear and solar energy, to put Saudi Arabia back in the position it so richly deserves? ....

Hugh, I so agree. What could 300 billion do for solar energy - the advances possible, hell, subsidize the hell out of it to make people want in all new construction? We're giving away the money in Irag hand over fists, why not at home? What could 300 billion do for protecting our borders and ports?

I voted for Bush because he was the better choice of two disappointing candidates.

What a waste and each time I hear of one of our men or women dying or being injured in Iraq, sadness comes over me, if only for aecond. Our brave men and women are so great. I want this to work, at least through the end of the year and in 2006, get the hell out of there as many of our people as we can.

It is disturbing how Bush AND the congress have no fiscal control and are spending us into the poorhouse. It's not that can we afford this war, but was this the best use of our treaury and souls in the war against islam. I say no like you. But I still deeply respect our men and women in our military and would never betray them as Durbin, Kennedy and so many others have.

Posted by: reset at June 25, 2005 11:43 PM

Bill in Virginia:

You say that the US needs Iraq as a staging post in order to wage war against more Islamic countries. But Iraq is NOW an ISLAMIC country, whereas before it was secular under Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 26, 2005 8:09 PM

Let's not forget the death toll in one hour on D-Day, June 6, 1944, as compared to the casualties taken in the many months of ongoing warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The journalistic fixation on every individual death in Iraq would have seemed suicidally near-sighted to the planners during WW II.

That is the family's duty, not every person in the country. It distorts the meaning of compassion to a caricature.

You cannot help but burn out emotionally if you mourn every single death and give them the weight of something like the complete carnage of the Battle of the Bulge.

It is not only unrealistic, but self-defeating.

Which appears to be the unspoken rationale of the defeatist press and some in Congress.

Imperialistic Islam wants to dominate the globe (read the Koran), but denying this fact, and withdrawing from the fight, will only guarantee that they can infiltrate, build up their warrior strength and arms stockpiles, gain intelligence coups, steal further WMD's/insights, and strike at will - while the West navel-gazes and worries about the "horrible cost of combat".

War is always hell. And, as Sherman also noted, the point is to make it a greater hell for the enemy. To either force them give up their ideology of global conquest and absolutist aggression for Allah (i.e.- rewrite the Koran's 'calls to war' into metaphors for 'spiritual struggle'), -or die.

Anything else assures their victory, ultimately.

Or don't we care to live free if the road to survival has patches that hurt?

It seems that essentially only the "America-Last" 'intellectuals/academics', retreatist news reporters, well-insulated congresspeople, -and some haunted patriots- are calling for withdrawal to Fortress America, AKA surrender, not the majority of soldiers doing the fighting or their families and friends.

We have to win our way out of Iraq. And Afghanistan.

(It is not at all comparable to Korea or Viet Nam, because the Chinese Communist 'volunteers' aren't just across an adjacent border, backed up by a massive nuclear-power like the Soviets... Both of those conflicts were exercises in the folly of limited war, a concept now rendered meaningless by the present enemy's total capabilities... a few dozen nukes in Pakistan, period.)

This is not a battle we can bow out of, as 9/11 declared.

If you can't handle the suffering, don't enlist.

And feel free to proselytize against anyone else enlisting.

But remember the effect of the hordes of pacifists marching in the West, just before WW II, and how many MORE deaths they ultimately caused by keeping their countries dis-armed and by failing to confront Hitler and the Japanese Imperialists in 1934. When, if the West had listened to Gen. Billy Mitchell, it would have re-armed, and intimidated (or annihilated) the Nascent Nazis and Nanking's war criminals -THEN. Preventing death camps, East and West. And a World War.

We are at 1934, again.

Except that this time we have the power to act.

We need to use it, or be overtaken and then overwhelmed by the new Imperialistic despots.

And they are getting more dangerous, weekly, since they've stolen some nukes... (A.Q. Khan, et al.) and seek more (Iranian ayatollah fatalists).

Contain, restrain, and re-train them.

Or suffer their homicidal global intentions.

The choice is never peaches and cream when life and death matters are involved.

We've had the balls and brains to make it this far.

I say, press on, and win.

And Live free, or die.

(Plus, our enemies really give us no other choice.)

Posted by: BigSleep at June 26, 2005 8:17 PM

"And Live free, or die."
-- from a posting above

A bit too Stark a sentiment, possibly even for Molly, don't you think? Unless of course you are from New Hampshire, and then it would come naturally.

Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2005 9:17 PM

Hugh, it might come as a surprise to read that we are in agreement far more than you think, especially regarding the worldwide menace embodied by islam. Where we differ is in our Faith in certain universal themes. I truly believe these two words...

FREEDOM WORKS

There is no better antidote to tyranny than Freedom. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Posted by: dead_shot at June 26, 2005 9:48 PM