Why do we need to "fix" anything in Iraq? The Tom-Friedman school of "you broke it -- you own it" is simply idiotic.

It's not just Tom Friedman, it's a firm principle of international law, and one of the deterrents to aggression that is supposed to stop foolish governments from playing globocop. The idea that we can invade a country, remove its government, and then run away, claiming that we left it (temporarily) better than we found it, is absurd. Anybody willing to bomb a country, remove its government and invade its cities had better be well prepared to see the job through. Otherwise anyone could launch an invasion, claim by some vague criteria that they have improved the lot of their victims (maybe by installing one of those Islamic governments that makes life so much better), and then absolve themselves of responsibility for what ensues.

You could argue (legally though not morally) that we don't have to stay there now that an elected Iraqi government is in place, and if they want help, they can petition the UN for it.

As Kerry said, nobody wants to be the last man to die for a mistake. And you may be right that Iraq was a mistake. But it has been done, and it cannot be undone. Now we have a responsibility to stay in Iraq until such time as our presence makes life worse for Iraqis than our absence.

The fixation on the word "fix" is itself telling. Should we "fix" Saudi Arabia? Should we "fix" Egypt? Should we "fix" Algeria and the Muslim terrorism and state response there? What about "fixing" Yemen while we are at it, or Syria, where we would have to go in and push aside the Alawite military caste that runs the place, if "democracy" is to be On the March?

I agree that it would be foolish to try to "fix" these countries. And if we don't want to be responsible for them, we just have to avoid bombing and invading them. It's that simple. Top of the list should have been Iran, the country that looks most likely to be in need of a Bush "fixing" in the near future.

Posted by: Viking5 at October 7, 2005 9:20 AM

My husband has a different view and drew and analogy between The Post-Civil War South and Iraq’s reconstruction

Posted by: Fausta at October 7, 2005 10:17 AM

Compelling arguments Viking. There IS a moral responsibility to leave Iraq with a functioning gov't. It is not eternal, but it exists.

What I find so perplexing about Hugh's mindset is
his insistence that Iraq has no validity and no prospects for survival as a country just because of its sectarian and ethnic differences. There is hardly a nation left in the world that is culturally and ethnically homogenous. Iraq is no more of an artificial construct than Syria, Camaroon, Malaysia and scores of other countries.

Even Iran, a country with a continuous history inside a stable geography (excepting for episodic interruptions and fluctuations) is today a hodgepodge of ethnicities; Persians account for only half the populace...Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis and Turkmens make up the balance. But Hugh is in no hurry to deconstruct Iran.

While his arguments for abandoning Iraq have a great deal of allure in terms of American self-interest, most prominently and end the expenditure of blood and treasure, he ignores the over-riding national security danger of a jihadist construct existing UNFETTERED inside Iraq, threatening not just the USA, but countries throughout the Middle East including Israel.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 7, 2005 10:26 AM

Hugh:

Why we cannot leave Iraq in a mess:

1. No government in any Western country in the world today can, under current political conditions, impose restrictions on Muslim immigration.

2. Given that restrictions on Muslim immigration will not be imposed in the near future, the only hope I can see of stopping the flood of Muslim immigration is making some of their countries passably decent places to live so that they will not wish to leave their own countries.

3. If we fail to succeed in making some of their countries in to half-decent places to live and, instead, they actually become places like the current Iran, fomenting terror around the globe, we will then have an even worse situation on our hands than the current one - we will have an active and growing Fifth Column in our own countries aided and abetted by even more Islamo-fascist regimes than currently exist.

However, as much as I would like to hope that G.W. Bush's "light unto the Muslim project" will succeed and the U.S. will have the political will to stay in Iraq for decades, much as they did in South Korea, I do not think the current political reality in the United States will allow that to happen. So, even though I reject Hugh's argument that we should leave Iraq immediately, my crystal ball indicates an increasingly bleak future:

A. Because of domestic political pressure, the U.S. will leave Iraq half-baked. Iraq will then immediately fall into a civil war between the Sunni and Shia with the Kurds just trying to stay out of the way.

B. The country will then eventually be split in to three parts after the various factions are exhausted militarily. Iran will annex the Shia south; a mini Sunni state supported financially and militarily by the Sunni world will form focused on Baghdad. The Kurds will simply be focused on staying alive in the midst of all this.

C. Then, the Sunni and Shia Jihad against the infidel will continue with even more force aided by massive Muslim immigration and billions of dollars in Dawa money from Saudi and elsewhere.

D. Islamization of Western countries will continue until such time as there is a massive terror attack in which 10s of thousands are killed or until such time as Western countries actually start to succumb to Islamization and the remaining non-Muslim population reacts violently.

Posted by: Mentat at October 7, 2005 10:49 AM

My take on this, is that I would see if someone like Allawi wins enough seats in the next election, if he does not then any support should be scaled down.

Allawi is perhaps the only one of the Iraqi leaders who could make a success of this and even that is remote.

If Allawi is not in power then back the Kurds to the hilt as Hugh has already suggested.

The issue for me is that because of Iraq we are not dealing with Iran and to be blunt their nuclear activities are giving me kittens. That is a big enough reason to get out of Iraq in itself.

Why can't we impose restrictions on Islam immigration? But I agree with you in that if some of these places become half-way decent places to live then perhaps it will be easier to dislodge some of our peace loving brothers in the West.

Posted by: Daffersd at October 7, 2005 11:10 AM

There is always an overwhelming psychological tendancy, especially among men in power, to commit two mistakes rather than to retract the first one.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at October 7, 2005 11:19 AM

Daffersd:

Why can't we restrict Muslim immigration?

I don't know what polity you live in but where I live the topic of immigration is "off the table". It cannot even be discussed except in positive terms. The only acceptable topic vis-a-vis immigration is how much it should be increased. Those who suggest limits of any kind on immigration are immediately labelled as racists. I seem similar political conditions all over the West. You live in Japan perhaps? ;)

Posted by: Mentat at October 7, 2005 11:24 AM

One does not "leave Iraq in a mess." One simply leaves "Iraq." If the Iraqis now make a mess of it, because for 1300 years Sunnis have persecuted the Shi'a (Taqiyya, which originates in Shi'a Islam, was a response not to Infidel, but to Sunni, persecution), that is their problem, a problem internal to Islam, connected to Islam, resulting from Islam. One might even hope (one might, I don't) that things turn out okay , and no Sunni-Shi'a proxy war develops, involving outsiders as well, akin to that of the Iran-Iraq War.

The Americans can take their sober leave, in grave and taciturn and stately fashion. No ill-concealed delight. Let Rumsfeld, not the President, announce the plan. No fanfare. Sometime after the October 15 referendum, and no matter how that referendum goes (the deployment of American troops should not be made subject either to Shi'a intransigence, or to Sunni intransigence -- it makes no sense), Rumsfeld sould say that after the next round, that is the December 15 elections, it will definitely be Time To Go. (And time, by the way, to at least have a chance not to be knocked out completely, as it well deserves to be, from the blows that will be delivered to the Bush policy by all the returning soldiers now running for Congress in 2006, and who find the Iraq policy absurd).

The speech shouldn't be hard. Something like this:

"Iraq has proven that it can handle democracy. Now the rest -- the compromises that are the essence of a mature democracy -- can best be achieved by the Iraqis without us. We have concluded that at this point, our presence is more harmful than helpful. We wish the Iraqi people well. And our troops will begin moving out on January 1, 2006, and we will conclude the complete withdrawal no later than December 31, 2006. There may be reason to stockpile some weaponry in the far north of the country; we are now in negotiations with the local authorities there about that possibility. We will continue to monitor the situation, and if it should prove necessary to interdict the use of certain kinds of weapons, including aircraft, in this or that region, we shall certainly be prepared to do so for the good of the Iraqi people. God bless and Good Night." Or words to that effect.

Note that Al-Zawahiri's latest letter to Al-Zarqawi tells the latter to please tone down the anti-Shi'a stuff; it isn't good for the world-wide Jihad or Al-Qaeda. That is one of the few true things that Al-Zawahiri noted (his seeming to agree with Bush -- or Bush agreeing with him -- on the central significance of Iraq is simply nonsense, but reflects in Al-Zawahiri's case the symbolic importance of present-day Iraq because of the significance in Islamic history of the Abbasid dynasty based in Baghdad. What's Bush's excuse?).

The Americans can quite reasonsably say that they have done their best; they took down a monster, and killed his writhing progeny. They played fifty-two-pick-up quite successfully. They built schools and schoolrooms, refurnished hospitals, built water treatment plants that now provide 4.5 million people (not "Iraqis") with potable water they did not previously enjoy; repaired and re-repaired and re-re-repaired oil fields, built power grids, did everything that an outside force, if that outside force is there To do Good, can possibly do -- a beaming avuncular presence (that's why he's called "Uncle" Sam) whose representatives, officers and men, are constantly surprised at the meretriciiousness, the corruption, the rapacity, the crazed rumors, the viciousness, the whining, the lack of real gratitude, the selfishness that focuses only on the immediate family or the tribe, not on the non-existent nation, all the things that strike any observer who chooses to look beyond the handful of nice "Iraqis" -- who tend to be the Christians left over from the old regime, when they were the trusted household staff of Saddam Hussein, or of course the genuintely, for good and sufficient reasons of their own, pro-American Kurds, with a handful of thoroughly westernized smiling fellows who are the very ones who all along wanted to persuade or inveigle the Americans to overturn Saddam Hussein for them (they could never have done it themselves, and the Arab states would never have helped, for they didn't care what Saddam Hussein did either to the Kurds, or to the Shi'a in the south -- why should they? If they had a chance, they'd have done it themselves).

The poster immediately above claims that we now must assume the Infidel Man's Burden, and make sure the Muslim countries become less awful, because otherwise more Muslims will migrate to the Western world.

The same poster believes that there is no possibility of changing Western attitudes on Muslim migration. But they are already changing. And the notion that somehow the Muslim states, that have received more than $10 trillion dollars in OPEC oil revenues since 1973, need Western aid, is silly. What they need is a redistribution of that money, for their own good, and a full stop being put to its employment, as the "wealth weapon" (discussed everywhere as one of the chief instruments of JIhad) that funds mosques, madrasas, the employment of Western hirelings, pays for gigantic quantities of the most advanced Western arms, and so on.

The notion that we now have to make Islam work, make Muslim societies better -- my god, what defeatism. And what would happen if they "worked better" by our lights? What would that mean? It would have to mean less Islam, everywhere. How do you propose to make those countries better? Should the Americans be on the ground hither and yon, making sure that the vast revenues that come in are well-spent? Or should we the Infidels instead of investing in energy projects rather spend our money lavishly on the Muslims so that they won't -- oh please don't -- keep migrating and settling behind enemy lines?

We "can't leave Iraq in a mess"? Why not? It is a mess, a moral mess, a political mess, an economic mess -- a mess because Islam encourages despotism (no Muslim Arab state objected in the slightest to the murder of Shi'a and Kurds. Not a single so-called Arab intellectual outside of Iraq wrote about these murders; no one cared. No one cared about Saddam Hussein except insofar as he began to covet Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia -- and then they cared, and only for that reason).

Iraq was a mess in 2003, before the Americans arrived. It was a mess in 1991. It was a mess in 1973. It was a mess in 1968 or 1969, when half-a-million cheeering people in Baghdad witnessed the hanging of a group of 13 Iraqi Jews (and a Christian or two, just as a reminder), all of them innocent though accused of being "Zionist spies" -- a display of pro-PLO solidarity and of course, fun for the whole family, if your family happens to be primitive, hate-filled, and vicious. Apparently half-a-million people in Baghad fit the bill. It was a mess in 1958, when the Prince Regent, Faisal, was killed, and "strongman" (as TIME Magazine epithetically insisted) Nuri al-Said was caught in women's clothes, castrated, and his body dragged through the streets of Baghdad. It was a mess in 1948, when the big pogroms began, and in 1941, when the pogrom -- the Farhud of June 1-2 -- allowed Baghdadis to have fun grabbing hapless Jews on the street, tying them up, then laying them down in front of street-cars so whole crowds could see and enjoy a vicarious thrill. It was a mess in 1933, with the mass killings of Assyrians in the north. (See William Saroyan, "70,000 Assyrians"). It was a mess in the 1920s, when Gertrude Bell was writing home, at first full of enthusiasm for the new king, and the new arrangements in Iraq, and then less and less hopeful, as Iraq itself showed itself for what it was -- she in fact killed herself in 1927, very likely deep disappointment in what she had dreamed Araby might be like, contributing to her decision.

It is undeniable that for more than a millennium Sunnis have been persecuting Shi'a. It is undeniable that at the moment the Muslim state that most threatens the Infidels is the Islamic Republic of Iran, ruled and populated by Shi'a. It is undeniable that the Shi'a in Pakistan are under constant assault. It is undeniable that the Sunnis and Shi'a in Yemen co-exist most uneasily. It is undeniable that the several hundred thousand Shi'a in the oil-producing al-Hasa province of eastern Saudi Arabia (Dhahran, Ad Dammam, Ras Tanura, Al Qatif) have felt oppressed, and been oppressed, by the Wahhabi (Sunni) Muslims. It is undeniable that the Iran-Iraq War was, from the Infidel point of view, in using up men, materiel, and money (the Gulf Arabs gave $60 billion to Saddam Hussein), a godsend. What if in those years, 1980-1988, either Saddam Hussein, or Khomeini, or both, had been engaged elsewhere, with their vast revenues, and in Iran, all that energy and enthusiasm for the Islamic Republic that went into the defense of the fatherland?

And then there is the important matter of the emblematic case of the Kurds. Here they are. There are at least 20 million of them. They were promised a state after World War I, along with the promises of a Jewish state (which was established not because of, but despite, the Mandatory authority), an Armenian state (quickly withdrawn, until the Soviet Union actually supplied one -- see Peter Balakian's memoir on the gratitude of many Armenians, such as his father, for that Soviet act), an Arab state (one Arab state -- but as it turned out they ended up not with one but with 22, and still counting, especially if that "two-state solution" nonsense keeps being pushed by Bush because "God told him" to get the "Palestinians" a state), and a Kurdish state. But the latter was never created, because Ataturk insisted on the offer being retracted, and the Allies bent to his steely will.

The creation of an independent Kurdistan would be useful in raising, among other non-Arab Muslims, the whole issue of Arab supremacism. For the Kurds, though they were mass-murdered by an Arab ruler using Arab troops, a mass-murder to which Muslim Arabs everywhere were completely indifferent, are simply an extreme case of a growing disaffection among other non-Arabs treated roughly by the Arabs -- because in Arab eyes, Arabs are the "best of peoples," and it is to Arabia, and to a group of seventh-century Arabs, to whom all Muslims must look, while at prayer, or for guidance in their lives. Ideally they must read and memorize the Qur'an in Arabic. Ideally they will take Arab names. Ideally they will aspire to be Arabs, and forget their own pasts, their own histories. But despite those aspirtations, they cannot ever really be full-fledged Arabs, and so within the universalist claims of Islam, Arab supremacist attitudes will forever keep them down -- whenever and wherever possible.

A Kurdish state could give ideas to the Berbers in Algeria (and Morocco), to the Iranians who, disgusted with Islam, might wish to draw the attention of their countrymen to Islam as what Anwar Shaikh rightly calls the "Arab national religion." And there are others in East Asia, and South Asia, who are tired of the Arab supremacism, the need to kowtow or to emulate the Arabs. And the treatment of non-Arab Muslims in the rich Gulf states is unpleasant. They are treated not as equals to the Arabs, and they know it, and in the end, this can have its effect. Not everyone is prepared to be a good sport, as a Muslim, about Arab supremacist beliefs and acts.

What makes the Administration shy away from supporting a free Kurdistan are two considerations:

1) they simply fail to regard the Jihad -- i.e. Islam -- as the problem, so fail as well to see that any means that ineluctably lead to dividing or demoralizing many Muslims is to be desired

AND

2) they simply are afraid of Turkey. Though Turkey is no longer necessary as a place from which to monitor the Soviet Union, and has proven its malign attitudes in its refusal to allow a fourth American division to invade Iraq from Turkish bases, and though the statements by Erdogan, Gul, and others in the Turkish parliament and Turkish press have been outrageous in their presentation of the United States (one important Turkish figure said the Americans in Iraq were "worse than Hitler" -- and there was not a peep from Washington); as Islam reappears, slyly triumphant, so do inevitably do anti-Infidel attitudes, and that means anti-American and anti-Israel attitudes. Of course there can be some kind of ostentatious display of phony pro-American or pro-Israel statements, in order to buy Washington's support, especially at the E.U. But the ploy should not work.

No need to fear Turkey. The Turkish army could be prevented from the air from moving on Kurdistan. That defeat, that obvious and humiliating defeat, is something they would not risk. And along with that stick, there is a carrot. The Turks don't care about Iran or Syria. Let the Kurds make territorial demands on them. What they care about is Turkey. They do not want Kurds acting up, trying to lop off parts of Anatolia. The Americans can be the guarantor that that will never happen,and that if the Kurds were to try that, the Americans would stand back and let the Turkish army do its stuff. That could be the inducement.

And the Kurds will, in turn, be told: at long last you will have your state. And we even think you can make trouble for Syria and Iran as you wish. But you must not make trouble for Turkey. D'accord? We thought you'd agree.

Oh, and Turkey will offer you access to the sea, and all sorts of other things -- just so that this new-found false friendship can remain just that.

That's okay, Mr. Talebani, Mr. Barzani?

Right. Oh, just one more thing.

Yes?

About the Christians, the Assyrians and the Chaldeans? Well, we think the best way to protect those who wish to remain in the area is for a Christian corridor to be established in the north, in the area that will form part of Kurdistan. And we want you to be the guarantor of their safety. And if necessary, we can provide a few troops, and equipment. Remember, the Americans protected you from Saddam. And it is the Americans alone who, in the end, can protect you here. Remember how we helped overcome Turkish opposition? Well, we want you to guarantee the safety of all Christians living in Kurdistan. And we are serious about this. We do not forget, we do not forgive. Okay?

Of courae.

Right. Then let's get on with it.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2005 11:57 AM

Have a look at the excellent blog on Iraq military

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to A Few Good Men, read it then the comments.

My point of view is that there is perhaps enough there to start controlling Iraq after the Anbar campaigns have worked in routing out the Al Queda networks. Someone like Allawi could take Iraq forward and that would be my test on the level of on-going support.

My concern is that we are not dealing with Iran.

Mentat - France actually and I am a Brit, yes we have that problem in both countries, but immigration is on the agenda even with the racist insult being freely branded about. It is however virtually impossible at this point to get past being branded a racist at this point, but I think that there is perhaps a backlash developing about the rather free and incorrect use of this insult.

Posted by: Daffersd at October 7, 2005 11:58 AM

"But Hugh is in no hurry to deconstruct Iran."
-- from a posting above

How do you know what I think about Iran? Last I looked, American troops were in Iraq, and Iraq was the tar baby, Iraq the center of false hopes and false dreams, Iraq the place where the squandering, not the husbanding, of resources, of men, money, materiel, and morale, was taking place. Naturally I am focussing on Iraq. Is that silly? Would you like my views on Bangladesh? On Burma? On Battersea Park? On Sotteville-sur-Mer?

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2005 12:00 PM

It's geopolitical strategic positioning. The U.S. has at least 12 operational military bases in Iraq right now (at the cost of 2000 U.S. servicemen and women's lives). If/When Iran goes nuclear, we're at least there. If not Iraq, where? Turkey? Recall the No Vote from their Parliament. Saudi Arabia? Recall the Prince Sultan air base. Uzbekistan? Pakistan? Are any of these viable staging areas? Iraq, imo, makes sense for this reason. Fix Syria or Saudi Arabia? There are 140000 military personnel in Iraq now - the option is much more viable. This is reminiscent (to me at least) of the U.S./NATO bases throughout Europe to provide a deterrent to Soviet power. I will vote and continue to vote for any leader who understands this fact. Fix Iraq? - I could care less.

Posted by: Furius George at October 7, 2005 12:18 PM

"So give the Administration this: there is that Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection, one that unites all Muslims."

No, Hugh, you're wrong about all Muslims being united in their support of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, or even anywhere else. Polls indicate OBL's support is slipping fast. The beheadings are only part of it. Even Sunni Sheiks in Iraq have been assisting the Coalition in hunting them down.

Otherwise, I said this in another thread, but didn't put it in these terms: Arabs/Muslims, like the rest of us, are capable of holding opposing views simultaneously. On the one hand, they hate the "occupiers", but on the other hand, they are, mainly, happy to be rid of Saddam and don't necessarily seek another Islamic Republic Iran style. Quite the contrary: most of the Arab street actually loves much about the west and many still wish they could immigrate, not to spread da'wa, but to enjoy the better quality of life. Am I alone in remembering some Iraqi youth who was ready to volunteer for jihad against the occupiers, but also expressed a desire to become and American citizen and get an education and good job.

No, the animus borne toward the "occupiers," all the carnage and other post-invasion problems aside, probably arises from resentment that help had to come from outside and still needs to come from outside. In their hearts, many Iraqis know this and may even speak to this (many are in no rush to see the "occupiers" leave), but that's still not to say they are happy that the price of building a decent society includes having foreign troops all over the place.

I deplore the loss of lives and the incredible financial costs of the invasion. I know how dicey the chances are of a pay-off, even in the long-term. But I still hope the best for that part of the world and always will.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 7, 2005 12:34 PM

How do we "fix" a tribalized, islamisized, culturally violent, artificially bordered, so-called country with no long term vision or interest in improving their future or that of their progeny? (rhetorical question)

Posted by: pismopal at October 7, 2005 12:40 PM

"But I still hope the best for that part of the world and always will."
-- from a posting above.

I don't. But suppose I did. Suppose I really did care about the fate of Muslims and Muslim countries, aside from trying to prevent them from spreading Islam to the places that I live, or love. What would I wsih if I were to join you and to "hope the best for that part of the world and always will"?

Wouldn't I want to see the main problem that holds Muslims back, that stifles their potential, that causes them to behave in such hideous ways, that prevents them from so many possibilities for free thought and free expression -- wouldn't I want to see them throw off the mind-forged manacles of Islam? Of course I would.

And how else can that be done, if Muslims in sufficient numbers do not begin to connect the dots, to see that the backwardness, the violence, the crazed-conspiracy theories, the mistreatment of women, the hatred for and persecution of, non-Muslims, the dislike of free speech, the suppression of freedom of conscience, and all the other things that make life in Dar al-Islam so unpleasant, so nearly unbearable (why do over 50% of young Arabs wish to emigrate? They know what they have is awful; what they do not know, and seldom realize, is that what is awful is exactly what they bring with them in their mental luggage to the Infidel lands -- Islam itself, its tenets, attitudes, atmospherics).

I think that by leaving Iraq we encourage division and demoralization within Islam. That makes things better for Infidels -- unlike you, it is only Infidels I care about.

But if I were to be like you, I would offer exactly the same prescription. If one wished Muslim states well, if one wished for them to truly thrive (not just get the underground manna from Heaven that is oil and gas), if one wished for those who are born into Islam to have a better life, then one would, I submit, offer not Bush's Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations imposition of the narrowest, tattiest kind of "democracy" (Bush knows as little about the greatness of the Founding Fathers, and how the Constitutional Convention in 1787 differed from what has been going on in Baghdad (and let's not even compare the results), as he does about the significance of choosing a Supreme Court justice -- both Democracy, and Supreme Court seats, in his view, can be spread around like party-favors).

You wish Muslims well and "you always will"? (Say, doesn't that offer an unwanted echo of a love-song's lyrics: "I love you still/I always will"?).

Then you should agree with me.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2005 12:56 PM

Hugh:

You say:

"The poster immediately above claims that we now must assume the Infidel Man's Burden, and make sure the Muslim countries become less awful, because otherwise more Muslims will migrate to the Western world.

The same poster believes that there is no possibility of changing Western attitudes on Muslim migration. But they are already changing."

Western attitudes on Muslim immigration are already changing? Where? I can think of no Western country that has singled out Muslims in particular for immigration restrictions. I can think of two countries that have tightened up immigration requirements in general (i.e. Holland and Denmark)Meanwhile, the leader of the free world, the United States, has almost lost control of its southern border. Canada has just announced that they will actually be increasing fairly dramatically the number of immigrants (with, no doubt, a significant number of those being Muslim). So, I disagree with you, Hugh. I think it will be politically impossible to single out Muslims for immigration restrictions until such time as the majority of Westerners are convinced that they are a threat.

Thus, until such time as the political will exists to restrict Muslim immigration, we cannot go with the isolationist strategy you suggest (which otherwise I would be fine with). If we had the political will to keep them out, then I would say, fine, let's have the Israeli solution, build the security fences (legal and physical) and watch the Muslim masses seeth and gnash their teeth from afar. But we can't do that right now because Muslims ARE US; and, as they are so fond saying, they are here to stay.

So, to paraphrase the Grinch, "I MUST find a way to keep Muslims from coming!"

When you have a "WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA", Hugh, and think of some way to keep Muslims from coming, then I will sign on to your Muslim quarantine project.

Posted by: Mentat at October 7, 2005 1:10 PM

Italy has, thanks to a law that is just a year or two old, been intercepting boats carrying illegal would-be immigrants who try to enter Italy by boats leaving Libyan ports. It tows the boats to Lampedusa, and the new law has greatly abridged the rigmarole necessary before these people are sent back to North Africa. Many, though not all, of them, are from Egypt (Libya being the embarkation land of choice); others from other Muslim countries; still others non-Muslim black Africans.

That has helped.

Furthermore, in Italy there is a definite favoring of Christian immigrants. For example, the domestic workers who help out, called COLF, are more and more made up of Filipinos, often husband-and-wife teams.

If Italians will not hire Muslims, have increased the resources devoted to intercepting mainly Muslim immigrants, have become faster in repatriating them, no longer accept the various sob-story arguments of phony human-rights groups (Oriana Fallaci and Magdi Allam have helped), that to me is progress.

In Australia, pollitical figures have already spoken about limiting -- not immigrants, but Muslim immigrants. I don't have the time to find the material; google "Australia" and "Muslim immigration" and see what you find.

In France, the Sarkozy "integration" of Muslims is not going to succeed, and even Sarkozy must realize it. But listen to the French political figures. They no longer demonize Bat Ye'or or Alexandre del Valle or Alain Finkielkraut. Events count. They are doing their damnedest to keep Muslims out, in the French way, not by announcing anything, not even by the passage of laws. But in all other ways.

Everyone in Europe who can think (that leaves out most of those who run the governments and certainly almost all in the E.U. bureacracy) knows that Muslims will be the death of Europe. Some are still at the "but what can we do" stage of comprehension or lack of it.

But the more people realize what is at stake, the hollower the diversity-shmiversity business looks, and it only takes another bomb or two, another Muslim murder or two (look what happened in Holland), and a few more people thinking openly, and writing coherently, about the absolutely beyond-the-pale must-never-mentioned how-can-you-possibly-suggest that ideas that have frequently been mentioned, and thought openlly about, right here at JW -- to wit, a Benes Decree that would deal with Muslims as the same kind of security threat that Benes and Masaryk and all Czechs in 1946, and since, regarded the Sudeten Germans, whom they overnight expelled, all 3.5 million of them.

It can happen. And short of that, all sorts of ways can be thought of to make countries Muslim-hostile rather than Muslim-friendly. Little by little by little, this can be accomplished.

It is important to expend energy making Infidels aware of what any long-time visitor to JW, such as yourself, is perfectly aware of, and to encourage Western Europeans to learn from the experience of others, with the example of what happens in Holland not being lost on the French or the English (and so on), and with the citizens of the United States becoming much more aware of what has happened in Western Europe (and if some of those Europeans begin to appear on this side of the Atlantic, perhaps even as self-exiled Europeans fleeing a too-disturbing Muslim presence, that will help).

That energy would be wasted trying to refashion the Muslim states -- which 1) is an impossible task and 2) politically impossible because Americans will no longer stand for their military or civilians risking their lives on unpleasant and ungrateful Muslims anywhere.

It is impossible to conceive of
American ground troops again being sent to any Muslim country, except to make completely unhindered, single-minded war. After the current tarbaby in Iraq, no Administration could possibly risk it. Nor should it.

There are much bigger fish to fry.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2005 1:40 PM

As always Hugh, provocative, well reasoned and enlightening.

Posted by: dgene at October 7, 2005 1:42 PM

"No, Hugh, you're wrong about all Muslims being united in their support of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, or even anywhere else. Polls indicate OBL's support is slipping fast. The beheadings are only part of it. Even Sunni Sheiks in Iraq have been assisting the Coalition in hunting them down.

This shows a misreading of what I wrote. I never wrote, I never implied, and never would either write or imply, that "all Muslims" are "united in their support of al-Qaeda in Iraq." I would have to be an idiot to write that.

What I wrote was something else -- I was explaining that the "Al-Qaeda/Iraq" connection did not require any supporting evidence. It is enough, I maintain, for a state to be Muslim, for it necessarily to be denied all weapons of mass destruction. That's all.

Read again what I wrote:

There was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and it is this: any Muslim state, Iraq or any other, that acquires certain kinds of weaponry, becomes by virtue of being Muslim, by virtue of being inhabited by Muslims, the possible source of weaponry for terrorist groups. That can happen because the regime itself sympathizes with terrorism or because individuals in that regime's armed forces do so, or because a regime that may overturn the one currently in place may do so, or because terrorist groups may simply be able to acquire those weapons through sympathizers in the government or close to it. It can happen for all of these reasons, not one of which the Bush Administration dared to offer (because to say bluntly that no Muslim state can be allowed to acquire such weapons if they have not done so already, while perfectly true, is one more of those obvious remarks that cannot be stated).

So give the Administration this: there is that Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection, one that unites all Muslims."

That last phrase clearly means this: it is not necessary for Muhammad Atta to have met in Prague with an agent of Saddam Hussein. Nothing more need be proven about a potential Al Qaeda connection to Iraq, than the fact of Iraq being a Muslim country. Could we allow Egypt, or Morocco, to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Of course not. Do we have to prove an explicit Al Qaeda connection to the governments of either Egypt or Morocco to prevent such acquisition? Of course not. That is what I was saying.

I was not saying that everyone in Iraq supports, activley or passively, Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2005 1:54 PM

Any thinking person in the West should be feeling the chilly wind of Islam on their backs and prepare to protect and support themselves as our idiot governments are more interested in perpetuating the political positions than protecting their non-Muslim populations from the growing "protected class" of Muslims that are springing up. Muslims should understand that those who haved lived centuries under democracy will not willingly into the night of Sharia...

Posted by: epg at October 7, 2005 1:59 PM

Hugh:

Googled Australia and Muslim immigration. Nothing in the news. Lots of talk on the web.

Italy is, as you say, another one of those countries that is doing something about illegal immigration in general but it has not singled out Muslims in particular.

Your anecdotal evidence about Italians and Muslims is good news but it is not legislation.

Similarly, I agree attitudes in France are changing but they still think that they can assimilate the Musims much as they did with the Breton, Langue d'Oc, etc.. They still think that they can make Frenchmen out of them with time.

However, as you say, given enough provocation, things can happen (which is what I said earlier - massive terror attack ... Western country succumbing to Islam). Perhaps much can be done under the radar without the media noticing. That is certainly possible.

In any case, Hugh, you will get your wish as, in my opinion, the Americans WILL soon declare victory and leave. I just do not think that the result of the Americans leaving early will be positive for the West (Think of millions of Muslim refugees clamoring to get into the United States all shouting, "You did this to us; you must take us in; you must save us ... cue the media ... "The hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees living in camps in Syria and Saudia Arabia in the aftermath of the conflict which broke out in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops have appealed to the American and British governments for assistance. The United Nations has asked that the United States and Britain accept up to one million refugees each from what is left of the shattered country of Iraq ... BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR HUGH!

Really, to get Muslims to abandon Islam, we would need a large percentage of the Muslim intelligentsia to start criticizing and making fun of Islam; we would need Muslim governments to take away control of education from the clergy; we would need freedom of the press in Muslim countries; and, we would need Muslims to believe that imprisoning or killing people for apostasy or switching religions is shameful. And, that's just for starters!

Posted by: Mentat at October 7, 2005 2:14 PM

HUGH: "The Turks don't care about Iran or Syria. Let the Kurds make territorial demands on them."

CORNELIUS: This is just pure nonsense. Hugh wants us to believe that not only will Turkey acquiesce to the creation of a Kurdish state in Iraq (because the US threatens to bomb them AFTER high-tailing it out of Iraq...can you imagine selling such a policy to a war-weary American public?)....but that the Turks will turn a blind eye while the Iraqi Kurds shatter established borders and incorporate Kurdish lands in Iran and Syria into their state...setting the precedent that will invariably jeapordize Turkey's own Kurdish region, which is the largest and most populous of all.

These kinds of assumptions undermine Hugh's arguments and hollow out his credibility.

HUGH: "I think that by leaving Iraq we encourage division and demoralization within Islam."

CORNELIUS: I think quite the opposite, that by leaving Iraq, the Arab/Muslim world will celebrate this as a great victory (ala Gaza). Can you imagine the gloating commentary from Al Jazeera, as the infidels scurry off, licking their wounds?

Posted by: Cornelius at October 7, 2005 2:26 PM

Hugh, this is your best post yet. A tour de force of pro western and anti-Jihadi perspective that rings so true.

You have provided a most compelling argument, and have helped me see beyond my conservative mind set. I hope President Bush considers your insightful analysis, as it rings with the truth.

As to the the above posters comments about stopping Islamic Immigration, it's only a matter of time, the mood of the majority, in the West, is swiftly changing, the false accusations of racist and Islamophobe will soon ring hallow.

It will come to pass, politically correct thought is everyday, in many many places, being exposed for the suicidal it is.

Posted by: thecid at October 7, 2005 2:34 PM

Hugh, above you responded in the negative to a post from "Waterdragon" about wishing the best for the Iraqis. Isn't he, though, essentially saying he hopes for exactly what you elaborated upon in your response: impeding or haulting islam's advance? Surely you both want this to my understanding, so what is it that you disagree with him on the basis of that statement?

Waterdragon is hoping the war in Iraq will succeed in damaging the advancement of islam and jihad. Perhaps it will, perhaps, as you believe, it will not, but are you not at least on the same page as him in hoping the war will do just that even if you doubt it to be the case?

Thanks,
-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at October 7, 2005 2:35 PM

mentat said "Thus, until such time as the political will exists to restrict Muslim immigration, we cannot go with the isolationist strategy you [Hugh] suggest"

I must say that Hugh's writings here have changed my point of view on Iraq 180 degrees. He has not fully described his views on the role of the US in the world, but what he has said cannot be characterized as isolationist. He is talking about a specific group of people/nations, not all nations. And he has not advocated withdrawing into the US borders and taking no action for/against other nations.

It is fairly specific: we (non-Muslim Westerners) should not be held responsible for how Muslim nations treat their own subjects or how they interact with each other. Our responsibility is solely to protect our own interests. That may involve taking action somewhere in the world, or it may not. But either way, it is not done for altruistic reasons of helping our Fellow Man/Fellow Muslim.

My view: We have to accept the different cultures for what they are, not try to mold them all in our image and assume they share our values.

Posted by: special_guest at October 7, 2005 3:04 PM

Hugh:

My wish upon the people of the Middle East, Muslims included is wishing them free of tyranny and totalitarianism, most of which is, of course, inspired by Islam as presented in the Koran and related writings. My wish is that they evolve to the point where Muslims can forever purge their belief system of the need for absolute submission to an ideology developed by a man to justify bloody conquest and, consequently, the drive to make jihad until we are all one big unhappy Umma.

I know that's no small wish, but, on the other hand, until human beings are in the direst crisis situation, they are not inclined to question and change. Things are about as miserable there as they can possibly get. Who knows how many of them are as sickened by the sectarian violence as any reasonable human being should be? Is anyone even asking them that, and what changes they would be prepared to make to bring about an end to it?

And if the vast majority of Muslims don't see their way to such radical change, what fortress could we possibly build that would keep the jihaddists out, even if we re-deployed all the resources being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and shut off the foreign aid tap to Egypt, the PA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? (Of course, foreign aid should be made conditional on change, real change.)Hasn't the horse already long escaped the barn via mosques and maddrassahs around the world?

Is there really any other way to cut the legs out from under jihad ideology than for it to lose support in the heartland of Islam?

And how else was I to enterpret the following:

"So give the Administration this: there is that Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection, one that unites all Muslims."

What then, are you stating here? That before the invasion there was no Al-Qaeda activity within Iraq's borders and that it was all the Coalition's fault that they are there now?

Antagonism toward the west long preceded that turn of events, and I suspect the Kurds would beg to differ about AQI's arrival date. And while it's not a common belief, I think I've read more than a few translations in MEMRI wherein there's an acknowledgment, usually by ex-pat Muslims in Europe, that AQI and other like-minded organizations are a direct product of Islam, not of western imperialism and aggression.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 7, 2005 3:37 PM

Hugh, the first point is that I do not think that there is the will to forcibly deport the Muslims currently in the West and certainly not in Europe.

I think there is not even the will to make life tough for them. I do see signs of efforts to control immigration though its not yet targetted at Muslims to sufficient a degree.

I was thinking of blocking funding for the Mosques, a Muslim tax to pay for the additional security costs. No more brides or husbands from abroad or offering citizenship to the extended familly. I would really sit on the Mosques and make sure that the Imams are not sprouting hate. I think that this would cause a certain number to leave.

A lot of people make the mistake in thinking that the Muslims in the West only have say French citizenship, in my experience the majority keep the citizenship of their home country and that includes the second and third generation. Tough that isn't it?

I would offer some financial help to leave, perhaps pay the shipping costs of their furniture, goods and their flight, once I had got the easy ones out. I would then focus on the ones that do not mix with society and forcibly deport them.

I expect that we will end up with a population of Muslims, but one that can be intergrated and not be a demographic threat.

To balance this we should take all of the Christian minorities out of harms way, its sad to see them leave, but they will be killed by the Muslims anyway.

In fact I can not see any justification for accepting anyone from any Muslim countries with the exception of Iran at this point on an assylum basis and that should be very selective if at all.

I am strongly in favour of going for Hydrogen, Honda are making a fuel cell car that offers acceptable speed and range and all we need now is the investment.

I think we should then minimise our links with the Muslim world. Without the oil revenue and without our help etc., Islam will collapse on itself.

But leaving like this and putting up barries does not mean that we should walk away totally we engage at a distance, criticise those countries that kill and attack others, sometimes, make it difficult to them. Israel should be supported totally and protected.

First issue, the already rather weak European economies will have additional economic problems, but you are talking about the USA first and I happen to think that the Europeans (I am one) have brought this on themselves by being weak or mis-lead.

My second issue with this is that the Muslims are developing WMD's and as such we will be faced with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, this means that we will have no choice but to keep their military tech as low as possible. Russia and China of course will keep supplying them and we will be in a war situation with Islam, (but we are already.) This will mean pre-emption, can the American and Europeans support this, I would but I read military history so its easy for me to accept this.

I think supporting the Kurds is a sound strategy, they have been victims for so long that this actually is a greater pull then their religion. If there is one place to bring light to the Muslims its Kurdistan.

What happens next is that sooner or later someone will attack the West and we will be forced to use over-whelming force to deal with them.

I guess that this scenario is better then the certain destruction of Europe that we are facing now.

As for accepting different cultures I am all for that, but not Muslims, they want their system to take over, I don't see that with any other religion. I certainly don't think that we have to accept a racist, sexist and killing culture in our midst, what sort of stupidity is that?

We have an advanced and lawful culture here with the respect of law and rights for others, but if one group or ideology shows a willingness to threaten our system then we should deal with it as reasonably as we can, but with deadly force if necessary.

I have read the blogs of Iraqi's and see that there are many that want to live in peace and I really feal for them, I understand that, but it is perhaps too much to ask us to risk all for what may be a faint chance that being nice will be successful.

I understand your strategy, its a dark one, but perhaps its the only way with an ideology such as Islam.

Posted by: Daffersd at October 7, 2005 4:24 PM

Daffersd said "I have read the blogs of Iraqi's and see that there are many that want to live in peace and I really feal for them, I understand that, but it is perhaps too much to ask us to risk all for what may be a faint chance that being nice will be successful."

Of course there are Iraqis (and Syrians and Saudis and Egyptians etc.) who would prefer not to live under Shariah law, who would prefer not to live in a theocracy of hate and fear. But it is their nation, their society, and they can do with it as they can. They have to convince their neighbors that freedom and democracy and affluence are not corruptions. They have to fight their neighbors who try to take control and rule by force. They have to take risks by speaking their true feelings, even though that may make them the target of violence. Building a society is dirty dangerous work, and they have to be willing to do that work if they want the benefits of a free, democratic, pluralistic society.

It's not enough to go to an anonymous blog read by Westerners and complain about their situation. The bar for them is much higher than that.

And we have to accept the fact that some societies, some peoples, will have values and mores that are very different from our own. And some of those societies will have alot of anger and resentment towards us; but their anger is not our problem to solve, their resentment is not our burden to carry.

Posted by: special_guest at October 7, 2005 5:51 PM

Excellent discussion!
My input.

1. Unquestionably the aim of jihad is offensive and threatens our way of life and is not a response to our policies. This is leftist baloney and suits al quaida propaganda.

2. Our government recognizes this but isnt likely to own up that the threat is Islam, not just so called Islamofacists. Still have to consider political correctness.

3. Then of course there is the issue of oil. We can't risk offending the Saudis or Kuwaitis by openly criticizing their beliefs.

4. We are in Iraq under the pretense of nation building. If this works it's a nice side benefit. We are really there and will remain in some force there indefinitely to protect our oil supply and to hold a hammer to Iran.

5. We are there as well to fight al quaida operatives closer to their turf than our own.
The ungoing threat to the NYC subway emanating fron Iraq further bears this out.

6. Although it will be tough to swallow, unless and until we determine that the war against terrorism is a war against other than Islam, we will have to take further steps to identify and control Moslems in and traveling in and out of the U.S. We will simply have to trust that these limitations on our liberties are required and temporary. The trust factor is that our government is enough steeped in the traditions of
200 plus years to return our freedoms after this crisis.

7. Can we at long last fund a national energy policy toallow us to back away from the maniacs in certain parts of the world???

Posted by: oldflame at October 7, 2005 5:53 PM

Hugh makes more sense, in more knowledgeable detail, than any of the talking heads I see on TV, starting with Tom Friedman and all the rest of them. He even makes more sense than Henry Kissinger! Haha!

It drives me crazy that I can't find out more about him, but I tried before, with little luck, and so I must respect his privacy. Yet notice how all those FrontPageMag writers now include a picture. And we've always known what Robert Spencer looks like. I think a mug shot reveals a great deal, but unfortunately Hugh Fitzgerald is a not uncommon name.

Can't he even tell us his profession?

I'll bet he's largely self-taught. People with strong and penetrating minds frequently are. Ph.D.s are overrated. And he would probably have clashed with his advisor, especially in a 'better', i.e. more left-leaning and Islam apologizing university.

Posted by: Benjamin at October 7, 2005 6:14 PM

Hugh is right guys. Our Men and Women arent fighting for Democracy over there. They are fighting for Sharia, and in the middle of a Sunni-Shia civil war that has raged for centuries. Other times it has been Arab-Persian, but the lines are still similarly drawn.

The only substantial strategic good from staying in Iraq is the airbases in Western Iraq that allow us to attack anyone who we conclusively find enabling a terror attack on us, and intel it brings. Also, it allows a corridor for the Israeli airforce to strike Iran when the World fails to stop Iran from developing nukes.

Thats where the rubber hits the road. The rest has all became window dressing for the public as soon as the Iraqi Constitutional Congress agreed that no law shall be in contradiction of Islam.

Time to face the facts guys.

Swallow Hard.

Posted by: Trupolitik at October 7, 2005 6:32 PM

While I have enjoyed reading the posts in JW and DW from time to time, particularly those of the prolific Mr. Fitzgerald, I am somewhat puzzled every time otherwise intelligent people make remarks about "deporting Muslims" or making life progressively more unattractive for them in the US. How, pray tell, do we do that under our present Constitution?

I am an immigration attorney, and no cheerleader for the Muslim faith, but have represented numerous Muslims in immigration matters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Most of my clients are the "bad Muslims" Hugh has so aptly referred to in the past--i.e., precisely the type of Muslims that we want in the US, if we're to have any at all. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that none of them are here or seek to remain here to be a "fifth column" for Islam--i.e., ready to do their bit when their marching orders arrive. Most are here because they are proactive, highly intelligent, and want a better life for themselves and their families. Many are about as religious as I am--a lapsed Episcopalian who might attend Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve if sufficiently persuaded, but that's about it.

Also, many Muslims in the US are already U.S. citizens. Perhaps somebody can explain to me how we go about deporting US citizens, even assuming we could otherwise deport legal non-citizen residents or other non-immigrant legal temporary residents of the United States.

Further--there WAS an attempt to make life difficult for Muslims in the U.S., which was instituted in 2002-2003. It was called NSEERS special registration for certain immigrants or visitors from 24 Muslim countries, which resulted in thousands of men over the age of 16 with immigration petitions in the works being placed into removal (deportation) proceedings. The program was terrible, failed to net any terrorists and very few criminals, and was abandoned by the government several months later. That didn't prevent those who were law-abiding enough to register (the government technically could have instituted misdemeanor prosecution of those who didn't register)from being put into deportation proceedings. It was a windfall for immigration attorneys, however.

Rather than worry about a still negigible overall number of Muslim immigrants in the US, we would be much better served by stopping the PC nonsense in this country about Islam. Stop bending over for the likes of CAIR and other Jihadist apologist organizations. Stop the "Islam is a religion of peace" nonsense. Stop the Karen Hughes "listening tour" crap. In short, stop and discourage all forms of dhimmitude, period.

If you want to worry about immigration issues, worry about approximately 15 million third-worlders from South of the Border in our country, who commit far, far more crimes and makes life far more miserable for the average American than Ahmed, the taxi driver from Pakistan, or the Moroccan businessman who wants a green card so he can educate his family and live in peace. They are coming in in droves, and nothing whatsoever is being done.

Don't even talk about serious immigration restrictions when our own leaders can't even call the problem what it is. We can't even engage in honest discussion about Islam in a public forum.

In any event, I love this site.

Posted by: Matt at October 7, 2005 6:33 PM

Hugh, you're a windy bastard. I can condense your piece so: "Amerian owes islam/muslims Nothing"

That will fit on a bumper sticker - and it's easier to remember.

Posted by: Havoc at October 7, 2005 7:14 PM

Matt said "How, pray tell, do we do that under our present Constitution?"

Well, how did we have slavery for 100 years under our Constitution? How did we forcibly relocate Japanese Americans (who unlike Muslim Americans, did not take any actions to support our declared enemies) during WWII? How did we have the McCarthy hearings in the 1950's?

Sorry to say, our laws are much more open to popular whim than we would like to admit.

Posted by: special_guest at October 7, 2005 8:04 PM

This deportation business - it bothers me. If it has to be done, it has to be done. Before that, I think Muslims, including the nominal Muslims that I know as friends, colleagues, neighbours, will have to take sides. But it has been difficult enough for me as a non-Muslim to see Islam for what it is. Not intellectually - there is nothing clever, or subtle about Islam. But emotionally, as it concerns close friends, good colleagues, harmless neighbours.

Havoc: Hugh, you're a windy bastard. I can condense your piece so: "Amerian owes islam/muslims Nothing"

There is nothing but wind in a tyre, but it makes riding a car very smooth and pleasant. Who the hell said that? Don't know.

Posted by: Interested at October 7, 2005 8:56 PM

(And time, by the way, to at least have a chance not to be knocked out completely, as it well deserves to be, from the blows that will be delivered to the Bush policy by all the returning soldiers now running for Congress in 2006, and who find the Iraq policy absurd).

Who are all these candidates Hugh?I'm aware that the dems are desperatly looking for Iraq war veterans to field as candidates to run against the war.Though the Iraq veteran they ran for Congress last year in Ohio somehow managed to lose the election.Also, do you actually think there are no Iraq veterans who would run as candidates who support the war? What will you say when Republicans make gains rather then loose seats in the 2006 elections? I remember hearing Bush was suppose to lose the election because of Iraq, instead he received the most votes of any President in the history of the United States.

Posted by: Roxane at October 7, 2005 9:36 PM

1) I assume the comment about permitting one million Iraqis into this country was merely a scare hypothetical. There is no chance of that happening. None. And everyone knows why.

2) I am not a "windy bastard" as claimed above. I find that many of my longest posts bear re-reading. Yes, many typos, sometimes a name or a title misremembered, and slithery anacolutha coiling about the trunks of various ungrammatical trees, while my own Dr. Syntax often goes off on a spree In Search of the Picturesque, but all in all, not bad.

3) Those who realize that Islam cannot be reformed from without, yet keep insisting that there is something particularly unpleasant about ceasing to prop Islam up, to supply foreign aid, to make the situation better, perhaps even do nothing to diminish oil revenues because that would harm some Muslim countries -- this is all crazy. If you want a sufficient number of Muslims to start to question Islam, then Infidels should stand back and condemn Muslims as much as is politicallly possible, to the solitary confinement of Dar al-Harb. They must begin to question Islam as Gorbachev, rooming at MGU with Zdenek Mlynarzh, and endlessly discussing with him after Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin at the 1957 Party Congress, began to see, as did Alexander Yakovlev and thousands of others, that there was something terribly wrong with Soviet Communism, with Communism itself. And eventually the system collapsed, not because of open warfare, but because the non-Communist world, organized and led by the United States, did everything it could to contain and constrain and check Soviet power, and in so doing, helped create the conditions within the Soviet Union that made reconsideration, by Party members themselves, possible.

And the same must be done for Islam; there is no other way. Muslims will, if not constantly bailed out, or appeased, or succumbed to by Infidels, finally begin to connect the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam with the lack of economic development (largely a result of inshallah-fatalism, and the failure of the rule of law), political despotism (from the model of Muhammad and the hostility to man-made -- as opposed to Allah-made --law, intellectual stagnation derived from Islam's prohibitions on most forms of art and music, with free and skeptical inquiry always and everywhere prohibited or at least discouraged, and social backwardness (mistreatment of women and non-Muslim minorities)all free and skeptical inquiry, and so on.

4) Oh, I'm too tired to go on with this right now. I might start spouting something that will remind one and all of the Dying Words of Dutch Schultz, in his unintentional parody of Joyce, or Stein, or someone. That wouldn't be good. Sorry.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2005 9:56 PM

"If you want a sufficient number of Muslims to start to question Islam, then Infidels should stand back and condemn Muslims as much as is politicallly possible..."

Can't disagree with this part Hugh. I've been propounding for 4 years at another web-site the premise of Mr Spencer that our Western validation-by-rote of Islam only retards the ability of Muslim reformers to challenge the sacred cows (I remembered the term this time) of the faith. Of course, I lack both Robert's reknown and his ability to articulate, but so help me God, I was pounding away.

And Hugh, for the record, you might be just a little windy, but no one can call it flatulence.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 7, 2005 10:25 PM

Windy? not at all, Hugh's essays are one of the things I value at this site.

Great discussion on this thread, so many excellent insights, varied opinions and yes, some disagreements, but over all a common unifying understanding of the dangers of Islam.

Posted by: thecid at October 7, 2005 11:40 PM

`I find that many of my longest posts bear re-reading.`

One of my many favourites:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004696.php

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 8, 2005 12:03 AM

Hugh -

Everyone enjoys reading his own writing. It is a common human conceit.

Posted by: Havoc at October 8, 2005 12:17 AM

Windy is when someone goes on a lot without saying anything. Hugh packs a lot into his posts, which are very logically structured, and though they frequently go off at amazing tangents, seem to come back to the same place.

If you want windy, try Chomsky, or anyone who regularly uses words like meme, canard, trope, discourse or - a recent find - 'mytheme'. Even people on blogs now go on about memes and discourse. They should be shot, in my opinion.

Posted by: Interested at October 8, 2005 6:36 AM

Hugh:
Thanks for another intellectually stimulating post. I just marvel at your energy and patience in responding intelligently to all the posters.

My own view is that going to war in Iraq was a necessary response to the Islamic threat to Western civilization. While it is true that Saddam turned out not the have the WMD that were the causus belli, we at least got rid of him, and are fighting the right enemy, Islamic extremism.

More importantly, the war has served the useful purpose of revealing the true face of Islam. Many Muslims, who seemed to be moderate before the war, have been forced to reveal their true colours and show their preference for a continuation of the brutality and savagery of an Islamic dictator over the establishment of a democratic government with the assistance of infidels. Their loyalty is clearly to Islam and not democracy.

Moreover, the extremist Muslims have been provoked to commit many terrorist atrocities throughout the world. This has helped to convince Western opinion about the threat it faces from Islam and harden attitudes towards Muslims. It is significant that President Bush is now willing to identify the enemy as "Islamic radicals" as he did in his speech this week. You can't win a war if you can't identify the enemy.

The course of events are slowly, but painfully, moving us in the direction where it will be possible to implement the restrictions on immigration and other containment policies advocated by Hugh. It would be nice if we get get there without all the suffering by following the path that Hugh suggests, but it has never before happened in human history. The really important thing, though, is that we do get there before it is too late and that Western civilization continues to flourish.

Posted by: Patrick at October 8, 2005 9:38 AM

Fixing? As in maybe putting a band aid on cancer???

Posted by: pythagoras at October 10, 2005 2:25 PM