| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald, ever ready to be helpful, offers a State of the Union Speech to the President, should he decide to reconfigure America's military posture to bring it more into line with the realities of the global jihad:
Leaving Iraq does not have to be accompanied by defeatist rhetoric, or by any language that will give the jihadists grounds to claim victory in the words of the President himself. Let's put it into a State of the Union Speech:"Today is an important day in the history of America's war to make the world safer for freedom. In Iraq, the American people can be proud of their soldiers. In three weeks they took down a tyrant who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his fellow Iraqis, a man who had been in power for a quarter-century, and whose regime seemed prepared to rule for another quarter-century. And we did far more than remove a regime. Our soldiers built schools and hospitals. They helped build water-treatment plants, and build or rebuild electricity grids. We cleared, with our allies the British, Iraq's port of Umm Qasr. We did this, we did that. Here is the list of just some of the things our soldiers and civilians in Iraq managed to do (here the President can fill out his speech with some more details about American accomplishments in Iraq, ad libitum).
"And we did more. We trained, to Western standards, from a standing start, the new 'Iraqi' forces, the army and the police. And we realize now that not only are the Iraqis ready to stand on their own, but that -- every opinion poll tells us-- they want to stand on their own. From the support offered by the Iraqi delegation at the Arab League, to every opinion poll among Iraqi Arabs, it is clear that it makes sense for us to leave now. No matter how much we have accomplished, we are still seen, in a sense, as outsiders, and we must be sensitive to local opinion. For if we are not, we would risk, the Iraqis would risk, undoing all that has been done. We entered Iraq in order to enable the 'Iraqis' to stand on their own feet. It is time now for them to do so."All of us can agree that it makes far more sense, now that the second set of elections is complete, to allow the 'Iraqis' to arrive at the compromises among themselves that only they can make. Of course we wish them well, and of course we hope now that their fellow Arab and Muslim countries will certainly cancel whatever remaining debt is owed to them, and certainly lend them money against future oil revenues, given all that those Arab and Muslim states have. We have done what we can. We can do no more. Our presence, we conclude, might now lead to the very reverse of what we hope the Iraqis themselves will have the good sense to achieve -- a stable 'Iraq,' in which the compromises that make democracies work will take place.
"Oh, there are the nay-sayers. There are those who keep telling us that Islam and democracy, Islam and respect for minorities, Islam and respect for women and non-Muslims, cannot coexist. Well, we know that isn't true. We know that the 'Iraqi people' will prove that to be untrue. We have great faith in the 'Iraqi people.' We are sure that they are ready to stand on their own, and to defeat the terrorists who would deny them their chance at democracy. From those blue thumbs held proudly in the air last January, to all the careful effort that went into crafting, and then holding a referendum to approve, a Constitution, right to the December elections held just a month ago, Iraq has defied the nay-sayers.
"Well, obviously we have been there a long time. For some of us, far too long. No doubt there are some 'Iraqis' who would wish us to stay for much longer. But we cannot. It isn't good for them, and it isn't good for us. That is why, in my State of the Union message today, I am announcing the withdrawal, by August 1, 2006, of all American troops, and in collaboration with our Coalition allies, of all other foreign troops as well from Iraq. Should a need arise, in a particular region, for special assistance, and such assistance is deemed in the national interest of the United States, requests for such aid will be carefully considered. But we removed a tyrant, and the tyrant's regime -- and he sits now in Baghdad, tried by his fellow Iraqis. It is a splendid moment for democracy, for the United States and for Iraq.
"Goodnight, and God Bless America."
Something like that. The speech above took about 2 minutes to compose. With a staff of ten presidential speechwriters, it shouldn't take the White House more than a week.
Posted by Robert at November 28, 2005 7:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Hugh:
Even if the Coalition forces mopped the floor with Al-Zarqawi's head and put Al-Zawahiri and bin Laden in prison, the minute western forces, administrators and consultants leave Iraq, the remaining Baathists and Islamists will still claim they won with Allah's help. (The Arabs still claim they won the 1972 war against Israel, presumably because the IDF didn't capture any more land.)
Posted by: waterdragon52![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 28, 2005 8:51 AM
Waterdragon, they talk that way but they know better. Notice the lack of conventional wars against Israel in several decades. Saddam, too, claimed victory since he remained in power and Bush, Sr. was removed from office. Yes, even if the Shiites slaughter Sunni jihadists (and Baathists) after we leave, Sunni jihadists will claim they victoriously expelled America from Iraq.
Will it be enough to deter future attacks? Not quite but in the short run they may prefer softer targets. Notice in Iraq that they prefer to target Shiites. Notice that since 9/11, they’ve struck Spain and Indonesia. And France! Let the rest of the world start to realize that Islam is a threat to all non-Muslims. And let us wake up our fellow Americans to the threat.
at November 28, 2005 9:06 AM
waterdragon52, good point. The American people must also be prepared for the inevitable claim of "victory" by the jihadis. That claim will be made whether we withdraw tomorrow or ten years hence. So Hugh, in the speech above be sure to add the adjectives "empty," "futile" or "meaningless" as modifiers to the phrase "claim of victory" by "spineless cowards."
That should do it.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at November 28, 2005 9:42 AM
_"Well, obviously we have been there a long time. For some of us, far too long."- Hugh Fitzgerald
As far as I am concerned, this internet blog and the people who construct and support it are true heroes.
In the face of a dominant Western PC culture bent on policies of cultural (and often literal) suicide, men (too few men) like Hugh Fitzgerald have stepped forward and refused to be intimidated into submission and silence.
The truth will prevail but first it has to be known. The truth about islam can be very ugly and those who present it can expect much unpleasantness from islam and its ignorant, dhimmi supporters and useful idiots. Jihad and Dhimmi Watch truth bringers possess genuine courage.
THAT SAID.......with regard to Hugh's 'State of the Union' proposal, I am genuinely surprised and somewhat dismayed. It begins with a statement: "obviously we have been there too long". That is a very subjective personal pronouncement with which our islamist enemies undoubtedly agree. It is anything but "obvious"
By what possible historical criteria can two years and nine months be judged "too long" in a war of such consequence? Placed in historical context, a concession of such seriousness, in such complete harmony with the war strategy of the enemy, would have led to a very diffent outcome for the forces of justice and truth in World War II. The conviction by the imperial Japanese warlords that they could outlast the allies, in spite of the fact that they were utterly crushed on the battlefield, led to much additional, senseless loss of life and, ultimately, to the use of nuclear weapons. It is surely no different for the muslim fanatics of today.
You will not hear a representative U.S. soldier, airman or marine say we have been there too long. Victory is their only measure of success. They believe we are winning. Fact.
Some seem to think that muslim fanatics posess some kind of special mystique and cannot be defeated in the conventional sense. They have been, thoroughout history. Especially muslim fanatics. The enormous mountains of the rotting corpses of muslim "holy warriors" which continue to grow worldwide (compliments of American crusaders) since 9/11 attest to the falsity of that perception. The British crushed the muslim mahdi rebellion against dedicated muslim fanatics in the most difficult of circumstances at the end of the 19th century. They thought they were unbeatable in the service of Allah at that time but, in the end, they accepted defeat because they got tired of being killed. And the British did not particularly take care to consider the opinion of the "arab street".
Historically or logically, especially when surrender and defeat is not an option, two years and nine months is argueably not too long for staying engaged in the fight anywhere. Especially in the primary theater of armed conflict in the 21st century's Global War on Terror.
When good and dedicated men make statements regarding the war in Iraq, measure those statements' relevance by simply asking "do Osama and Zarqawi agee with these statements?". Our interests and those of fanatics engaged in a global struggle to establish a world islamic caliphate will rarely converge and an answer to the affirmative bears careful reevaluation by its authors.
A hundred years and the ill will of every muslim fanatic on earth would not be too long or too much to insure our survival.
at November 28, 2005 10:53 AM
The speech is not in propria persona. It is for that other President -- the real one -- to utter. When I put into his mouth the phrase "we have been there too long" it was in order to provide a graceful rhetorical saving-face. I was being kind to him. I was trying to avoid having him say, for he could never bring himself to do so, because clearly he will never quite understand, that, as I might have otherwise have inserted into the speech-script:
"There is no mission that makes sense in Iraq because there is, I now realize, no real connection between the imposition of 'democracy' in the narrowest, head-counting sense, and any lessening of Islamic fervor, or any permanent damage being done to the Jihad world-wide."
Nor can he say:
"The phrase 'we will accept nothing less than victory' is, I now realize, idiotic, because it means nothing as far as the world-wide Jihad goes, and that will continue, wherever possible, until the end of time. I now realize, as I did not before, that the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq are not to be deplored, but to be exploited, not by doing a thing to encourage them, but by ceasing to do many things, at great human and other cost, to discourage them."
So having him say "we have been there too long" was simply an example of taking into account his own reality, which is not, of course, to be confused with "reality" any more than is the "reality" -- even more deranged -- of Jacques Chirac, the entire bureaucracy of the E.U., and of course the intolerable U.N., not to mention others who make themselves stupid because they just can't can't can't accept the truth (Tony Blair comes to mind).
Besides, I think we have been there too long. I agree with the phrase I put in Bush's mouth. ONe would like the fixation on Iraq to end, so that the other and much more pressing problems (the Iranian nuclear project, destruction of which, or serious damage to which, should not for one minute be delayed because of misplaced solicitude for what this might to do "the cuase of reformers in Iran"), and of coure the spread of Islam, especially in Europe, through Da'wa and demographic conquest.
The Administration is both too tough and too naive. Too "tough" in the sense of all this "warriors" and "boots-on-the-ground" talk and ways of thought, and leaving out almost entirely, or conducting preposterously by handing over to "nice" American Muslims, the so-called propaganda war which, in fact, does not exist and will not exist as long as American officials such as Bush and Rice keep telling us how wonderful Islam is, and officials such as Karen Hughes, and American funded stations such as Al-Hurra, keep making the point that America is a splendid place for Muslims, and look at how well they are doing (so get those visa applications in now!).
The intervention in Iraq has squandered resources, not least the morale of civilians, that needs to be husbanded for a much longer campaign of self-defense. The phrase "war on terror" not only fails to describe accurately the larger anti-Jihad, the war of self-defense in which all Infidels should bury their assorted hatchets and work in some sort of intelligent harmony. It is still more damaging because, by constantly invoking it, the President and others keep the public, which needs and deserves some guidance and instruction, will fail to understand all the other weapons of Jihad, including the use of "wealth," "pen, speech," Da'wa, and the newest weapon, openly discussed by Muslims in both Dar al-Islam and deep within Dar al-Harb (the Infidel lands), of demographic conquest, possible if not opposed, where outright military conquest would be impossible.
So I'm happy with the phrase as written:
"We have been there too long."
That's what I think. And I think a good many returning soldiers think that too.
Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2005 11:25 AM
Agree with you HUGH! Very good speech too - doubt if President's Speechwriters could do as well.
One of the problems of who is President in U.S - seen from N.Z perspective & other countries - is
that many very talented women and men are barred from seeking office because THEY DO NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY MILLIONS. Let's face it there wasn't much of a choice of Presidential material between
Kerry and Bush any more than being caught 'between a rock and a hard place.'Indeed lack of good leaders in U.S and Europe come at a
time when they are desperately needed...Bush would NEVER have made it without money & influence from Daddy Bush. Makes sense of the adage - "a bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush." But I digress. Kerry appeared as a hopeless wanker - both sides accusing each other
of mudslinging. One thing which disturbs me about
Bush apart from his obvious lack of intellect and
even reasonable knowledge of rest of the world was the way he moved into safety & hiding after 9/11. ANY LEADER WITH GUTS WORTHY OF THE NAME WOULD HAVE GONE TO NEW YORK AND STOOD AT GROUND
ZERO WITH RUDI.
at November 28, 2005 4:22 PM
The enemy is Islam. Their book repeatedly urges the followers to strike at the people of the book. That's us, guys. Forget any limiting prefix or suffix to Islam. The enemy is Islam. They repeatedly state their intention to conquer the whole world. Doesn't anyone listen?
Posted by: winta at November 28, 2005 5:39 PM
Hugh, there is no policy disagreement I may have with you on this subject that I could ever invision which would detract from my profound admiration for the stand you have taken and the leadership you provide to those of us who take this life and death struggle seriously. Thank you.
Maybe it is my military background and the bitter legacy of "cut and run" which immutably influences my perspective. I must admit my feelings, especially after the thousands of hideous torture deaths inflicted upon my fellow citizens on 9/11, are visceral as well as intellectual.
I believe, as most American warriors I know do, that the soil of Iraq has been consecrated with the blood of American soldiers. They must be allowed to finish the job. In Iraq, it almost is. Fairly soon, the last American boot will be removed from the neck of the last humiliated terrorist and he will be turned over to the tender mercies of his fellow arabs. Then the democratically elected regime of Iraq will asssume the burden, for better or worse, of its own defense and destiny. Whatever it becomes, the endeavor will have served a great purpose. The rest of the Axis of Evil will be on notice.
Materially, Iraq is a turd pile, but each drop of American blood shed in the destruction of islamist fighters is a sacrament celebrated in the anti-jihad, a reminder of their impotence. A warning to their ambition and payment in kind for their violence. Each dead mujahid is a triumph in the only serious shooting war being waged on islam at the present time (the term islam being interchangable with terror in our world). The myth of our weakness is dispelled.
They really did not think it would come to this. Based upon the West's previous dhimmi submissiveness, they had no reason to. Jihad cannot force submission to islam if it cannot win at war because, historically, war, violent war, demographic war, or war in any of its other forms, is the only way they have been able to impose islam anywhere. War and death. It is just and ironic that those are exactly the wages of jihad right now.
There is no guerilla army in Iraq. Every time they assemble and pretend to take a stand they are exterminated in place. Make them keep paying the price in blood for the arrogance of Mohammed.
In historical terms, the present day United States of America is a military and economic colosus such has never existed in the history of mankind. We beat ourselves up and encourage the rest of the world to join in. We wear our faults like a hair shirt, but the limits we impose upon ourselves as a nation-state are self imposed in almost every respect. Self imposed for very good, just, and moral reasons in most cases. Many differ that resources expended exterminating murderous human cockroaches in Iraq are being squandered.
As for Iraq and the position the United States finds itself in now, we are not losing militarily. We may not be favorably reported by Al Jazeera or the BBC (George Patton didn't get any public relations breaks from Joseph Goebbels, either), but Islam's holy warriors are slaughtered wholesale whenever they are imprudent enough to attempt to immitate Saladin and take on the infidel crusaders mano a mano. This is the most profound of humiliations for the arab world.
Humiliation of the enemy is good. It destroys moral and breeds self doubt and feelings of impotence. Allah promises victory but cannot deliver. Is Allah not all powerful? Is it possible that the United States of America, the Great Satan, is taken just a little bit more seriously since 9/11 because of the pain we have inflicted upon the violent, faithful followers of the one true god and his prophet? They have been educated and continue to be taught that their delusional ambitions will have real consequences. As long as they continue to take us seriously, they will be greatly restrained with regards to the employment of mass murder in the U.S. homeland.
Why have we not found ourselves murdered wholesale in our shopping malls, pizza parlors, sporting events and airport security lines?
Take a stroll down Main Street. Look around and observe that Americans at work and play are the softest of soft targets. Hell, a determined mujahid with a garden implement could wreak hideous holy vengance on a target like the shoppers under the flashing blue light, let alone my little girl's first grade class. Why have we been spared thus far?
Global islamic terror today is state sponsored terror. Nothing grand in the name of Allah can happen without the support provided by nation-state sponsors. Without money, training, refuge and holy enocouragement from state sponsorship, we deal with nothing more significant than the Crips and Bloods with RPGs.
We must do and address all that Hugh mentions above but must not impose unnecessary limits on ourselves in this struggle. Iraq will serve us, not hinder us in bringin violent, arrogant islam to its knees in the west. The war in Iraq serves an important and useful purpose.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have put the terror masters in Iran and everywhere else on notice. They keep their state-sponsored terror dogs on a leash as far as the United States is concerned, because they now belive we are serious. They cling to their fantasy of "cut and run" based upon Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia (and Sens. Murtha, Reid, Kennedy, Levin, Durban, et al.). They restrain themselve for now because of Afghanistan and Iraq. Resources well invested.
Posted by: THw6kds at November 28, 2005 11:05 PM
NO SURRENDER TO JIHADISTS!!!
"We have just begun to fight" John Paul Jones
"Live free or die, death is not the worst of evils" John Stark, New Hampshire Revolutionaary War General
"Remember the Alamo!!!" Did Davey Crocket do the sensible thing and retreat to save resources?
Come on America - 2,000 dead and you want to throw in the towel? What a bunch of pussies.
Did George Washington do the sensible thing after his defeat at New York and slink back to Mount Vernon? No, he took what was left of his battered army, crossed the Delaware and marched all night to Trenton, Many of his troops marched through the freezing cold in bare feet, and some froze to death. And we are going to get licked by some illiterate Jordanian punk they let out of jail when we have the most powerful military the world has ever seen?
Shame on you America!!!
Posted by: GFB at November 28, 2005 11:10 PM
What can we do, as individuals, to combat the global jihad?
I've been reading this site for a while now, and the clear answer is to bring the general public up to speed on the reality of Islam, but how?
I consider myself to be a conservative, and yet even I thought that Islam was a peaceful religion on par with Christianity or Judaism...based on the B.S. I was fed through the major news outlets.
They actually had me believing that these terrorist "hijacked" a peaceful religion and were not really representative of Islam.
Clearly, the average US citizen knows little or nothing about TRUE Islam. Most of us haven't even read the Bible, let alone the Quran. Therefore, we are clearly uninformed on a mass scale in this country.
However, once Mr. Spencer's book arrived in the mail...I woke up! How can we wake up the rest of the populace? Telling them to order the book won't work. Most of the readers of this site seem to get the picture.
I used to hear that the Jews control the media. Well, why don't they use it to spread the word about Islam? I'm thinking now that they must not have any control of the media. Who does then?
Why is it that we can't disseminate this vital information in something other than a book which isn't even well-advertised?
Who is keeping this book on the down-low?
Forgive my naivety when it comes to these matters. I really have no idea who controls the media in this country or how it came to be that the media refuses to report on the problems inherent in the Islamic religion. I suspect that much of the leadership in Washington is "informed", but they're tight-lipped about it.
This Islamic scourge must be driven from our country and we need to start educating the younger generation about this conflict. It is far too late for this generation. Those of us on this site are just the lucky few that happened to dig deeper for information that wasn't being talked about in the major media.
Sadly, it will take 40 years of suicide bombings in this country for the apologists to wake up, pull the shrapnel out of their ass, and start working on a solution.
Posted by: thepatriot at November 28, 2005 11:16 PM
"And we are going to get licked by some illiterate Jordanian punk they let out of jail when we have the most powerful military the world has ever seen?"
--- from a posting above
"Get licked by some...Jordanian punk"? Leaving Iraq, so that Sunnis and Shi'a go at it, and Kurds make their move, and hoping that that going at it comes to preoccupy Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and Shi'a in the Islamic Republic of Iran, is not "getting licked." It is not crawling away. It is not cutting and running. It is in fact a declaration that the innocence of the "helping defeat the Jihad by helping Muslims" business is over, and that something quite different, and more ruthless, is beginning -- including the attempt to divide and demoralize Islam from within, and to cease to do anything to prevent internecine warfare.
Why that should be regarded as cowardice -- invocations of John Paul Jones (who later went to work for the Czar's navy), John Stark (whose wife Molly was even more impressive than he was), or Davy Crockett -- seem misplaced. Think of the O.S.S. during World War II. Think of Bletchley. Think of spies and atomic scientists. Think of how replenishable the camp of fanatics is, not least from the mental dregs and misfits of Western society, who find in Islam the ideal vehicle for their own mental and emotional desarroi.
"Live Free or Die," "Remember the Alamo," and "We Have Just Begun to Fight" will not quite fit the case. Military means are not the only or best means of containing Islam. Resources are finite, and should be husbanded. It is important not, in the initial stages, to waste those resources on what is now a senseless campaign, based on a failure to understand Islam or the nature of Iraq. Such "victory" as can be achieved was actually achieved when Saddam Hussein, and hence the Sunni despotism, was permanently overthrown. There is no further "victory" to be achieved, no further "mission" that makes sense. If one wished the Iraqis well, then of course one would prefer Allawi, or Chalabi, or even that man who is the best of the them but has no chance, the Sunni al-Alusi (whose two sons were murdered because al-Alusi had made dangerously friendly statements about Israel). If they somehow manage to make things work without the Americans, that will not be terrible. But the most important thing is not to promote "democracy" as some kind of curious alternative to Islam. In a Muslim state, it is not an alternative, but more likely, the vehicle for the triumph of Islam. "Democracy" in Turkey has been helping to undo Kemalism. "Democracy" in Egypt if really practiced would bring the Muslim Brotherhood far more power than it has now. "Democracy" in Syria would overthrow the Alawites, quasi-Muslims, nad bring in the "real" Muslims whom both the Alawites, and Christians in Syria, worry so much about (a little secret opinion poll conducted, say, among the Armenians of Aleppo would open some eyes).
Simply because the Adminstration does not realize that it has already extracted the most it possibly can in Iraq, by setting in motion the inexorable rise of the Shi'a, which in turn has set in motion the permanent discontent of most of the Sunnis (al-Alusi is a sport), and in the larger Sunni world, also created great unhappiness at the idea that Iraq, site of the Abbasid Caliphate, could possibly fall into the hands not only of Shi'a, but some taking as their maximum authority Al-Sistani, a Persian no less. Not to be tolerated. Sooner or later, must be undone. And there one locates the permanent seeds for conflict, not planted by the Americans, but by Islam itself, back in 661 A.D.
Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2005 11:33 PM
Whenever there is a cataclysm, and large numbers of people flee, they may end up settling in a few places rather than being scattered to the four corners. After the Russian Revolution, Russian emigres fled by the millions, and while a handful might end up, say, in Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro or Stockholm, or even later working for an oil company in Venezuela, most of them settled in Berlin, Paris, Prague, and Harbin.
The same is true for the Armenians who fled the Turks and Kurds, but did not make it to ships to carry them to Marseilles or Watertown, Massachusetts or Sausalito, California, but stayed right there, in Beirut and in Syria, in its second city, Haleb, or Aleppo, where Othello took by the throat a circumcised dog and smote him thus. The Armenian population was, and is, very large. The Armenians of course are protected, in a sense, by the Alawites who realize the Christians are no threat (Hafez al-Assad, like Saddam Hussein, had a palace contingent of Christians -- in the former case, of Armenians); both are worred about what Armenians in Aleppo can identify as "the 'real' Muslims." In Aleppo, where one side of town was essentially once Christian, with churches, and the other side Muslim, the "real" Muslims have in recent decades taken to deliberately building mosques on the Christian side of town, in some cases provocatively situated between churches. And then, on Fridays, the Muslims march in to their mosques in Christian neighborhoods. Needless to say, the bullying and threats directed at Armenians, as at all Christians, are on the increasse -- and are held in check only by the ruthless methods of the Syrian government.
Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 10:35 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)