Imagine that. Here we have a group of Moslems whining, claiming they were cheated. Wronged. Aggrieved Moslems.

HALAL HARAM HAREM HIRSUTE HISTIRONIC HALAL HARAM HAREM HARVARD

And so it has been since 615 AD whence, feet burning in the searing sands of Main Street Mecca, poor Mohammed went all postal after his Koreishi Kousins fially became miffed about his relentless threats of robbery and murder and complained to his rich uncle.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 20, 2005 1:41 PM

Let's see. Shi'a Arabs make up about 60% of the population in "Iraq." They received about 59% of the vote. Sunni Arabs make up about 20% (actually closer to 19%) of the population in "Iraq." They received about 19% of the vote. Need I go on?

The great hope for a multi-ethnic trans-sectarian govrenment was Iyad Allawi. He received 14 percent of the vote. And his supporters, the kind of people who would vote for him, are the kind of people who know English, and who are most likely to live in the cities where the foreign journalists travel and meet people, and of course where the American soldiers are most likely to engage in any kind of conversation, where such is possible. So, just as poliymakers in Washington consistently have taken unrepresentative people from Iraq -- Allawi, Chalabi, Rend al-Rahim, Kanan Makiya, not to mention those half-dozen "Iraqi" bloggers who are given such play at certain websites as "telling the truth about Iraq" to the "naysayers and the cut-and-runners")--so too, before this election, all sorts of dreamy prognostications were given by hallucinating psephologists from Baghdad to the Potomac.

And what about Chalabi himself, the Guide to Iraq, the man who promised so much, and was given so much in return (why, the invasion of an entire country, and several thousand American deaths and 15,00 wounded, and $300 billion spent), and has yet to deliver anything at all -- because, you see, he can't. Well, the Man Who Won Over Washington received 1/2 of 1 percent of the vote. He was at one time the informer, the promiser, the creator of dreams of "remaking Iraq and the Middle East." And so many wanted so much to believe him. For it relieved them of having to study, and analyze Islam, and they were too set in their mental ways to do that. Besides, wasn't Bernard Lewis meeting with Cheney and setting them straight on the possibilities for "democracy" in Iraq -- the spectacular possibilities in this wonderful country, with this fantastic well-educated "middle class" (like the cliches about the "soft Egyptians" this kind of thing went over well -- I can still hear J. B. Kelly's derisive laughter at all that talk of Iraq's middle class and Iraq's "intellectuals"). Now Chalabi isn't wicked. He did a great thing for his people - if his people are defined as the Shi'a Arabs. He helped convince the Americans to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and no one else would or could have done it. He deserves a medal, possibly to be awarded him by Sistani, right in Najaf -- if ayatollahs believed in medals. Chalabi is a perfectly nice and plausible fellow (so are they all, the "reformrs" in Cairo at the Ibn Khaldun Center, and Al-Ghadri the Syrian, and all those others). They are not representative men. They are unrepresentative men. Their interests are not those of Infidels. They want to gain power in order to ameliorate things. We want to create the conditions whereby, as in the Soviet Union with Gorbachev, Yakovlev, and other members of the Communist elite, Muslims themselves, or at least the elites, will be forced to rethink their commitment to Islam, even if a highly diluted one. By simply not assuming the Infidel Man's Burden (as Bush did, so foolishly, in Iraq)and continuing to believe that somehow "democracy" in these countries will diminish the long-term menace of Islam, Infidels will force Muslims within Dar al-Islam, no longer having such access to Western medical care, education, technology, arms, and expert advice, will be forced to fend more for themselves, and that will create such miserable conditions that they will be forced, as some Iranians are being forced, to
make the link that Ataturk once made, between Islam and their own political, economic, social, and intellectual failures. Meanwhile, having not as much but as little to do with the Muslim world as possible (buying oil, and no doubt selling some food, will continue, and so at a low level will other contacts, but no more immigration or easy tourism should be permitted from Muslim lands), we can concentrate on educating ourselves and others on the nature of Islam, and on the need to limit its possible role, in all respects, within what Muslims call the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2005 2:08 PM

We are seeing a symptom of tribal politics, so common in the Dar, where democracy is problematic. The Arab world, built on conquest, colonization and cultural strangulation, appears to have a pathological fear of it happening to them. Sunnis in Bahgdad do not want to accept their minority status and are threatening violence when the truth stares them in the face. I hope this can be patched up, because making these elections work is the only way to get our troops out of there without our tail between our legs.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at December 20, 2005 2:57 PM

"I hope this can be patched up, because making these elections work is the only way to get our troops out of there without our tail between our legs."
-- from a posting above

Nonsense. This whole rhetoric of "cutting and running" and leaving with "our tail between our legs" is fit for teenage boys and girls. It means nothing. If the goal -- Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations -- is unrealistic, and not merely unrealistic but hideously difficult even to attempt (think of trying to create a trustworthy military or police unit -- trustworthy both for the Americans, and for those within the unit -- out of Sunni and Shi'a Arabs, and Kurds, with possibly a dash of Turcomans and Christians for flavoring), and not merely unrealistic and hideously difficult even to attempt, but exactly the opposite of what the Americans should be doing if they want not merely to end the waste and misallocation of American resources -- men, money, materiel --but what's more, to inteligently exploit the real (and not the imaginary situation of some of our hallucinating leaders or people "taking a leadership role"), then the correct thing is to leave.

And that can be set up now. Stop talking about "
victory" and "defeat." These words are meangingless and even dangerous, because it causes people to believe that this war of self-defense against the Jihad is limited in time and space. It is not limited in time; it goes on forever. It is not limited in space, and certainly not to the tiny space of Iraq and surrounding areas.

Just a few last questions, your honor, for those who keep thinking that leaving Iraq is an admission of defeat. In the middle of the Iran-Iraq War, with all the "instability" it brought to the area, and all the threats to oil supplies (that didn't materialize), and all the possiblew things that might have happened to Infidels, would you have wished the Americans and other Infidels to have intervened, to have worked desperately to have stopped that war? Of course you wouldn't. Would you then have ardently wished to prevent that war from ever breaking out? Are you sorry, do you regret, that Saddam Hussein attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran virtually at its birth, and kept it occupied and preoccupied for eight years? And furthermore, that Iraq not only kept the Islamic Republic of Iran occupied, without being able to get down to business with its nuclear bomb projects (that happened only once the war with Iraq ended), but also soaked up both weaponry (those American tanks in the Saudi armory that had their markings painted over before being transferred to Iraq -- or don't you know about that?, and the $60 billiion (in 1980 dollars) that went to Iraq from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E.

Well, what about it? Glad the Iran-Iraq War started? Glad that it took eight years? Glad that it preoccupied both Iran and Iraq, and what's more, used up money and weaponry that the Saudis and other Sunni Arabs felt compelled to give to Iraq?

Yes, or no.

If yes, there are no further questions, your honor.

If no, I'm afraid this Infidel witness should be taken for psychiatric evaluation.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2005 4:02 PM

Oh Lawdy! Everytime one dares to hope THAT THINGS
MIGHT WORK OUT FOR IRAQ, these hopes are dashed by further violence or disagreement by Sunnis.
Fancy POSSESSION OF THE OIL IS MAJOR STUMBLING BLOCK as Sunnis don't have any in their territory.
With Chalabi, the smooth tongued,well groomed 'Westerner we can relate to Darling of Democracies' only getting 14% of vote speaks for
itself - he ain't going nowhere except possibly fleeing to U.S when Iraq starts to splinter apart. If this happens, Bush will fall as 'The Great Democratic Adventure' will be revealed as a Gargantuan waste of billions of dollars,blood of Infidel soldiers watering the sand and burnt out expensive military equipment. Would advise Bush 'to fall on his sword' as disgraced or unsuccessful Roman commanders did rather than eat up any more Taxpayers money on being Impeached. Note , his crony Tony Blair is down in opinion polls with Tories leading... Trawling
through BBC Have Your Say "Was Blair a good E.U
President' out of 84 replies only 3 or 4 had a good word to say about him.See that BUSH & BLAIR
ARE REPRESENTED AS A PANTO HORSE AT MADAME TUSSAUDS-BLAIR IS THE REAR END!

Posted by: Morgane at December 20, 2005 4:19 PM

And thus begins a democracy, I bet one could not have voiced dissatisfaction before without fear of reprisal or death, it is funny to see that with freedom comes blindness to the fact that you can voice your opinion without meeting Sadaam's henchmen.

The joy of freedom.

Posted by: chuck at December 20, 2005 4:52 PM

That's the way the cookie crumbles. And Iraq is definitely a crumbly cookie. There isn't truly any such thing as the "Iraqi people". All there is, besides the various ideological fanaticisms, is a bunch of warring ethnic groups. These groups were only brought together in a forced shotgun wedding to begin with. Therefore there's no point in anyone wasting their lives to save this doomed marriage.

Let it fall to pieces. No point in saving those who don't want to be saved. They don't want to be together, and the politicians making all these conflicting charges to undermine the country aren't even opposed by the lukewarm masses who don't care enough to fight for their own national unity. I'm reminded of a quote from a Vietnam Vet who said he saw some young Vietnamese guys partying downtown in Saigon, and he couldn't understand why he was on the battlefield instead of them, fighting for their freedom instead of them doing it.

"Iraq," if it exists, is for Iraqis to save, if there is even such a thing as "Iraqis". If they really value their "Iraq" and their liberty, then they'll expend the blood, sweat and tears to defend it, and learn some lessons in the process. No point in someone doing it for them, and saving them on learning those valuable lessons.

Posted by: sanman at December 20, 2005 5:18 PM

Is that the Infidel Man's Burden now? While Europe is threatened with islamization, while already Australia, France, Holland, England, Sweden and Spain have suffered, and are suffering, from the Muslim presence within, and while only relatively small numbers, and a much more aggressive attitude by non-Muslims, keeps the problem still manageable here, we are to bring "the joy of freedom" to Iraq, and presumably to other places as well, because we have all the time, all the energy, all the money (why spend that $350 billion or so on other sources of energy and on consrevation -- what conceivable good could that do?) and of course an infinitely replenishable supply of volunteers, regular army, Reservists and National Guard, who are quite convinced that their own efforts, and that of other American soldiers, are really changing things in the Middle East, and diminishing the menace of Islam by the minute.

Deck the Halls with Boughs of Holly. Bring, Americans, the "joy of freedom" to SCIRI and DAWA and the Party of Moqtada al-Sadr. And keep killing those Sunnis, and being killed by them, for the sake of those Shi'a who hate you, but don't want to leave as long as you keep doing what they would otherwise feel they might have to do, and it is so much easier not only to have the American soldiers fight (or not fight - just be sitting ducks in convoys) and die, because the longer they are there, don't forget, the more money the Americans will continue to distribute like confetti (because "poverty" is also a problem, and who better to solve the problem of Muslim poverty that is a result of Muslim inshallah-fatalism and Muslim misrule, than those generous, good-hearted, incredible, and incredibly innocent, Americans -- and then we boot them out).

"The Joy of Freedom."

Only for those who earn it themselves, not those who use it only in order to press their own ethnic or sectarian advantage, and only because it has been pressed upon them by outsiders whose own sacrifices, not those of the locals (shall I tell stories, the stories that American soldiers tell, about how those brave Iraqis let them down, and leave them in the lurch, time after time? Do you want the full lowdown, or do you want handouts from Civil Affairs people who are told what to say?).

"The Joy of Freedom."

What's next for long-suffering Americans? Where else shall we go to transform entire societies by ignoring the costs, ignoring the real threats, and spending -- well, it's not our rulers money, they are well-provided for -- like gangbusters, when, at the very beginning of what will be at least a Hundred Years' War, we need to husband everything - men, money, materiel, and above all, morale, that is the spirit not to appease but to exploit every advantage.

Iraq offers us an advantage to exploit. The only way to exploit that advantage is to get out, and let the "Iraqis" be "Iraqis." From time to time, a little arms drop to the Kurds, a little bombing on behalf of the Kurds, but not much more than that.

Or stay, and ensure defeat -- the defeat of holding the damn country together, and stuck, like Brer Bear, right up against the tarbaby of Iraq.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2005 5:19 PM

From Iraq we now turn to Afghanistan:

Another dumb ass suicide bomber
Jeehawd donkey bomb alert.
In Afghanistan last week a German aid vehicle was damaged by a donkey bomb: a land-mine attached to a donkey.
Details from Reuters.
No humans were hurt but the donkey was "blown to bits". Was this a Muslim donkey? If so is he in paradise enjoying his 72 virgin asses? Is the carcass of a donkey who dies in the path of jihad haram or halal? Just wondering.

By the way Hugh, wan't that Muslim on Muslim civil war in Afghanistan a great thing? You know, the one after the Russians left that brought the Taliban and OBL to power.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at December 20, 2005 5:45 PM

off topic slightly...

BBC Newsnight: about 7:50 minutes in
april 2006 : "american troops due to start withdrawing from iraq"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight

yeah - withdrawing alright. in the direction of Iran.

Posted by: archduke at December 20, 2005 5:49 PM

My hat is off to you Hugh for defining the "Joy Of Freedom".

Posted by: chuck at December 20, 2005 5:54 PM

As if cries of fraud are not standard fair in most third world elections? As if Democrats have never cried fraud in America?...how about the last two elections.

What is astonishing is that Hugh and now even Robert seem almost eager to have Democracy fail in Iraq...perhaps so their views will be vindicated.

Meanwhile, since when is 2000 American war dead in Iraq "several thousand"?

Might the hyperbole meter be off the scale?

Posted by: Cornelius at December 20, 2005 6:24 PM

Hello all,

A difficult & painful period for the Iraqi people. On the one hand you have the shia who may see power in Iraq for themselves for the 1st time and ofcourse will support the voting process that gets them the power.

The sunni ofcourse don't have the oil and now don't have the power either. The Kurds taking it easy for the momemt with "uncle sam" in the middle attempting to smooth over the cracks in between biting burgers and sipping coke.

Add to that the fact that a new country is being built on a constitution alien to the people (despite it being good for them) and you have a powerful mix of conflicts.

People here say "Let it fall to pieces. No point in saving those who don't want to be saved".

Actually, most of them do want to be saved & would love to grab the freedom on offer...but it's those nasty insurgents who won't let them line up for it. The US cavilary of course is on hand to offer protection ....but often need protection themselves and theirin lies the rub. The Iraqis are stuck in between a hard place & several rocks. So, where do we go from here?

Well my take on this is that there will be lots of difficulties & growing pains before any sort of stability comes about (sort of saying the obvious maybe).

A US/ME style constitution may take years with multipe sets of elections before an acceptaple face of Iraq and a leader of any sect is chosen and accepted. Lets take a couple of examples of the past:

1) How long did it take for the Welsh & Scottish peoples to 1st accept English rule & then to accept that actually a Welsh or Scottish person ...could head the country too.
A L O N G time.

2) When the Yankees stuck it to the Confeds...it took many years before ...a confed could be part of the country's government, southern accent & aull ..but even today there is still some underlying feeling always simmering there.

The Iraqi situation is more complex because of the tribal aspects ....but hopefully over time some of them will start to come together (I mean lots of them watch TV together, socialising smoking Huka).

The US need to stay guiding & protecting without actually interfering....but it will take a while. This means anything upto another 4-10years stay in Iraq at least.

Posted by: Naseem at December 20, 2005 6:25 PM

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/12/muslimfriend.shtml
Putin Calls Russia Defender of Islamic World
Created: 12.12.2005 18:05 MSK
Russia is the most reliable partner of the Islamic world and most faithful defender of its interests, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Chechnya’s capital Grozny. Putin unexpectedly visited the war-ravaged republic to speak in the local parliament that opened for its first sitting on Monday.

“Russia has always been the most faithful, reliable and consistent defender of the interests of the Islamic world. Russia has always been the best and most reliable partner and ally. By destroying Russia, these people (terrorists) destroy one of the main pillars of the Islamic world in the struggle for rights (of Islamic states) in the international arena, the struggle for their legitimate rights,” Putin was quoted by Itar —Tass as saying, drawing applause from Chechen parliamentarians.

“Those who are trying to defend these false (extremist) ideals, those who are used as cannon fodder, who plant a mine for ten dollars or shoot with automatic weapons either do not know or have forgotten this,” the president said.

“Those who organize such activity certainly do this deliberately, understanding what goals they want to achieve,” Putin went on to say.
The leaders of the main Islamic states understand this, he added.

“For this reason their representatives were present at the general voting in the referendum on the Constitution of the Chechen Republic, they were at the presidential elections; both the Organization of Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States, our colleagues and friends were present at the elections to the parliament.”

Putin said that “member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference have unanimously passed a decision that Russia will begin working as an observer on a permanent basis”.

“And we shall continue our activity within the framework of this organization. Quite recently a delegation of Russia’s Muslims has been to Mecca to discuss the problems of Muslim world development with their brothers. I repeat: Russia will pursue this policy,” the president added.

President Vladimir Putin paid a surprise morale-boosting visit to Chechnya Monday, flown into the war-wracked province by helicopter under tight security. Putin declared the turbulent region was on the road to peace.

Russia, a country with a total population of approximately 144 million, has 23 million Muslim residents representing 38 peoples, according to the Council of Muftis of Russia.

So if this story is correct then Vlad is OKAY WITH BLESLAN??
Ask why I would say that because the mulsums were doing what they do rape and kill others for their land??

OH HOW I FEEL SORRY FOR THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE!!
JUST THINK NO VODKA, DANCING, MUSIC, SWIMSUITS ON WOMEN HOW SAD AND WHAT ABOUT THE CHURCH. OH MY??

YES WE WILL SOON SEE THE CHURCHES BURNING LIKE IN KOSSOVO HOW SAD SAD SAD!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

PS
BUT THIS IS A LITTLE ICEING ON THE CAKE!!

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/09/poolcollapse.shtml

AND WE CANT FORGET THIS??

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/09/minimdam.shtml
The country’s top environmental agency, meanwhile, ordered a nationwide inspection of major factories near rivers to prevent a similar disaster from happening in the future, Xinhua said. Widespread contamination prevention efforts have been underway in China and Russia since an explosion on Nov 13 at a PetroChina chemical factory in the northeast Chinese province of Jilin.

The accident led to the spillage of 100 tons of the carcinogens benzene and nitrobenzene into the Songhua River, one of China’s longest waterways and a source of water for millions. The Songhua flows into the Heilong river which is connected by waterways to a river on the Russian side.

MAKES YOU WONDER DON'T IT??

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/08/chinesedetain.shtml
200 Illegal Chinese Migrants Detained in Moscow
Created: 08.12.2005

OH BUT WAIT A MIN??

The Chinese citizens were arrested at a dormitory belonging to a Moscow fur factory. The first attempt to detain them was made by local police and migration officials a week ago, but all the Chinese had disappeared by the time they arrived.

The detainees are being held at several police stations, and authorities are working out a plan for their deportation. A criminal case will be launched against those who allowed them to stay at the dormitory

MIGHT LEARN FROM THAT!!

Posted by: Catherine at December 20, 2005 6:26 PM

nasseem don't be so happy??

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2005/12/20/indiamissiles.shtml
India Buys $400M Worth of Russia Missile Systems — Source
Created: 20.12.2005

Russia has signed a contract to deliver a batch of Tunguska-M1 missile weapon systems to India, a source in the military-industrial complex told Interfax agency on Tuesday, Dec. 20.

“In accordance with the recently signed contract India will receive four batteries of Tunguska-M1 systems. The total cost of the project amounted to about $400 million,” the source said.

GOOD THING!!

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/09/israeliran.shtml
Russia Dismisses Iranian Leader’s Call to Move Israel to Europe
Created: 09.12.2005

The Iranian president’s proposal that Germany and Austria give up some of their territory to make room for an Israeli state contradicts the international community’s perception of Israel as a sovereign state, Russian Foreign Minister’s special envoy to the Middle East Alexander Kalugin said, the Interfax news agency reported.

“This is in line with previous Iranian statements on Israel. The proposal is unacceptable,” Kalugin told Interfax on Friday.

“Yes, Israel has problems with Palestinians, but there is a path to peace. According to the roadmap plan, both states, Israel and the Palestinian state, should finally live together in peace and security,” Kalugin said

OH MY??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at December 20, 2005 6:36 PM

And some of us believe that Islam itself IS FRAUDULENT!!!!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at December 20, 2005 7:21 PM

"The US need to stay guiding & protecting without actually interfering....but it will take a while. This means anything upto another 4-10years stay in Iraq at least."
-- from a Muslim poster above

Oh no it doesn't. Why should we stay "guiding and protecting"? Why? Whom exactly would we guide, and whom would we be protecting? Standing between Sunnis and Shi'a, and keeping them from being at each others' throats, while American soldiers are blown up? And whom should we be rightly guiding? And what better way to rightly guide than to leave them alone to contemplate what Islam means and does? The belief, by some Muslims, that we should stay to make "Iraq" a splendid "nation-state" is just as absurd, but not as quite as maddening, as those Infidels in our present Administration who with an obstinate inability to admit, to themselves and others, how little they knew about Iraq, how little they know about Islam, and simply lack the intelligence and cunning and ability to articulate that are necessary. So they should get out of way, as quickly as possible, or at least have the sense and decency to listen to others.

Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2005 7:33 PM

Time may be a luxury that both the Iraqis and Americans don't have.

If Mr "there is a light shining about me" Ahmadenijad keeps on his current track, I'd say another war in the Middle East is quite likely by next spring/summer, after Israel strikes the nuclear facilities in Iran.

Iraqis had better decide where their loyalties lie, with their country or their particular religious/ethnic sect.

Posted by: treehugger at December 20, 2005 8:06 PM

Posted by: treehugger at December 20, 2005 08:06 PM

Me I'd take out all their shipping and oil stations will hurt them more and of course they can make another Chernoblel??

A few mosques at prayer might be a good Idea too!!

No I say take out their oil refinarys this will leave them with nothing to sell and is not protected??

Yes it will kill a lot of people but what the hey it is have the world wiped out or kill a few people ??

May Israel get her King David back!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER [ISRAEL TOO] GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT AND GIVE THE WORLD BALLS TO STAND TOGETHER TO DESTROY THIS EVIL SET UPON THE WORLD AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at December 20, 2005 8:18 PM

Hugh,

We owed a debt to the Iraqis for some recent historical injustices (UN Oil-for-Food not least among them) and bad foreign policy decisions (post-Gulf War especially). No other majority Muslim nation in the region deserves similar consideration.

You're probably right already! Hope over convincing statistics and arguments will win the day, for now.

Posted by: Beagle at December 20, 2005 8:42 PM

Hugh,
You seem to me an extremely articulate and educated man. Your negative views of this 'Iraq' war are puzzling in the sense that perhaps a larger scenario is being employed?
Dr. Bostom, Richard Scaff, and Robert Spencer have all amply demonstrated the Islamist long term strategy of infiltration, attack, withdraw, attack, terrorize, etc. until they feel strong enough to occupy a land and then deplete it of resources.
Do you think given the 'PC' western mindset and its insatiable need for black gold, that maybe we are playing a little of their playbook.
We were/are faced with a wide geographic swath of Muslim countries from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. As yet Indonesia and other countries are somewhat geographically isolated. So, why not employ a 'divide & conquer' strategy.
First create a divide - Afghanistan
Second create another divide - Iraq
Thirdly, Iran (?)
With Pakistan opportunistically supporting a war on 'terrorism', Syria, and the house of Saud are easy to topple once their armed neighbors are otherwise occupied either by democracy or civil (hah!) war or tribal differences.
I am just a simple person attempting to grasp this collision of good/evil ideologies.
What are your thoughts?
Regards,

Posted by: GA_boy at December 20, 2005 10:03 PM

No humans were hurt but the donkey was "blown to bits". Was this a Muslim donkey? If so is he in paradise enjoying his 72 virgin asses? Is the carcass of a donkey who dies in the path of jihad haram or halal? Just wondering.
By the way Hugh, wan't that Muslim on Muslim civil war in Afghanistan a great thing? You know, the one after the Russians left that brought the Taliban and OBL to power.
Posted by: Malta_1565 at December 20, 2005 05:45 PM

ROTFL! ROTFL!!

Gold Star for you today!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WOLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN

PS
SO Iraq has an Al Gore boy this makes them all the more western every day!! will we see the chads??

PSS
Hugh
Where did it get the west to let them fight they didn't kill enough of each other??

until this war is Fought like our Grandparants fought their war if the mulsums are a all savages this is the only thing that can save the world not just letting them fight each other to have some who run to the west to hide in wait??

NO what is being done for the Iraqi people is a chance to save them will they take this Gift of FREEDOM??

if not well then at least we tried to give them a chance at life!!

Posted by: Catherine at December 20, 2005 10:03 PM

Hugh,

I have found many of your comments and thoughts extremely informative. Additionally, your bravery and time with this project are greatly appreciated.

On the issue of Iraq, I think you may be overlooking a crucial issue. Regardless of the wisdom of going in (I had problems with the severe lack of planning or foresight in the occupation), we are there. Like it or not, we have staked our national will on this mission. A constant refrain from the Islamists has been American weakness: lack of will and fortitude. Vietnam, Beirut, and Somolia are the "proofs" that America is a paper tiger. That we are all bark and no bite. A reason the Jihadists hit us throughout the 90's was our lack of forceful response and the belief that America would not take the fight overseas for a sustained period (beyond pinprick missile strikes). A belief that America cannot take any casualties (think less than 20 rangers to force the US from Somolia)

One thing we have shown in Iraq: America is willing to take casualties and has the will to persist in the fight. Iraq has become a test of character, and we are proving that America is not the nation the Islamist ideology claimed. If we give the appearance of being forced out by the insurgents, we will have reinforced the "weak America" ideology. We will have confirmed for that America will not stay in the fight for the long term. Additionally, if we appear to leave the Iraqis high and dry, nobody else will trust us. Our allies will not trust us, and will make separate de facto deals with the Islamists. They will not continue in the Global War. We will never again be able to occupy an Islamic country and receive willing support from the people.

Regardless of the wisdom of going into Iraq (I don't believe the admin understood the incompatibility of Islam with democracy and why Turkey was the only democracy in the Islamic World. Nor did they really perceive the vast differences between Sunni, Shiite, Kurd). We are in Iraq and have staked ourselves on some image of order before leaving. Much has been accomplished in Iraq: Schools, infrastructure, etc., despite the MSM accounts. Additionally, the number of casualties is miniscule. In fact, the per capita annual murder rate in Washington DC is higher. In other words, there is more chance of being murdered in DC than a soldier dying in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, the main thing now is to focus on the worldwide Jihad. Frankly, I believe the decisive point of this struggle has moved to Europe. We must find alternate fuel sources so we don't have to worry about the ME. Additionally, we must start taking the ideological struggle to the heart of Islam. Any way to get the truth in: TV/Satellite/Missionaries/MSM in the West reporting the truth, etc. The key to eventual victory is sewing the seeds of truth in the Islamic World. At some point, the truth about Islam will bring the whole religion down like a house of cards.

Frankly, my big concern right now is information. If Westerners are forced to accept the truth of the situation, they will understand that they have no choice but to get tough and fight. It is a war of survival, whether we like that or not.

Posted by: hello123 at December 20, 2005 10:45 PM

Remember remember remember!

The map of the Middle East was drawn up by Europeans and the US. It was imposed on the indiginous people of the region from the outside.

Why do they hate us and want to kill us? Because, for more than a thousand years, we have gone to where they are and tried to impose our will upon them.

Why do people keep pretending that further attempts to impose our will upon them will, after ten centuries, suddenly start working?

Posted by: Biff Usually at December 20, 2005 10:48 PM

Biff-

PLEASE take time to read some history before commenting. I suggest Robert's Politically Incorrect to Islam and the Crusades as a good start.

Posted by: treehugger at December 21, 2005 12:45 AM

Posted by: hello123 at December 20, 2005 10:45 PM

Gold Star for you today!!

Now I have to Put the Foot up so the swelling stays down have a Dance to go to in a couple of weeks!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at December 21, 2005 12:47 AM

Treehugger-

Perhaps our sources have different views on Islam and the Crusades.

But I am not speaking from ignorance. I have read a leeetle bit of history. A tiny bit.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific when you belittle my comment. Are you denying that Great Britain et. al. had the biggest role in deciding what the countries would be, and what resources they would contain, and which families would rule? Or are you saying that the armor merchants weren't one of the loudest voices calling for the Crusades? What are you saying?

And if you are going to be snotty, at least include the entire title of the book you want me to read. Maybe the word Guide was omitted?

Posted by: Biff Usually at December 21, 2005 12:57 AM

Sorry for the OT - here is a new techniqueof Jihad from India

Paving the way for Islamistan
Dec 19, 2005 The Pioneer

Some 46 organisations accompanied by 420 Muslim luminaries have reportedly presented a memorandum to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and urged that agricultural land in the possession of Muslims be transferred from the law of the land to the Muslim Personal Law - rather like the rules of marriage and divorce. If this ridiculous demand is met, the country would lose its sovereignty over lakhs of land parcels. These territories would become quasi-wakfs. According to Islamic theology, wakf properties belong to Allah the Merciful, which make every property a micro Islamistan.

Sorry I cannot find the link - the same link contains new material everyday at the newspaper (http://www.dailypioneer.com).

Posted by: ik at December 21, 2005 1:00 AM

"The map of the Middle East was drawn up by Europeans and the US. It was imposed on the indiginous people of the region from the outside."

"Why do they hate us and want to kill us? Because, for more than a thousand years, we have gone to where they are and tried to impose our will upon them."
-- from a posting above

Nonsense, from first to last. Who drew the borders of Saudi Arabia, of Yemen, of Oman, and who prevented the larger, predatory countries from swallowing up the smaller sheikdoms? As far as Iraq goes, the only border that really matters is that between Iraq and Iran, between the Arab and the Persian lands. And that border was set in 1847, by the Treaty of Erzrum, which had nothing to do with the West, but was an agreement between the Ottoman Empire and the Empire of Persia. So much for this nonsense about outside powres. What's next -- complainnig about "post-colonialism" that never seems to have an end date?

As for the second charge, the poster clearly has not been reading his Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.l For if he had he would see that "they hate us and want to kill us" because they are instructed to hate the Infidels, and this instruction, this hostility and even murderous hatred of Infidels, extends right through Islam. It virtually defines Islam, once one goes beyond the rituals (the five pillars) of individual worship. They "hate us and want to kill us" for the same reason that Muslims murder Hindus in Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh, or Buddhists in Thailand, or Christians in black Africa, from the Sudan to Nigeria (remember Biafra?). It is nothing we do. It is not, pace Bush, because we "love freedom and they hate it." No, it is because they are Muslims, and we are not, we are Infidels, and Infidels everywhere who do not immediately yield to Islam, who act to prevent the takeover of their lands, slowly or rapidly, by Da'wa and demographic conquest, are enemies of Islam and fit to be killed.

That's it. End of story.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 1:04 AM

Hey I got the link

Paving the way for Islamistan
http://www.dailypioneer.com/displayit1.asp?pathit=/archives2/dec2005/oped/opd4.txt

Posted by: ik at December 21, 2005 1:05 AM

Biff Usually: "The map of the Middle East was drawn up by Europeans and the US. It was imposed on the indiginous people of the region from the outside.

Why do they hate us and want to kill us? Because, for more than a thousand years, we have gone to where they are and tried to impose our will upon them."

First off, the United States is 230 years old, not a thousand years. In particular, we had nothing to do with the Crusades, which seems to be one of the big excuses for today's installment of Islamic barbarity.

Second, except for mediating the Israeli situation via the United Nations, the United States had nothing directly to do with setting the current boundaries in the Middle East. The United States is dealing with the situation as it is, not as it might be in some analytical thought experiment.

Third, the Islamic states, in the form of the Barbary Pirates, began attacking the United States in the early 1780s, even before our own Constitution was completed. What supposed imposition on the poor Middle Eastern countries by the United States was fueling hatred by these Islamic terrorists in those days? Nothing. The Arab (and Persian) countries are and were driven simply by routine Islamic religious imperatives. Just like Arnold Schwarzeneger's Terminator: "killing [infidels and the other] is what they do, and they will never stop."

Fourth, who are the "indigenous people" of the region? You apparently are granting this privileged status to the Islamic barbarians who, for over a thousand years (really), raped, looted, and slaughtered their way to power as they destroyed Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Coptic, and other civilizations.

Fifth, we (the United States) have imposed and are imposing nothing on the Middle Eastern countries. We are attempting to mediate a solution in Israel and Palestine, based on the nation-state model (a model of civilization which Islam, the "religion of peace" rejects outright). We have removed an Iraqi dictator and mass murderer who was directly threatening us, our allies, and the entire region of the Middle East. We did not confiscate the Iraqi oil, not even as war reparations, nor did we simply pull out and leave the Iraqis to the fate of a violent civil war. Rather than pursuing a simple punitive raid on a vicious enemy, we are now taking the moral course and allowing the former enemy a chance at self-determination. That this attempt will probably fail, because of the inherent intolerance, implacable hostility, and total intellectual corruption of Islam, does not mean that we should not try.

If the Iraqi experiment does fail, and I expect it probably will in the long run, then we have to transition to a new strategic approach, perhaps along the "big stick" lines that Teddy Roosevelt might have taken. Perhaps we will stop trying to rescue these people and start punishing them with overwhelming deadly force. The next time a bunch of Saudis fly airliners into New York skyscrapers, we would formally declare war on Saudi Arabia, seize their oil fields, and lay waste to their country. No rebuilding, no sympathy, no compromise. Like Sean Connery said (paraprased) in the movie The Untouchables, "when they put one of yours in the hospital, you put ten of theirs in the morgue."

Posted by: Stendec at December 21, 2005 1:11 AM

"We owed a debt to the Iraqis for some recent historical injustices (UN Oil-for-Food not least among them) and bad foreign policy decisions (post-Gulf War especially)."
-- from a posting above

What? Why does the United States owe Iraq anything? The Oil-For-Food scandal involved decisions by the Iraqi governement in cahoots with assorted criminals, especially those at the U.N. Why are we responsible? And what are the "bad foreign policy decisisions" that make us "owe" Iraq anything?

But even if we did "owe Iraq" anything (and we never did, and the very idea of "owing" them something strikes me as absurd -- we are the last country on earth that owes them anything, or perhaps the second to the last, after Israel), haven't 2,200 dead, 15,000 wounded, and about $300 billion in past and present expenses paid any conceivable (entirely imaginary) debt? Hasn't deposing the mass-murderer who had been in power for more than a quarter-century, and who with his sons might have continued the dynasty for another fifty years, quite enough? And all those schools and hospitals and power grids and water treatment palnts -- how about that? How much do we "owe" Iraq? Another six months? Another year of the "democracy-is-on-the-march" farce? How much?

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 1:13 AM

i THINK HE DOES PROTEST TO MUCH MAYBE BIF IS REALLY MO-HAM-OD??

Maybe the Church needs another Vlad??

http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Dracula.html
http://hamsterrepublic.com/html/vladhistory.html
Vlad's Interesting yet Educational Page
Vlad the Prince of Wallachia
The word Voevod means Warlord-Prince. For those of you who aren't familiar with the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler, he was the prince of Wallachia during the time of the Ottoman Empire's attempts to take over parts of Eastern Europe in the 1400's.
He helped John Hunyadi, the white knight, to defend their homelands from the turkish advances.

READ THE WHOLE THING?
JUST HIGH LIGHTS!!

Vlad decided that the only way to oust the Turks, and become the true prince of Wallachia, was to enlist the help of John Hunyadi- the very man who had murdered his father and brother. Vlad was willing to put this aside to defeat their common enemy, the Sultan.
Hunyadi agreed to back Vlad militaraly. Vlad and Hunyadi were successfull in driving out Radu, who had been made prince by the Sultan when Vlad excaped. Vlad retook the Wallachian throne, beginning his second, and most infamous reign.

AGAIN READ THE WHOLE THING!!

Once, two ambasadors from the Sultan came with a message for Vlad. When they entered his throne room, he asked them to remove their turbans. It was considered rude to address the prince without taking off one's hat. The Turks, however, took exception to this request. For one thing, Vlad an the Sultan where not on good terms, so insulting him really didn't seem to matter, and just as importantly, the turbans were not just headgear, they were a symbol of the Muslim religion. The Turks refused, not knowing just how serious a mistake it was to insult Vlad. Vlad immediately ordered his guards to sieze them, and then stated that if they were so unwilling to part with the turbans, that they should be nailed to their heads. Vlad then watched in satisfaction as the Turks writhed and screamed as large nails were driven into their skulls.

AGAIN READ THE WHOLE THING!!

Vlad was informed by his spies of the great power of the approaching Turkish army. He knew that his forces could not win in open battle, and that he lacked the resourses to survive a long siege, so he undertook a very desperate venture. In the middle of the night, Vlad personally led a small elite force into the Turkish camp in the hopes of taking the Sultan off guard and killing him. If the Sultan died, the Turkish troops would be so demoralised that they might retreat. Thanks to the element of suprise, and excellent knowledge of the local terrain, Vlad's midnight offensive was almost successful. The Sultan was wounded, although not fataly, and Vlad's entire force escaped without casualties. (this battle was recorded in great detail by a Turkish soldier)
But the attack did not stop the Turkish army. Vlad retreated to his castle at Targoviste, and prepared to flee. His wife, believing that escape was impossible, comitted suicide by leaping off of a clift into a river. The river was afterwards known as the Princess River. Vlad was hit by a second tragedy as he and his servants escaped through the forest on horseback-- the servant who was carrying Vlad's infant son dropped him. The pursuing Turks were too close to risk turning back to look for the child, so they were forced to leave him behind. In one day Vlad had lost both his home and his family.
Seeking help, Vlad went to King Mathias of Hungary-- but Vlad's evil deeds finally caught up with him. People from some of the villages most persecuded by Vlad had gotten to Mathias first. They told the king that Vlad was an ally of the Turks, and coming as a spy. When Vlad arrived, he was immediately thrown into prison.
The Turks did not stay long in Targoviste. They were greeted by the impaled heads of several of their spies. Before fleeing, Vlad had set fire to the city, rendering it into ruins. The Turks took the city anyway, but after only a few days, Black Plague broke out among the soldiers, and they were forced to retreat out of Wallachia.

AGAIN THIS IS REAL HISTORY READ THE WHOLE THING

http://members.aol.com/johnfranc/drac05.htm
Vlad Dracula

AN INTRIGUING FIGURE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
By Benjamin H. Leblanc
valmont@lanzen.net
M.Sc. Student, Sociology of Religion
University of Montreal, Canada

READ THE WHOLE THING!!

Vlad Tepes was born in November or December 1431, in the fortress of Sighisoara, Romania. His father, Vlad Dracul, at that time appointed military governor of Transylvania by the emperor Sigismund, had been inducted into the Order of the Dragon about one year before. The order - which could be compared to the Knights of the Hospital of St. John or even to the Teutonic Order of Knights - was a semimilitary and religious society, originally created in 1387 by the Holy Roman Emperor and his second wife, Barbara Cilli. The main goals of such a secret fraternal order of knights was mainly to protect the interests of Catholicism, and to crusade against the Turks. There are different reasons why this society is so important to us. First, it provides an explanation for the name "Dracula;" "Dracul," in Romanian language, means "Dragon", and the boyars of Romania, who knew of Vlad Tepes' father induction into the Order of the Dragon, decided to call him "Dracul." "Dracula," a diminutive which means "the son of Dracul," was a surname to be used ultimately by Vlad Tepes. A second major role of this Order as a source of inspiration for Stoker's evil character is the Order's official dress - a black cape over a red garment - to be worn only on Fridays or during the commemoration of Christ's Passion.
In the winter of 1436-1437, Dracul became prince of Wallachia (one of the three Romanian provinces) and took up residence at the palace of Tirgoviste, the princely capital. Vlad Tepes followed his father and lived six years at the princely court. In 1442, for political reasons, Dracula and his younger brother Radu were taken hostage by the Sultan Murad II; Dracula was held in Turkey until 1448, while his brother Radu decided to stay there until 1462. This Turkish captivity surely played an important role in Dracula's upbringing; it must be at this period that he adopted a very pessimistic view of life. Indeed, the Turks set him free after informing him of his father's assassination in 1447 - organized by Vladislav II. He also learned about his older brother's death - Mircea was the eldest legitimate son of Dracul - and how he had been tortured and buried alive by the boyars of Tirgoviste

READ THE WHOLE THING YES REAL !!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT AMEN

PS

OKAY Irally mean it!!

Posted by: Catherine at December 21, 2005 1:14 AM

"[if we leave Iraq] we give the appearance of being forced out by the insurgents, we will have reinforced the "weak America" ideology."
-- from a posting above

No, we don't. Not if we leave and in leaving, give all sorts of indications that a much more ruthless, harder, realistic policy is now in force, and we don't care any more about helping Iraq to find "democracy" or to be propped up by American soldiers and American money. They had their chance. That's it. The sectarian and ethnic divisions within Iraq are to our advantage. We leave, not in retreat, but now -- much more alarmingly for Muslims, with a less naive, much more dangerous (for them) attitude. We talk about Sudan, and holding the southern part and Darfur. We make plans to destroy Iran's nuclear project and carry it out, perhaps with assistance from our surest allies. We discuss not "a murderous ideology" on every possible occasion, but "Jihad" and "the various instruments of Jihad, including combat, wealth, Da'wa, and demographic conquest" (and quotes about all of these can be supplied from Muslim sources quite easily).

If all of this is done, and of course as we leave the Sunnis and the Shi'a will already be going at it, there won't be any time for the Muslim world to gloat. Not when they realize, with panic, the new strategy: that is, to create within the Dar al-Islam a situation where, bereft of Western aid, Western technology, Western sympathy, Western interest, and facing a world that knows more and more about Islam as a belief-system and as a source of historic oppression and cultural and lingustic imperialims, will become ever more uneasy defending Islam, and will, furthermore, be subject to a barrage of articles, books, programs tracing the link between Islam and the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim peoples and polities. And those will filter into Muslim societies. And will be impossible to rebut them, for one good reason.

All the arguments that make that connection will be true.

No need to stick to the tarbaby for fear of giving Muslim enemies the wrong idea. They will get the right idea, soon enough.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 1:21 AM

Perhaps W's policies will work, but not in the way he intended.

The returns show a Shia theocratic sweep with the big losers the secular Shia's like Alawi and Chalabi . . . those who wear suits and are Western oriented. Which leader would be more 'palatable' to the Sunnis or Kurds . . . the theocons? or the secularists??

I really see a busy 'intra-Iraqi' war once we leave . . . and we will . . . sooner or later. We are the glue holding the enterprise together. How I wish it were not so. How I wish that the secular politicians would gain power in Iraq or Egypt, but the trend is not our friend. In Egypt, free elections would propel the Islamist brothers to power. In Algeria . . . didn't democracy almost produce an Islamist state? How about Saudi?? I'm not against democracy or W. I love and respect them both, but democracy with a large D will only propel our true enemies to power. Democracy will unleash a change in the Islamic world all right, but not in the way we hope.

I wish Hugh were dead wrong, and W were dead right. Now it's just down to saving face. Will these elections produce a truce in the civil war . . . the Shia-Sunni fratacide? and for how long? so long as it is long enough for our boys to get out of dodge.

When we leave, I see a large scale killing campaign rivaling Pol Pot with Sunnis killing Shia's and vica verca . . . with the Kurds dearabizing Kirkut and laughing all the way to an indnependent Kurdistan. What's wrong with that??

Posted by: biorabbi at December 21, 2005 1:22 AM

When the U.S.A. leaves (not if), what next? Many in congress are saying "bring the troops home". Home, to what end? Turn the tanks at the beach, to point at the sea?

The U.S. will be in Iraq, my guess based on current conditions, for three more years minimum.

So, looking at the future, the next step has more at stake than Iraq at this time. Iraq is inportant, but the goal of removing the old goverment, and leaders has been won.

More to do, and many ways to go about this. It mmay be advanced & altered by other enemy actions, We shall see.

It's where the U.S. goes from here.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 21, 2005 1:46 AM

Wow, Hugh, 7 top-notch posts in one thread.

I wonder if the election results will give the US administration no choice but to recognize--if only internally at first--how hopeless this "mission" is, and, cornered, turn lemons into lemonade by pronouncing our project complete and unleashing this "democracy" precisely on the ones who chose it.

Posted by: kamala at December 21, 2005 2:02 AM

Hugh's point seems to me is to put up a wall around the middle east. l can see Hugh's past the one on the horse yelling "the British are coming".. Today instead of riding on his horse, he is on the internet yelling "the muslims are coming".
Well the muslim horde is here, and we need to stablize their middle east. we do that by introducing the pill of "democracy" which will keep them busy, they are better at killing each other, and maybe peace will break out with democracy. l see no other alternative, the PC crowd in Europe and N.Amer. will not allow us throw them out and put up a wall.

Posted by: Lulu at December 21, 2005 3:47 AM

Hugh says "Why should we (Americans)stay "guiding and protecting"? Why? Whom exactly would we guide, and whom would we be protecting? Standing between Sunnis and Shi'a, and keeping them from being at each others' throats, while American soldiers are blown up?

How short is the memory of the infedel. No one asked for the Americans...they came (like the British in the past) on some false pretext and waded in....and now you want to leave because you it doesn't suit you. In no way will I belittle the sacrifice of the American soldiers...but remember that between 20-30K Iraqis will have died too as a result of your actions..... as always great sacrifice is required for change.

But now I see great a great analogy to the prophet's life and it is this.

America has come along as a messenger with a message. He has changed Iraq with his message who is a child to understanding it. Now through "blood guiding and protecting" America has wed his child bride-Iraq.....and he must consumate this marriage by releasing the seed of democracy.

And he must stay the course...and if you don't ....if you up & leave ...we we come looking for you .....as any loyal partner would.

Posted by: Naseem at December 21, 2005 6:14 AM

America has wed his child bride-Iraq.....and he must consumate this marriage by releasing the seed of democracy.

And he must stay the course...and if you don't ....if you up & leave ...we we come looking for you .....as any loyal partner would.

Scarey.

Posted by: Interested at December 21, 2005 7:04 AM

"America has wed his child bride-Iraq.....and he must consumate this marriage by releasing the seed of democracy.

And he must stay the course...and if you don't ....if you up & leave ...we we come looking for you .....as any loyal partner would."
-- from a Muslim poster above, eager to have the Americans stay and take care of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, what have you, apparently believing the United States is obliged to permanently groan under the weight of the Infidel Man's Burden

No, we don't do Aishas.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 7:22 AM

Hugh,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Here is something to consider: Europe is already up to their necks with Islamists (as we all know). Ditto with Canada. Our southern border is still open. That being the case, at the present it is virtually impossible to prevent the movement of determined Jihadists into America with some sort of WMD. Therefore, if the Islamists believe they can find sanctuary overseas and that we don't have the will to root them out, America will be hit repeatedly.

That is the reason our determination and will in sticking with the operation makes "some" strategic sense. Not whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, but whether we give another Somolia-type example to feed off. We have already made a show of will in taking casualties and continuing the fight. This was something Bin Laden claimed America would not and could not do. We have shown a lie to that garbage of weak Americans.

All that said, if we had leadership with the political courage to follow your strategy (and IMMEDIATELY after leaving Iraq), I could buy it. However, the Democrats sure as heck don't have the political will or courage to institute the harsh measures necessary. You and I both know that. The Bush Administration has been lambasted already for being anti-Islamic by Democrats and all the usual European leftists. Who are we hoping to get at the present to do the right thing?

I guess what I'm saying is that I would love to see a harsh, but necessary, strategic plan that would Isolate Islam. However, unless we are willing to cut off all travel between Europe/Canada and the US (until the Europeans/Canadians have the courage to clean themselves up) we will face the lone bomber (with WMD?) problem in the US. If the Islamists believe we will not attack their sanctuaries overseas, they will feel comfortable in sending their suicide/murderers through Europe and Canada.

I don't want to stay in Iraq any time more than necessary. As soon as we leave, we need to put all efforts into helping the Canadians/Europeans clean up their problem. We need to use the best weapon we have directly into the Heart of the Islamic World: Truth. The Islamists are terrified of the West, because they know the "Truth" will destroy them. Islam is full of contradictions, historical and logical. They are doing all they can to keep the truth from their people. As we wind down in Iraq, we need to do all we can to force the truth on every Muslim we can find. The ex-Muslims become our greatest allies. Once enough Muslims see the light, we will have won.

Posted by: hello123 at December 21, 2005 8:01 AM

"The U.S. will be in Iraq, my guess based on current conditions, for three more years minimum."
-- from a posting above

If the American forces remain glued to the tarbaby of Iraq, the following will happen:

1) The American military will be further damaged. Enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard will continue to plummet. Standards for recruits in the regular army will go down. The unhappiness of those who, having been in Iraq, knowing perfectly well how unrealistic and incoherent are the policies of the Administration, yet who are sent back on a fool's errand, will do great damage to morale.

2) Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. The Americans would not do what they should, as long as American soldiers remain in Iraq, so easily reached by Iranian retaliatory attacks, either from Iran itself, or from Iranian agents within Iraq, or from Shi'a sympathizers of Iran within Iraq, of whom there are many who have come to power, and many others who are being traineed by the Americans as part of the forming, as the Americans fondly believe, of the "Iraqi" army and the "Iraqi" police.

3) Iraq will no longer be ripe for civil war and permanent instability that would offer the best chance to keep both Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran involved in, preoccupied with, a proxy war within Iraq (the main thing that the Saudis now are concerned with is Iraq and the Shi'as -- that's it. The possible outcome there is what is terrifying them, and the only thing that relieves them is the American presence in Iraq -- let's get out, and stop relieving them. Please.)

4) More money, more men, more materiel, for a policy that will now be opposed not by 2/3 of the Americans, but by 80%. For now it is those who have awakened to the larger problem of world-wide Jihad who will become more and more disgusted with the inability of the Administration to get beyond such phrases as "war on terror" and essentially, to offer only the sentimentality of "democracy" as a panacea, unable or fearful to articulate the real problem, and to suggest that possibly the way to deal with the menace of Islam might be to divide, demoralize, and weaken the forces of Islam. What a strange idea. What a simply crazy notion. What do we think we are in -- World War II? Or any other war in human history where, in the war itself, one tried to weaken the enemy in every and possible way. The American government seems determined to take the Marshall Plan as its model for how to behave, but not only is it thinking of applying the idea -- make the former enemy enjoy the benefits of all the good things that America can supply -- but what's more, applying it not after the total defeat and surrender of that enemy, but even without any real war, or any real defeat, or any real surrender.

Astounding. Sentimentality, pieties, masquerading as tough-guy no-nonsense.

And so the Americans will, if this country remains in Iraq even for one more year,bey sick of the whole thing, and the high morale and determination requreid of people, in order for the American and other Infidel governments to prevent the islamization of Europe, to beat back Islam in black Africa, to diminish OPEC oil revenues that inevitably fund the Jihad, and to do a thousand other things in order to create the conditions in which Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the natural results of Islam (as is happening, among many, in Iran today) -- that will not be possible, because as with the squandering of men's lives and money and materiel in Iraq, so too will the morale of people have been squandered.

And what for? In order to keep the three main groups in Iraq locked into the same nation-state? Why? Why is that our task? Why do we not seek, always and everywhere, to weaken, divide, and demoralize the peoples and polities of Dar al-Islam? Why is that not the proper end of our diplomacy, of our military campaigns, of our enerrgy policies?

Bush talks about "victory." A dangerous word, a misleading word. There is no "victory" and certainly no "total victory" in Iraq or anywhere else in the endless war to protect the Infidels from the JIhad to spread Islam, in every way possible. It sets up false expectatons that cannot possibly be realized. But at least, in "Iraq," a non-nation held together by Sunni rulers, often through the application of mass violence and murder, a certain Victory-Through-An-Uninterrupted-Series-of-Errors-and-Miscalculations is at hand, if only we leave, and let those ethnic and sectarian differences play themselves out.

But the sentimentalists in the Administration, and their cheerleaders, will not permit it. Why not? Because they think, wrongly, that this will "give the wrong signal." No it won't -- not as soon as the Badr Brigade and the Sadr Brigade go at it with various Sunni groups.

And what if they don't? What if they all sit down and make peace? Well, then we can claim (hiding our disappointment) that "we did it. We did what we set out to accomplish."

Either way, by leaving, we have a chance at a limited "victory." If we don't -- we don't.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 8:09 AM

Hugh,

I think you missed the point of my posting.

Think about something while you are ranting about G. Bush: Clinton refused be any kind of "tough guy" and did nothing against overseas Islamist sanctuaries. Under Bill Clinton we were hit over and over and 9-11 was planned and prepared during his watch. Bin Laden was able to tell all his followers America was weak and cowardly and would do nothing. Clinton's inactions proved OBL correct. This was a reason he felt comfortable planning 9-11 from his sanctuary in Afganistan. He did not expect the response or persistence we have shown. It has put a lie to much of his garbage.

Since 9-11, we have destroyed the sanctuary in Afganistan and have not been hit on home soil again. Saddam Hussein was going to develop WMD in time, and he proved extremely unstable/unpredictable. He was not beyond passing off WMD. Many intel sources believed he had WMD. Taking out Saddam was a message to all other terror supporting Gov'ts that we would take the fight overseas and show the will to persist. Remember, we got Lybia to cough up their WMD program based on that threat.

The bottom line is that G. Bush developed a strategy of taking out Islamist sanctuaries. The "Bringing Democracy to Iraq" was subsidiary. We can leave Iraq under our own timeline and "appear" not to have succeeded. I'm not so sure it will take that much more time. Yes, the whole thing may fall apart after we leave, but that is not the point.

Like I said, I will buy your strategy, but that will take more political and moral courage/will than either party has shown. Certainly not the democrats. If I believed we could essentially weed out the cancer from Europe, Canada, S/C America, and wall off the Islamic World, I would say HOOAH! However, understand that this will not come with the current opposition part to G. Bush. Unless Hugh is President. Our best hope is to pass off enough information to Americans that they will elect someone tough enough.

Neither of us agree with everything G. Bush has done, but he has done a heck of a lot better than his opponents and predecessor. We needed a "tough guy" image in leadership after 9-11, and Bush was the man for the moment. I believe his administration is now getting the "truth" (behind closed doors). For strategic reasons, they have to be careful about what is said in public. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to get to the top.

I believe the key to this whole fight will be the weapon of information and truth. Pushing the truth to the Islamic World is what the Islamists most fear. That is what we must do. It will destroy Islam. Eventually, the radicals will not be able to hold back the tide of Muslims coming to the truth. They cannot explain away all the vast contradictions, untruths, etc. In some ways, WE will be the key in winning the worldwide struggle. The house of cards (Islam) will fall. It is only a matter of time.

Posted by: hello123 at December 21, 2005 10:18 AM

"while you are ranting about G. Bush..."

"we have destroyed the sanctuary in Afganistan and have not been hit on home soil again. Saddam Hussein was going to develop WMD in time, and he proved extremely unstable/unpredictable."
-- from a posting above

I don't "rant" but practice the art of savage indignation, saeva indignatio, that Swift self-recommended. It supplements other treatments for an imbalance in the four humours. And god knows I need to humour myself.

As for the notion that Bush deserves praise because he is not Clinton, that's setting the pole low. Churchill deserves praise, but not because he wasn't Chamberlain or Halifax. Much more was required of Bush, and he failed to instruct others in, because he failed and still fails to articulate, precisely what the menace of Jihad means, what causes it, what its varied instruments are, and what the islamization of this or that place -- with Europe most important -- would mean both for the indigenous Infidels, their laws and customs and mores and the civilizational legacy that they may not deserve, but do not deserve to lose. He has failed.

And about those two ignoble sanctuaries, Afghanistan and Iraq. Fine to invade, fine to destroy whatever can be destroyed of the infinitely replenishable Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements in the first, and to destroy the major weapons capability, such as it was, of Saddam Hussein. But that should have been it. To go off on the crazed tangent -- this refashioning of the world that is the least attractive feature of American policy, and it extends to the inabilty to grasp that neither the World of Man nor the World of Nature is infinitely malleable, and that a little diffidence in both areas would be nice. Just as the Administration cannot quite grasp that these environmental changes may be irreversible, are certainly damaging, and have to be addressed at once -- and not simply rely on the Free Market and "can-do spirit" and Yankee ingenuity and all the other fixed phrases and attitudes (what's left: Beavis-and-Butthead jokes about "liberals" and "treehuggers").

In the same World-Conquering Way, they set off to redo the Middle East. No need to read about Islam. No need to crack a book or two. And no need to study very hard about Iraq either. No Gertrude Bell, no Philip Ireland. No one asked J. B. Kelly to come to the Pentagon to give a talk, though one important official did get Kelly's advice, which was rather different from what that enthusiast Bernard Lewis was giving. One of those Big-Picture ignoramuses, Wolfowitz, is now Changing the World as Head of the World Bank, when he should be sent back to school to learn about Islam, and to utter a mea culpa or two, at some point. But there he is, for all the world one more of those Grand Idea people, such as Tom Friedman, World's Greatest Authority, or Jeffery Sachs, the "I Can Cure Poverty If Only I'm Given Enough Power and Money and Glory at the World Institute" fellow. These people need to be tied down and given sedatives.

Your arguments about Saddam Hussein's possible development of WMD and his supposed instability are 1) wrong and 2) irrelevant.

As to 1), they are wrong because the more important WMD program is that going on in Iran, and the invasion of Iraq has certainly delayed, and in the worst possible outcome of this idiotic venture in Iraq, may have postponed until it is too late, the need to deal with that program, which is not a matter of whisperings by Chalabi's agents, but a fact that only a fool would deny.

And that "instability"? What "instability"? Saddam Hussein was aggressive, but he never dared to challenge directly Israel -- for good reason. He attacked Iran when that country was in the chaos of the first year of Khomeini's revolution; he miscalculated the ability of the Iranian regime to harness fanatical basiji, but that does not mean that he was completely unpredictable. Nor was his invasion of Kuwait surprising: previous Iraqi regimes had claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq; Saddam Hussein made noises, and April Glaspie's response seemed to confirm that he could get away with it. Buthe couldn't and didn't. And he was chastened by that fact, and his army and resources had been degraded through the sanctions program. In fact, Saddam Hussein was a clear calculator, and he is so still. He is not mercurial like Khaddafy (or now pretend friend) and unlike Ahmadinejad, he was never such a fanatical believer in Islam that he would take on a Western power. He knew his limits. Had the Americans been much more forthright in warning him, he would likely not have invaded Kuwait.

As to 2), the charge being irrelevant. You tell me why it was reasonable to invade Iraq. But I've never denied that. That has never been the charge. It was rational to invade Iraq. What is irrational, what makes no sense, is to hew to this idea of a nation called "Iraq" and to invest so many resources, and use up so much political capital within and without this country, to make three groups that, with a very small group of dissenters (possibly 10-15% of the poulation), consist of people who do not see themselves as Iraqis but as Kurds and Arabs, and within the Arabs, as Sunni and Shi'a. Knowing what happend to the Kurds at the hands of the Arabs, and knowing what the Shi'a have suffered over the centuries at the hands of the Sunnis, should anyone be surprised by this? Yet these very terms "Sunni" and "Shi'a" were hardly used by anyone in the Administration until the last few months. And such terms have just recently swam into the ken of that great man Tom Friedman, who is now offering his advice on what to do, based on his sudden profound knowledge of Iraq (and just wait for his sudden discovery of what Islam is all about -- or will he have to smuggle in his new knowledge, no doubt acquired at this and other websites -- in bits and pieces).

You are arguing with me about something where there is no argument. The invasion is not the poiint. It is Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslm Nations, Iraq and Democracy Is On the March In the Middle East. It is all that that so offends and infuriates.

Offends, infuriates, and gives rise, quite naturally, not to ranting, but to savage indignation.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 12:07 PM

Hugh,

Thank you again for the long, thoughful response. Couple of points:

1. I made quite clear that the administration was terribly wrong in their lack of understanding about Islam (and incompatibility with democracy). There is just no excuse for allowing such PC garbage to be a part of the upper realms of decision-making. I believe they are getting the truth now, but way too late.

2. I also made quite clear that the lack of planning for the occupation was without excuse. Same as with #1, they had a "pie in the sky" belief, and would not allow guys like Shinseki to break in with reality. I was actually opposed to the invasion for that reason.

3. The point with my last post was to give some of the reasoning behind the decision to invade. That is not to say it was the best decision (see #2). Saddam was unpredictable in many ways: attempted assassination of GH Bush, massive $ to suicide-murderers, 1994 near invasion of Kuwait (I can't go into detail on this one). Saddam did defy inspection after inspection and would have made every effort to acquire Nukes if we left (and the Europeans would have made us leave). Iran was a bigger threat, but we have absolutely no political way to attack Iran. Additionally Iran would have been much, much more costly. I believe the "democracy" issue became big after the discovery of no-WMD. I'm not sure that was the real reason for Iraq. Once again, I wish we had not gone in. However, we are there and we must decide off that reality.

4. The comparison to Clinton is only to say that the current alternatives to Bush are pretty bad. Additionally, let's give credit where credit is due: Bush isn't perfect, but he reacted forcefully when we needed to act forcefully and courageously. At least give him that. I am hoping that as Americans receive the true information about the worldwide Jihad and elect a Tom Tancredo. That is where WE come in: We can help win this thing by pushing the truth to both non-Muslims and Muslims.

5. Hugh, you and I are not very far apart. I am with you on virtually all your thoughts about the worldwide Jihad. I am also with you in your criticisms of the Bush A. planning and lack of knowledge of Islam. The only place we differ is our actions in getting out of Iraq. I believe we should find a way to make it appear we are leaving on our initiative and schedule. That we don't appear to have been pushed out.

I've said my piece and I'm going to stick with the other issues of the worldwide Jihad. That is where all non-Muslims must come together. Pushing the TRUTH to non-Muslims and Muslims is the key to winning this ideological war.

Islam is just full of untruth and contradictions. We must focus on the Theological contradictions, particularly in respects to Mohammed's claims about Christianity: We know as a historic fact that Jesus was crucified and claimed to be the Son of God (whether or not one believes those claims Jewish Sources, Roman Historians, Gospels (claimed true by the Koran). Ditto with the claims of Mary being sister of Moses. Ditto with claims about the Jewish Temple. etc. etc. All these Theological contradications and untruths are the key.

Once Muslims are forced to confront these facts, they will not longer be able to see the Koran as the word of God. They will no longer be able to truth they ridiculous Hadiths and Sira. Mohammed will be seen for what he was.

Posted by: hello123 at December 21, 2005 12:29 PM

"The only place we differ is our actions in getting out of Iraq. I believe we should find a way to make it appear we are leaving on our initiative and schedule."
-- from a posting above

There is no "we differ" here. Of course the Americans should start right now to clear their throats, and give every signal that "unless this" and "unless that" it is silly to remain in Iraq.

I've written several speeches for Bush right there. I've explained how he, and others inthe Administration, can start talking, and should have started talking, to prepare the ground, long ago:

"We removed a mass murderer and a despot; we removed his entire regime in our game of fifty-two pick-up. American soldires built schools and rebuilt hospitals, and American contractors built water-treatment plants so that for the first time 4.5 million "Iraqis" have potable water, and built power grids, and repaired and re-repaired, and re-re-repaired, oil wells, and with the British dredged and put into the best shape it ever has been in the port of Umm Qasr, and we and now, after the first election in January, and all those brave thumbs, the identifying mark of homo pollex irakiensis, after the referendum on the Constitution, after the second set of elections met to give "Iraq" a permanent government, we have done what we can.

We have trained and trained tens of thousands of "Iraqis" for the police, and for the army. We cannot, of course, ourselves make Iraqis from diffrent groups get along. We hope they will (little white lies never go out of diplomatic fashion). But we are now a hindrance to that act of national compromise and reconciliation that is not only the essence of denmocracy (more nonsense, but okay) but without which merely holding an election has little meaning. So while we wish the Iraqis well, we understand that a great many of them would prefer to decide the destiny of their country without us. And we respect that wish. We do not wish to overstay our welcome (huh). And we have many tasks at home and abroad, that require our attention, and that will require the kind of resourdes that have been for nearly three years lavished on "Iraq."

We have an energy policy to develop -- a serious energy policy, a kind of war-time program. We have to still find a way to protect, and rescue, the people of Darfur, and in southern Sudan, too, things are heating up. We want to help sub-Saharan Africa with the problem of feeding its own people, and to that end, we are going to begin by helping Ethiopia with its new irrigation projects, so that at long last that country wracked so often by famine can be able to more fully exploit the resources of that mighty river, the Nile. We will of course continue to hunt down not only terrorists, but supporters of terrorists, and those who spread that ideology of Jiahd which, as we all know, is believed in by some extremists (biggest lie so far, but for now, go with it-- just to get the rhetorical ball rolling).

We will look to see how the people in Iraq -- the Arabs and Kurds, the Sunni and the Shi'a -- manage to put into practice the democratic notions we have been happy to help them learn about and to begin, tenatively at first, now with a year's full experience under their belt, in the art of making a democracy work. We can't guarantee the future of Iraq's democracy. No outsiders can. Only the Iraqis themselves can.

But to the naysayers and the doubters, to those who keep insisting that "Islam" and "democracy" are in compatible, I say: once we get out of the way in Iraq, I feel confident that the "Iraqi" people will prove them wrong, in their own willingness to make peace with each other, and their bravery in volunteering to fight, not for themselves alone, nor for their family or tribe or ethnic or sectarian group, but for their country, the country they so proudly call Iraq. (more nonsense, but how better to enroll Bush's celebrated ignorance in a good cause?).

We should be out entirely from Iraq by July 1, 2006, but our troops will begin moving out right now. I have directed Secretary Rumsfeld to begin implementing the plans that we long ago had developed for leaving Iraq once we felt the situation stabilized.

Of course, I need hardly tell you that some Iraqis want us to stay. And the Iraqi government no doubt would like us to stay indefinitely. But there are elements that do not wish us, elements that are clearly defined -- that is, the Sunni Arabs nearly universally, and many of the groups among the Shi'a as well. If we were to stay, it would appear as if we were taking sides, and favoring the Shi'a. Indeed, some Sunnis claim that in training the Iraqi army, we are really traiing the Shi'a who, under Saddam, were grossly underrepresented in the army, which was a Sunni-dominated and Sunni-led institution.

Well, we take those charges seriously. And in order to prevent unnecessary further animus between Sunni and Shi'a, we will be leaving. It is the best course, for us, and for them.

Thank you and good night.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 2:34 PM

Hugh,

I've got to admit. That's not a bad idea/speech. My only hope is that when we pull out, the oncoming political leadership (2006 Congressional elections. 2008 Presidential) has the backbone to make the needed tough decisions.

After pulling out of Iraq, we will have to take immediate, strong action in the global fight. It cannot appear as though we are beaten.

In some ways, it will take the stronger/tougher leadership. The policies we will have to implement will take incredible moral and political courage. I don't see that coming from the Democratic party. However, if Bush's poll numbers continue to sink, the Dems are what we may end up with. That may be the bigger problem with the strategy.

Posted by: hello123 at December 21, 2005 3:19 PM

It should be clear to everyone that the unpopularity of the Iraq War -- unpopular for different reasons among various people -- is hampering all other aspectrs even of Bush's badly-named, incorrectly-named, misleadingly-named "war on terror." If he had announced, and begun a pullout, he might have more political capital. That might have been good for the chances of renewing the Patriot Act and all of its provisions. It might have allowed him to overcome criticism on other matters related to monitoring security risks. But by choosiing to expend whatever slim political capital he has left on Iraq, which more and more is so obviously a misallocation of resources, with the last enthusiasts growing ever hoarse, every more doubtful themselves, ever more confused as to what, really, this "democracy in Iraq" -- i.e. this Shi'a dominance -- can conceivably do except to strengthen the Islamic Republic of Iran, while we certainly do not want that as the result of all this effort and expense.

He's simply obstinate. A child and defender of privilege, who in his pre-political days was frequently rescued from the scrapes and economic disasters --always involving waste, by the way, that others had to make up for -- he doesn't understand that resources, including political and military resources, have to be husbanded rather than squandered, and when they are limited, as they are for his administration, in the particular world that has not yet been educated as to the nature and menace of Jihad, should be spent only when they are likely to further your most important goals.

By not getting out of Iraq quickly, he helps insure further political losses, losses undoubtedly to those who are critical of him for reasons far different from those reasons offered by me here about his big plans for Iraq since the late summer of 2003.

Bush is unimportant. Alerting people, educating people, about Jihad, thinking of a thousand things to do to weaken and demoralize and divide Islam, and to show it up for what it is so that everyone, Infidels and Muslims alike, can see it better, is in our interest. He is not doing that. He is doing the opposite. He is trying to shore up, make better, improve, the world of Islam, the possibilities and therefore the attractiveness of Islam. He is trying to create a model Muslim polity where "democracy" and bustling "free entrprise" and so on will be made compatible with Islam, and then that model will somehow be emulated by other Arab states, and all of those states are Sunni-ruled. How could Sunni Arabs conceivably find anything attractive about the loss of Sunni power in Iraq, or take as a model a Shi'a-dominated state? The failure to foresee all of this (it was all completely foreseeable, and was in fact foreseen at Jihad Watch -- go right through the archives) is simply Ossa-idiocy piled upon Pelion-stupidity. Of course these are just abstractions from someone advised by others, an abstraction that all of us can see, if we look, and do not accept the Party Line (including the by-now completely incoherent Bernard Lewis), makes no sense, and is folly, a mission impossible. And that mission impossible has been made the responsibility of American soldiers and Marines, the officers and men who are not children of privilege and not defenders of privilege and who have not had a history of being bailed out by papa or the friends of papa, and who are risking their lives for this idiocy.

It makes me sick.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 3:44 PM

Democracy may or may not take hold in the Middle East. But that is not the main issue.

Hugh's myopia is that he seeks to abandon the struggle against jihadism in Iraq and Afghanistan without a thought to the impact on US national security and the well being of the region and the world. When I previously suggested that abandoning Iraq will leave that country as a base for the jihadis to train their numbers and plot their mayhem, he made the astonishing contention that there was no difference between jihadis operating out of an Iraq controlled by our enemies and those operating from Germany, France or anywhere else.

This kind of surrealism is what delegitimzes Hugh's entire geo-strategic outlook. While Muslim extremists certainly reside in Europe and can plan and execute terror atrocities, they do so under the constricting presence of government surviellance and under the watchful eyes and ears of an alert citizenry.

In an Iraq controlled by Al Qaeda (just as in Afghanistan under the Taliban), the jihadis would be free to operate openly, to move people and money in and out of the country unfettered, and to train under optimal conditions. The differences should be apparent to everyone, but are not.

Now we find from a different thread at DW that Hugh Fitzgerald is also opposed to the continuation of our efforts to prop up the Afghan government of Hamed Karzai. He apparently would just as soon let the Taliban recapture power than to help Karzai fight them off.

If Hugh has his way, both Iraq and Afghanistan will become havens from which the most fanatical elements in the Muslim world can direct their mayhem against America and the world. We follow his advice at our great peril.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 21, 2005 4:44 PM

Yes. Right. If I have my way, the Taliban will naturally take over Afghanistan, and Iraq will be that famous center of terrorism that it simply must, must, must become because in both cases, you see, it is simply impossible that there could conceivably be any other result. And once out of Iraq, the Americans are simply not permitted -- nope, not allowed -- to have any effect, to supply any arms, money, or for that matter bombing, or arms interdiction of one side or another. No, once out, America can no longer have any kind of influence whatsoever on what goes on in Iraq. And the same goes for Afghanistan. And everyone knows that the best way to reverse the islamization of Europe, to shore up public support in this country for a very long, decades-long campaign against the Jihad, is to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the benefits are so obvious, so overwhelming.

And this whole cockamamie scheme that has been reiterated at JW about exploiting ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq? What ethnic and sectarian divisions? Why would we want to exploit those? What conceivable reason would we want "instability" and "civil war" in Iraq? Surely that can't possibly be in anyone's interest. And aren't all people of good will, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, better off without instabilty and Sunni-Shi'a tensions and hostility? Why would we want that?

That, in brief, is how the poster above persists in misrepresenting me. Nothing I have politely or impolitely written on this in replies to him, or at least attempting to set things straight after he has, for the hundredth time, managed to yet again misstate what I argue, seems to work.

So this is not for him. It is for anyone else who chooses to compare his travesty with what in fact I have consistently argued -- and as the evidence mounts of those ethnic and sectarian divisions that Bush still fails to comrpehend, because he never sat down, in all those long vacation days on the ranch, to read Gertrude Bell, or Bat Ye'or, or Robert Spencer, or Andrew Bostom (galleys were sent to someone high in the Admiinistration before the book came out). No, neither he, nor others at the top, want o be bothered with facts, reason, evidence.

Just like the poster above.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 5:31 PM

More surrealism. Hugh thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will result in something other than the triumph of extremism in both countries.

Does anyone actually believe that if we pull the rug from under Karzai, that if we walk, that the entire ediface of what we've been building there won't crumble? Oh the Taliban may not capture the country in a fortnight, but the Pashto-speaking south will surely fall their way before long. They have the guns, they have the organization, they have a program.

As is so often the case in the tribal belt, local leaders will put there fingers to the direction of the prevailing winds and adjust their loyalties accordingly. Kandahar will re-emerge as the Taliban capital of the Pashto-speaking south.

The Tajik and Uzbeki north may hold out with Iranian, Russian and Chinese help, as they did in the years before the US intervention. But nothing will prevent Al Qaeda and the jihadis from setting up shop in the south just as they did before the Taliban were ousted. From there, new 9-11s will be orchestrated, just as before.

And in Iraq, Hugh's hopes for interminable Shiite-Sunni civil war is exactly the recipe to insure the triumph of extremism on both sides. The Shiites, now exercising a degree of independence from Iran because of America's presence, will inevitably turn to the Iranians as their natural patron to fill in the vaccuum of the US withdrawal.

And the Sunni heartland will resemble Fallujah before its liberation last year, a fanatical Taliban-style regime terrorizing the people and training jihadis for the missions of mayhem. Again, they have the guns, the organization and the will to capture power, but inexplicably, Hugh assumes some other entity will somehow emerge that is unthreatening to the West and the world.

The two sides may or may not fight. In the end, either the country fractures and extremists capture power in both enclaves, or Iran uses its power to insure a Shiite triumph. One thing is for sure, no Civil war is interminable. Either one side wins or an agreement is reached.

More surrealism. Hugh thinks that America can walk, endure the trauma of watching Iraq crash and burn, watching everything we've tried to build there unravel, and yet the US public will actually have an appetite for further interventions - albeit lessor ones - that we can bomb on behalf of one group or another if our inclinations are such. Can you imagine?

Myopia. Complete and utter myopia.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 21, 2005 8:03 PM

Hugh;

I stated based on what I feel, and that is we will probally remain there in Iraq for three more years, for what that is worth, we will see.

I agree with many of your points, I would hope to see many of the thoughts you place here would come to be.

I have family (relatives) in Iraq as I write this, and they are fully commited to the actions they are taking. They speak highly of Bush, and he has the respect of our military personal.

It is agreed Iran is probally going to get nuclear weppons. But, any nuclear attack on the U.S. from Iran would bring about the very thing I think is going to happen, its just a matter of time.

They will unite the U.S. with such action, and bolster the military's action that would quickly follow. A attack would shift the war to the west's favor, with no need of a civil war to hold Islam's attention.

I don't wish this, but feel this is the wars direction on any attack on U.S. forces.

I would like to ask then, if / when we would leave, where /what is next?

This question is the big one.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 21, 2005 10:08 PM

"It is agreed Iran is probally going to get nuclear weppons."
-- from a posting above

Who has agreed to this? Who has decided there is nothing more that can be done? If the Iraq venture continues and not only remains the tarbaby that it is (how can we train Shi'a nad Sunnis and Kurds to fight in the same unit, and trust each other? Why would not ordinary soldiers reflect the divisions that the vote the other day so clearly demonstrated? Or that the different reactions to the trial of Saddam Hussein reveal? Or that every bit of evidence we possess, about Iraq today, about Iraq yesterday, about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, about Iraq during its entire modern history, about the treatment of non-Arab Muslims by Arabs, and of Shi'a by Sunnis, in both cases since the first century of Islam -- tells us that this is something that we cannot undo. If we favor the Shi'a, the Sunnis get mad, and vice-versa. And staring us in the face is the obvious.

As for Iran, if the misallocation of resources that Iraq represents becomes something far worse - the reason for inaction in Iraq -- then this will have been one of the greatest fiascos in world history, and everyone associated with it, all the cheerleaders whose views are based on blind loyalty to the Administration, a loyalty often merely reflecting an implacable hatred for any policies that it is believed certain kinds of people lumped and labelled as enemies -- whether as "liberals" or "leftists" or something else -- so that in a spirit of "we'll stick it to them" the crazy misallocation of Iraq continues to be loyally, ]unthinkingly supported, instead of being made subject to lucid analysis. If, while this Iraq thing continues, Iran gets those weapons, then along with the horror of that possibliity, none of those loyalists will ever again be able to pontificate on matters of national security -- which is to say, for the next few decades at least, on matters involving Islam. They will have forfeited their right to any claim on our attention.

Aside from dealing with Iran, and turning attention to stopping, and reversing, the Islamization of Europe, there are areas, here and there and everywhere -- the Sudan is one -- where there are justifications for small-scale intervention, as a way to limit the spread of Dar al-Islam, and even in places undo it.
Such measures will be important so that the withdrawal from Iraq is not misunderstood. And it won't be, if acts and words are all in a certain direction -- clearly meant to check the Jihad at every point.
Iran and the islamization of Europe -- those are are the two main matters at hand, while Iraq, left alone, will one hopes become the place where a kind of proxy Sunni-Shi'a war can be fought, much to the chagrin and worry of Saudi Arabia, while the Islamic Republic of Iran, duly occupied with events in Iraq, can have its weapons project taken care of, not necessarily all at one go, but in repeated attacks.

Posted by: Hugh at December 21, 2005 10:41 PM

Hugh;

I did misread your above post about Iran geting the nuke, you were stating a "what will if", not a "what will happen". Sorry about the misread.

Iran probally will get the bomb. The U.N. & the IAEA is unwilling to do what it should, and Russia is going mustang on the world (IMO).

Keeping these weppons from Islam is again, just a matter of time. Sooner or later, the rogue state(s) will have them in a position for use.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 22, 2005 1:38 AM

Hugh writes of interventions in places such as Sudan. Yet earlier, he sarcastically asked this question to make a point:

"And once out of Iraq, the Americans are simply not permitted -- nope, not allowed -- to have any effect, to supply any arms, money, or for that matter bombing, or arms interdiction of one side or another."

He's saying in essence that we can leave Iraq (and Afghanistan) and yet still determine the outcome of events there.

Does he re