- a little more Bolton and a little less Rice.
- better still, let's clone Bolton and dump the Rice.
- failure to understand the sickness at the heart of Islam

Posted by: dgene at January 5, 2006 9:58 AM

"Rice’s ignorance is matched only by her incomprehension."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Those aspects of Muslim society and Islam of which Rice is not completely ignorant, are instead completely misapprehended.

Her constant employment of platitudes involving non-existent universals, such as "all parents want the same things for their children" or "free societies are peaceful societies" sickens.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 5, 2006 9:59 AM

Hugh, it's not that I do not agree with your points. I do, but is Rice the problem?? Seems to me that you could substitute Powell, Sandy Berger, the nitwit Albrecht(who denies any knowledge of her Jewish heritage until late middle age--even though her Father was a diplomat in WWII--don't get me started), Clinton's Cohen at defence, Bush's I's folks at State and NSC, one could go on and on. This pacify the arabs at the expense of the Arabs for the sake of a stable oil supply . . . ie we are 'even-handed, fair minded, support a two-state solution, two states--side by side, living in peace' mantra which means nothing and everybody knows it. Condi may exhibit all of this par-excellance, but she isn't the only one. I've never been impressed by her. She's no Kissinger. But, Bush isn't a Nixon either . . . and I'm talking brainpower in both Kissinger's and Nixon's case. So, while we bitch at Sarkozy or Chirac or Blair and wail for a strong politician over the ocean to address dhimmification, jihad ect, we've got our own problems here. When I hear talk about Condi running for Prez, I want to barf. I'm not impressed and her stance on Islam, advice(nonsensical parroting advice to W), Israel ect. are not impressive. Look, I could be wrong on this, but communism was a understood beast with a certain, logical mindset, whereas Islam(while more pernicious), is also kind of slippery to get your hands around . . . a kind of built-in deceptive streak. But, the war is long, the spoils go to the strong and steady. 911 opened my eyes as to what we're dealing with, this web site and your columns, Hugh, open more and more eyes, evidently, though, Condi and company continue paroting their lines.

Posted by: biorabbi at January 5, 2006 10:14 AM

Anti-CAIR New Year’s Message

Since April of 2003, Anti-CAIR, (ACAIR) has closely followed what we believe to be the un-American activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamic hate group attempting to pass itself off as a simple “Muslim Civil Rights” group. CAIR, which was birthed from the dishonorable Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) and has connections to the notorious Hamas terror group, has rarely supported the people of North America in the battle against Islamic terrorism.

Indeed, numerous CAIR officials have been arrested, convicted, and are currently serving time on Islamic terrorism charges. In addition, CAIR has lent its public voice to defend even the most infamous Muslim terrorists and will most likely continue to do so in future. To put it bluntly, CAIR is an embarrassment to all North Americans, Muslim or otherwise.

In closing the year, ACAIR would like to point out some of the more egregious acts undertaken by CAIR that we haven't addressed before now.

Specifically:

CAIR recently filed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request for all government records related to President Bush’s order authorizing wiretaps of communications between Americans and al-Qaida suspects located overseas without a court order.

Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director and the former Public Relations Director for the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) had this to say:

“…wiretapping policy is not only an apparent violation of existing law, it also gives carte blanche
for spying, without legal oversight, on any American. Such wide-ranging and unrestricted powers are
an invitation to abuse of constitutional rights and freedoms, and should be of concern to everyone in
a society based on respect for the law."

As usual, this former spokesman for an Islamic terrorist group provides absolutely no evidence to support his argument. The government made it clear that the program was only concerned with Americans contacting al-Qaida suspects abroad.

This is a statement Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick made in 1994 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

"the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority
to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may,
as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

The words of a Clinton appointee are particularly interesting when we consider that the Clinton administration did almost nothing to defend the United States domestically or internationally against Islamic terrorism in its eight years in office.

It is even more interesting when we consider that CAIR has made absolutely no objection to this Clinton statement…which is essentially hot air, but yet chooses now to attack the policies of a president who has shut down the hot air machine in favor of action. One is left wondering if CAIR is more concerned now that we finally have a policy to actively engage Muslim terrorists rather than just talk about it as in the past.

As a “Muslim Civil Rights” group, most Americans would believe that CAIR would support a program that weeds out Muslim terrorists. That CAIR does not support a program to protect all Americans from terrorism conducted in the name of Islam speaks volumes about CAIR’s connection to Islamic terrorist groups.

North Americans are left to wonder: Does CAIR have a problem with the United States going after terrorists, or just the terrorists that happen to be Muslim?

= = =

CAIR has filed another Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request over the government’s policy of monitoring for radiation in the United States:

Specifically, CAIR is asking for:

"Records concerning the authority of President Bush to delegate or personally authorize
surveillance without obtaining a court order as required by FISA, comprehensive lists and
addresses of the over a hundred Muslim sites (including mosques, organizations, businesses,
warehouses and homes) in Washington D.C., Chicago, Detroit, New York, Las Vegas and
Seattle which have been targeted for radiological surveillance by this top secret program."

But something is missing from CAIR’s outrage. Where is the evidence that the “searches” were illegal? ACAIR finds it hard to believe that driving around town in a van equipped to detect radiation is somehow an “illegal search” whether conducted by the government or anyone else. If we follow CAIR’s distorted logic, any American in possession of a simple Geiger counter is potentially in violation of some law that only CAIR is aware of because that device might actually…detect radiation!

CAIR provides no direct evidence that anyone’s rights were offended by the program. No, CAIR is upset because the government is taking the Islamic terrorists threats to attack our country with nuclear devices seriously. Wouldn't CAIR like to know if an Islamic terrorist planted a nuclear device in their headquarters basement?

CAIR’s National Legal Director, Arsalan Iftikhar had this to say:

“We are concerned that, under this secretive program, our government has overstepped
constitutional bounds by intruding on private property without any probable cause or valid court
orders…the targeting of so many Islamic homes, businesses and mosques will inevitably create
the impression that American Muslims are considered suspect solely because of their faith.”

ACAIR would like to know which School of Law Iftikhar graduated from and in which state(s) he is licensed to practice law.

Iftikhar accuses the government of illegally entering private property and targeting Islamic properties without acknowledging this reality: The government is looking for terrorists intent on killing us. The fact that the majority of these terrorists happen to be Muslim is a factor that any intelligent counter-terror agent must take into consideration.

When Catholics begin to threaten our country with nuclear weapons, we will expect our government to monitor Catholic churches ...

When North American Muslims throw off the shackles of hate and intolerance and stand united with the rest of North America in repudiating Islamic terrorism, we can all expect the government to stop monitoring Muslim properties…and not one second before.

The only other option is to sacrifice security on the alter of political correctness and hope that the enemy doesn’t take advantage. As 9-11 clearly demonstrated, “hope”, not backed with “will” is a weak defense and makes for poor policy.

What is CAIR doing to help rid our country of Islamic terrorists and those who support them? Papering the country in FOIA requests, suing people, and screaming “Islamophobia” is getting just a bit tiring, isn’t it?

When will we see CAIR actually do something to help the country battle Islamic terrorism?

= = =

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ.com) recently carried an article on the need for Muslims and non-Muslims to unite to defeat radical Islam. The article, by Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, presents a realistic recap of the problem of Islamic extremism and suggests methods to defeat radical Islam. He states:

"Imagine the impact of a single nuclear bomb detonated in New York, London,
Paris, Sydney or L.A.! What about two or three? The entire edifice of modern civilization is
built on economic and technological foundations that terrorists hope to collapse with nuclear
attacks like so many fishing huts in the wake of a tsunami."

Why is it that responsible news organizations are able to find reasonable Muslims to speak honestly about the problems of radical Islam and irresponsible news groups rely on a former spokesman for an Islamic terror group and a man who said about his organization, “CAIR does not support these groups publicly” when asked about CAIR’s support for Islamic terror groups?

Posted by: Asylum inmate at January 5, 2006 10:16 AM

Not to make excuses for Condoleeza Rice, but the entire State Department is constrained by the straight-jacket of the classical nation state system. They are obliged to work within the mechanics, diplomatic formalities, and political tools that govern relations between nation states. Their solutions to any problem, including the Middle East region generally and the Israeli situation in particular, are governed by these nation state constructs. In other words, the people in the State Department may not (cannot?) "think outside the box." The Islamic enemy of course, operates completely outside the nation state system, except for tactical maneuvering, as do lots of other actors on the world stage, including the multi-national companies, international telecommunications, the NGOs, and, increasingly, the media. The State Department is a dinosaur that has not adapted to the modern age.

Posted by: Stendec at January 5, 2006 10:24 AM

Hugh: Doesn't this go for the entire Bush administration?

Posted by: Fjordman at January 5, 2006 10:39 AM

Mostly, yes. But not, I think, Bolton. Not for some others whom it would be unwise to name. Not even for some of the generals who are appalled by the Iraq tarbaby, and coming to understand that the Muslim threat is much more a matter, outside of Iran's nuclear business, of Da'wa and demography. Certain books are getting into certain places.

And not even, I suspect, for the more intelligent members of the C.I.A. and even the State Department assigned to the European desks. Imagine, for example, that your task in the State Department is to follow the course of events in Holland, or Denmark, or Italy, or France. And so you must have been made aware of the menace of Islam. You have no need to temper your views, or engage in self-censorship. You know what is going on; you have friends, informants. You are no fool. Perhaps you have read Bat Ye'or's previous books, and so are mentally prepared to grasp "Eurabia." Perhaps you have heard of "The Legacy of Jihad." Perhaps you even follow the Vatican press -- say, Sandro Magister. You can't really accept the nonsense coming from elsewhere in the State Department, from those famous Arabists we hear so much about, and which, it has dawned on you, know little or nothing about Islam, and what's more, wish at every opportunity to serve as apologists for Islam. You have had your fill, and have taken the measure of, John Esposito, Yvonne Haddad, John Voll, and all their admirers and collaborators who have burrowed deep, here and there. You know a little something, or are finding out, about all those ex-diplomats to the Arab countries now busily recyclling petrodollars by doing their Arab Muslim master's bidding. You don't much care for that, either.

Perhaps, at both the C.I.A. and the State Department, those assigned to Europe will rise up, en masse, and declare war within the State Department on the apologists for Islam. Perhaps quietly, but relentlessly. It should happen. It could happen.

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2006 11:15 AM

"She does not understand that the divisions among "Palestinians" are only about means, and tactics, not about ultimate ends.

Rice’s ignorance is matched only by her incomprehension. She still thinks that territorial "compromise" is the path to peace – “compromise” in this case meaning continued Israeli surrender of territory to which it has a legal, historic and moral claim (including the claims under the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, which she really should take the time to read and study. "

Rice already knows all this! However, she believes like most globalists that they can "control" events and that eventually the islamists will be brought to heel.

Two things globalists do understand -- fear and cash. The islamists have both.

The globalists both fear the islamists and are seduced by their large sums of cash.

Posted by: witness at January 5, 2006 11:15 AM

Stendec, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Posted by: Emerson Twain at January 5, 2006 11:28 AM

Let's be serious... one thing the Secretary of State isn't is ignorant. Still I don't understand her policies towards Israel either. She must be taking her cue from President Bush.

Posted by: American Crusader at January 5, 2006 12:25 PM

Anyone looking at the proposed U.N. map for the division of "Israel" and "Palestine" in the 1940's declaration has to understand that you can no more get a peaceful "two state solution" from such inherent chaos (or any proposals for the rorschachian "shapes" of these 'states' ever since... which always leave them like interpenetrating amoebas) than you could get a friendly neighborhood by building the houses with your bathroom located in a neighbor's living room and their kitchen up in you attic, ad absurdum.

The fundamentals are imbecilic. Untenable. Daft.

What else can result from such an insane foundation but outraged dissatisfaction, militant resistence, internecine fighting and endless disagreements?

It's as if Adolf, Goebbels and Himmler had a mole at the U.N. to draw up the basic maps. And now chuckle from Hell at the results.

Rice (and the U.S. leadershsip in general) perpetuates this stunning stupidity with her misunderstanding of the fatally flawed foundation of the entire process.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 5, 2006 12:27 PM

It's as if Adolf, Goebbels and Himmler had a mole at the U.N. to draw up the basic maps. And now chuckle from Hell at the results.

[...]

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 5, 2006 12:27 PM

profitsbeard: knowing what we do about the State Department/Foreign Office types of most western countries, what makes you think they didn't have at least have one if only by proxy?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at January 5, 2006 12:33 PM

Secretary Rice is motivated by a dream, that all Israelis and Palestinians, could someday walk hand in hand and overcome their differences with mutual understanding. They would come to realize that they are really no different than one another, with similar aspirations and desires. They would understand that to achieve peace, they must overcome prejudice and misunderstanding. They would move forward together to achieve a more harmonious coexistence, living side by side with complete cooperation.

Fortunately for us, Ms Rice is not influenced by ridiculous utopian ideologies such as Marxism or Islam.

Posted by: GFB at January 5, 2006 12:57 PM

In an administration that is in denial, it is hard to separate a person’s knowledge from the stand that they are asked to assume. However, as long as they are part of the administration and speak the administration’s line in public, they accept the responsibility of their position.

If Condi Rice seeks a future on a national ticket, she needs to resign and distance herself from the administrations stance. One can’t retool one’s position and reveal a miraculous conversion to a tough no-nonsense opponent of the Islamic threat all at once. It takes time to engage in a discussion with the public, perhaps first raising doubt and asking question. But ultimately stating forcefully what we here know.

If we are to encourage candidates to step forward and provide a real alternative for the 2008 election. We need to show there is a market for a radically different type of candidate who fully understands the nature of the Islamic threat and doesn’t hold back from speaking the truth. They may have to present their views gradually until the public can accept this message. Indeed, they’ll be educating the public. But they have to start now.

Let’s make our displeasure known. It’s both Parties, of course, but the current administration has to assume responsibility for its policies and the Democrats for their silence. As a Republican, I want to see a major change in orientation. But I’m not averse to considering a staunch anti-jihadist candidate from the party of Harry Truman. I’d love a replay of the 1960’s election when the issue was: who’s soft on communism. Now it should be: who is soft on Islam. At the moment, both are!

Posted by: JasonP at January 5, 2006 1:18 PM

"... She doesn't get how to divide, demoralize, and throw into disarray the forces of jihad -- by withdrawing from, rather than remaining in, Iraq."

Now, I concur with Hugh (or should I say Laszlo?) that SECSTATE Rice has been a complete flop (and I will still put in my two cents for Alan Keyes as SECSTATE--I can't think of anyone who would more vigorously defend the interests of the United States and cause more conniptions among the State Dept lifers), and thanks for recalling that she was asleep at the helm at NSC, too. But I have to challenge the statement I’ve quoted above.

Withdrawing from Iraq will not divide, demoralize, or throw into disarray any of our opponents (not unless we dethrone the Saudis and trash some Iranian facilities along the way ). Indeed, the very point I repeatedly make to my superiors, and which gains me no favor at all, is that our departure from Iraq, under whatever circumstances (total victory or thoroughly horsewhipped, or any combination of the these), will be endlessly trumpeted in the Islamic world as a great, resounding victory in the cause of Allah, the fruits of the jihad conducted by the faithful mujahideen. They fought us, we left. The cause/effect will be clear to them, even if not to us. The world's greatest military power, the great machine called America, will have been driven out of the holy lands of Islam by a handful of faithful, pure warriors. First the Soviet Union, now the United States, nothing can stop the faithful.

Strategically, there is a clearly understandable concern about leaving Iraq with anything less than a capable military and police force in place. Since 2001, much focus has been placed on ungoverned areas of the world as places where international terrorism can take refuge, train, and plan future operations. Afghanistan was the hinterlands in the mid-90s, even as the further reaches of the FATA and Waziristan remain refuges. Hence the interest in places like the southwestern reaches of the Sahara, the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia. For non-state actors in the global jihad (as opposed to state-sponsored actors like Hezballah), these are the places to go. Iraq, if abandoned now, would immediately become the new home of an invigorated AQ, and the Sunni vilayet so frequently desired in these pages would quickly become the new Sharia state we would have to vanquish in another few years. While it may be desirable to leave such a hornet’s nest in the region to stir up trouble among the current generation of tyrants, the hornets will not stay there.

We can debate whether any invasion and occupation of any Islamic country is wise, given that the withdrawal, whenever it comes, would further encourage our enemies. Likewise, we can debate whether we should have simply "decapitated" Iraq, and installed a new tinhorn dictator (but he would be "our" tinhorn dictator). But it's too late for that. The questions that are left us are, what will we leave behind, and possibly, where do we go when we leave.

Posted by: longtime lurker at January 5, 2006 1:55 PM

waterdragon52-

With the recent KGB archives that have revealed how many moles/sympathizers the soviets had in place in Britain and the U.S., especially at crucial military institutions and research facilties (Los Alamos had Klaus Fuchs, etc.) during the 1930's, '40's and onward, I have little doubt that there was something "not quite kosher" about the U.N. plans for this "two state" plot.

You can't draw such an irrational map irrationally.

It may have been a strategic effort to keep the Middle East in a state of more-easily-exploitable chaos.

Like throwing a hornets nest into your competitor's shop and then stealing the contents while the owner and the hornets battle it out.

(I thought Rice was a [anachronistic] "Soviet expert" anyway, not anyone with particular expertise in the Middle East.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 5, 2006 2:00 PM

The affinity between Condi and Islam is only natural. After all, as a professional prerogate she herself is the product of political correctitude.

For my part, I look forward to the day when she takes on a beard, probably by marrying an intense Wahhabi of Paki descent or somesuch.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 5, 2006 2:18 PM

Bravo, Hugh (Fitzgerald)! Never knew a woman who could not be improved by an instructive bitch-slapping.

Posted by: Havoc at January 5, 2006 2:48 PM

Havoc, do I have to speak to your mother again?

"one thing the Secretary of State isn't is ignorant" - American Crusader

One thing I have noticed is that all human beings are ignorant of some things, and no one knows everything. Declaring Condi to be ignorant of Islam is not the same thing as calling her stupid.

Stupid, she is not. Ignorant of Islam, she most certainly is.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 5, 2006 3:48 PM

Never knew a woman who could not be improved by an instructive bitch-slapping.

That's over the line, Havoc.

After all, we're supposed to be better than the wife-beating jihadis.

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 5, 2006 5:18 PM

Ah, let's see...

Condoleeza Rice.
Umhum. Bill Clinton...

George Bush....
Madeline Albright...

Yep, Bush is the anti-thesis of Clinton right??

Okay. So how did Rice become Sec. of State?

A guy by the name of Josef Korbel?? Who's he.
Hmmm?
He was a minor communist official in the Czech Republic. He immigrated here in the 50's after he decided he did'nt like the Soviet brand of socialism. He became a professor.(imagine that!)

He had a daughter. Her name was Madeline. She became Sec. of State.
Condoleeza Rice had a "mentor" who she says was the most influencial person in her life...
His name was ....Josef Korbel.

So what we have here is a change in face and personality-- but a continuation of philosophy and the correct "world-view".

It cannot be an accident.
But Bush and Clinton are soooo different right???
Hahahaha. Maybe on the sh-t that don't matter. Or maybe on a tactical level, but ultimately, world-wide "socialism" is where were headed.

Posted by: kentim at January 5, 2006 7:42 PM

Hugh lets have some perspective here. The Bush administration is the first one to openly declare that Arafat was a terrorist! Clinton openly fawned all over Arafat, in fact he prol. had his own room at the White House! Is Rice perfect, no, but by comparison l can see her getting better. Maybe you can have some D.C. buddies drop a book in her mail bag once in a while! l would love it if the Bush GOP would have more backbone and tell it like it is about Islam! But the damm PC environment is so damm thick Bush was branded a racist, blah blah against Islam when he said the word "Crusade" shortly after 9-11! He is trying to straighten out the UN with Bolton, bring in good judges especially for supreme court. He is being attacked for wire taps of international calls from countries like Pakistan to the U.S. The UCLA is constantling attacking every move on the GOP, calls for impeachment out every sentence from the wacko left. Look at this environment the GOP has to work with.. can you just see if Condi Rice would say Islam is the problem!
my God Hugh, the GOP would be tarred and feathered! need to be realistic!

Posted by: Lulu at January 5, 2006 7:44 PM

I never said she was stupid; I said she had room for growth ... wanted instruction, etc

Posted by: Havoc at January 5, 2006 8:28 PM

I would have deleted, had I not just run across it, when other comments on it have intervened, the remark about "bitch-slapping."

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2006 9:01 PM

Kentim, you're right. Guess who are both members of the CFR? Madeline and Condi. The CFR membership list is impressive and is divided just about equally between Democrats and Republicans. Madeline was complaining just the other day about too much bi-partisan bickering in Congress. It is an amusing sideshow; their agendas are identical but they continue to engage in a dramatic charade for the benefit of the unwitting plebeians.

I wonder why NOBODY in the media, not even the right-wing talk show people, discuss what's going on behind the scenes? It baffles me. I would bet that not one -third of the American people are aware of the pact Bush signed last March with Mexico and Canada, or what it means.

Posted by: Susanp at January 5, 2006 10:14 PM

Hugh,
I don't understand how you KNOW Condi Rice is ignorant.

Part of the game of diplomacy is saying one thing in public, and another thing entirely behind closed doors.

Condi is very strong on Democracy in public, while at the same time saying that she finds the potential for common ground between Islam and Freedom.

Just because she says that does not mean she is ignorant.

I had an argument with a Palestinian Christian who sat and gave her "testimony" for two nights in our Bible study. It was filled with lies and Israel bashing. Rather than confront her on her lies, which all involved anecdotal stories of beatings at the hands of the IDF, and of having land stolen by "Zionists," I challenged her on the Jizya. I said, now you know the Jizya tax is, in effect, a statement that non-Muslims are second class citizens, right?

Yes.

Well, is that acceptable?

YOu must understand, she said, that in Islam, there is no difference between theology and politics.

Yes, I know. Is that acceptable? Is it acceptable to designate whole groups of people to second class citizenship?

Uh, no.

The thing was, I wouldn't back down on the issue of Freedom.

Instead of attacking Islam, I attacked the lack of freedom in a certain idea put forth by Islam. I didn't even attack it as a part of Islam. She brought that fact up herself. In other words, she stated that Islam was the culprit, not me.

I see this as the strategy of Rice and Bush.

You see ignorance.

Posted by: pastorius at January 5, 2006 11:39 PM

Hi Susanp,

I agree, but I also suspect the number is closer to 2/3rds.
People living in a bubble, that's what it is, they just don't give a youknowwhat as long as "it dos'nt effect me". Most got it good enough where a little slavery ain't so bad. But it's "bit by bit"(a Stalin quote),and more and more, until the "frame of reference" is changed again.
Our society seems designed to keep people too busy or distracted to actually think about cause and effect and consequences.
I dunno, I think it may be happening because of the existence of WMD, they see it as a way to save humanity from itself or something.
I just think it's about maintanance of elitist position.
The mass-media is part of it, they have lots of people in the CFR or Trilateral Commission. I'm sure you've seen Goldwater's critique of one of those two also.
Without the internet, who would know anything?
These two sites seem to me to have the most coherent and verifiable analysis I've seen. If one could eliminate the few flaws in their thesis, and then somehow synthesize them I think we would be very close to reality:

http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm

Posted by: kentim at January 5, 2006 11:41 PM

Kentim, I have read part of Kocher's work, but I'm not finished. I found Steven Yates' article (link below) interesting, although it isn't a new thesis by any means.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven12.htm

Posted by: Susanp at January 6, 2006 12:01 AM

"I don't understand how you KNOW Condi Rice is ignorant."
-- from a posting above

The same way I know anyone is ignorant about anything, or stupid, or if not stupid, insufficiently intelligent for the tasks at hand. In the case of Condoleeza Rice, I would say that on September 11, 2001 she knew no more about Islam than did almost everyone else -- which is to say, nothing except that it was called a "religion" and that a whole lot of people were, are Muslims, and that there is something that some Muslims believe that made them do what they did (actually, for quite a while the "why do they hate us" notion kept people focussed on what America did, until attacks on Infidels in Madrid, Amsterdam, Moscow, Beslan, Bali, London, etc. put paid to that nonsense). If someone is Secreatary of State, in 2005-2006, what is the one thing that person should demonstrate knowledge of, or at least not continue to mislead the country about? It is Islam. Do you think Condoleeza Rice has spent many hours, since 9/11/2001, quietly reading, familiarizing herself with Qur'an (and understanding that 20% of it is incomprehensible, and realizing that the doctine of naskh, or abrogation, knocks out the softer parts, and elevates the harsher ones), or the Hadith, or quite realizes how important is every detail in the Life of Muhammad, himself the Model of Man for all time? For it is not a question merely of knowing this in the abstract, not a question of reading but of living with it, and familiarizing oneself with what is written, spoken, thought, lived, in the Arab and Muslmi countries, and how everything that would otherwise seem puzzling, such as the phenomenon of the "islamochristian" that ceases to be a puzzle once one has read and thoroughly assmilated "Islam and Dhimitude" by Bat Ye'or, or the inshallah-fatalism that explains the failure of Muslim oil states, despite being the beneficiaries of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, to create modern economies, or the Islamic tendency toward despotism which is explained by the habit of mental and other kinds of submission in Islam, the habit of obeying the Ruler who, on the model of Muhammad (for he offers the political model for all time as well), rules as he wishes, and all that is asked of him is that he be a Muslim, not an Infidel (which is why, when Muslims attack their own rulers, they do so in Muslim terms -- that is, it is not so much the corruption of the Al-Saud, but what is called by some their "Infidel" behavior, that condemns them) -- well, do you think she shows any signs of this?

Her bullying of Israel does not occur in an intellectual vacuum. It occurs because she really believes the nonsense about how this is a main cause, or still worse, the main cause, of Arab Muslim hostikity. It is not the cause. The Lesser Jihad against Israel is simply the expression of the unending hostility toward Infidels, and the desire to conquer their lands, and subjugate all non-Muslims, that too many in the Western world -- including that Good Student Condoleeza Rice -- can't grasp.

They lack the knowledge. They lack the wit. They lack the necessary imagination. They are limited.

And she is limited.

It wouldn't matter so much if she were, say, that university president that a few years ago she aspired to be (applying for a certain opening, but not getting it). It matters when Life and Death decisions about American soldiers, civilians, the islamization of Europe, the future of the West, the future of Infidels, matters.

Cheerleaders for the Administration annoy, and are dangerous. They confuse issues.

There is one: what is Islam? What can it do? What are Muslims doing now, and what will they be able to do in the future?

That is not a matter about which this Administation's actions, in Iraq, or with Israel, or in energy policy, or in the continued and expanded jizyah to Pakistan, Egypt, the "Palestinians" inspires confidence.

And the greatest failure of all is this colossal fiasco in Iraq, this misallocation of resources to this Light Unto the Muslim Nations project. It won't work. It can't work.

And it would be far better to let Iraq revert to its natural state, that is to dissolve again into the three vilayets with which the British, and Sir Percy Cox, started back when they began fooling around for their own purposes.

Does Condoleeza Rice know who Percy Cox was? Has she read a single word, relevant today, by Gertrude Bell? When did she, and when did Bush, begin to realize that the words "Sunni" and "Shi'a" were the operative words, not the word "Iraqi" and "Iraq"? Did they realize this in 2002? In 2003? In 2004? In 2005? Yes, I think late in 2005 they began to realize that this little conflict was not something that would be overcome by "democracy" or reconstruction works or anything else.

Perhaps they realize it now --but do they also realize how that can be exploited for the benefit of the non-Islamic world, or does the principle of "divide and rule" seem simply too -- too mean, too machiavellian -- for these dreamy people in their dreamworld of Doing Well by Doing Good.

God save from such people.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2006 10:20 AM

Hugh,
Thanks for your answer.

Now, I have another question for you? First I need to make a little point. We beat the Japanese and Germans in WWII by humiliating them militarily, and then delivering a devastating death blow on both countries (dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

This is also how we beat the South in the American Civil War.

When we look at history it is obvious that these are our most successful wars.

After those wars were over, we were just as ruthless in destroying the operating ideologies of Germany and Japan as we were in destroying their militaries. We outlawed Emperor-worship, and we outlawed Nazism. We remade the Japanese religion, and what I would call the German religion.

Now, if that's the way to win a war, then why do you not advocate such a strategy, rather than advocating a return to chaos. Allowing the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to battle it out is simply a return to the Realpolitik that characterized the Iran/Iraq war of the 80's.

Realpolitik has proven itself to be a brutal policy and one which accomplishes the same thing as appeasement; it, merely, just puts off the pain. Eventually, these Islamofascists will have to be defeated in humiliating fashion.

Posted by: pastorius at January 6, 2006 1:05 PM

Twice now I have replied, in detail, to the poster above. Twice I managed to erase what I had so carefully if quickly written, and could not retrieve it. But I will, sooner or later today, get back to this, for the posting above, in its misstatement of so many things, infuriates me.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2006 2:31 PM

Hugh, I appreciate that you will be replying. If I am wrong, I would love to know.

Posted by: pastorius at January 6, 2006 2:50 PM

“We beat the Japanese and Germans in WWII by humiliating them militarily, and then delivering a devastating death blow on both countries (dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). This is also how we beat the South in the American Civil War.When we look at history it is obvious that these are our most successful wars.
After those wars were over, we were just as ruthless in destroying the operating ideologies of Germany and Japan as we were in destroying their militaries. We outlawed Emperor-worship, and we outlawed Nazism. We remade the Japanese religion, and what I would call the German religion.
Now, if that's the way to win a war, then why do you not advocate such a strategy, rather than advocating a return to chaos. Allowing the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to battle it out is simply a return to the Realpolitik that characterized the Iran/Iraq war of the 80's.
Realpolitik has proven itself to be a brutal policy and one which accomplishes the same thing as appeasement; it, merely, just puts off the pain. Eventually, these Islamofascists will have to be defeated in humiliating fashion.”
n from a posting above

What’s wrong with the above? Everything.
Note first that World War II and the Civil War are offered as examples, not only because they ended with a complete and victory of an enemy that was vanquished, with Berlin in ruins and a good deal of the rest of Germany, including Dresden and Hamburg, also destroyed, with Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki almost completely destroyed, and much of Japan in ruins, with millions of Germans and Japanese soldiers killed and millions more wounded. As for the Civil War, in the age of less-total war, there was still devastation and ruination, including the destruction of Atlanta, and the often overlooked destruction of much of Columbia, South Carolina, another major southern city.
What does this have to do with Iraq? Were millions of Iraqis killed? Were they beaten into submission? Was the country smoldering? No. What about the rest of the Islamic world – I take it, despite your timid and inaccurate word “islamofascists,” that you know perfectly well that it is no more some concoction called “islamofascists” who are the problem, any more than it is “Wahhabi” Muslims alone or “extremist” Muslims. If by this point you don’t recognize the problem as Islam, the Islam of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, both Sunni and Shi’a (and the Sufis do – let’s not keep seeing them as otherworldly whirling dervishes, whose major figures did not call for Jihad – they did, and how).

You give us this potted two-paragraph summary of World War II (and the Civil War) and then state “Now, if that’s the way to win a war.” Let’s stop right there. That was the way that World War II and the Civil War were won. That’s it. The war of self-defense against the Jihad is a far different kind of war, involving very different threats – the military threat is the least effective part of the menace that Islam represents. The real analogy, to the extent that there is one, is the “war” – that is the Cold War – that was conducted for more than four decades after World War II, and while there were certainly elements of military conflict, they were in the end far less important than the ideological war, that which the Marshall Plan helped with in Europe (after World War II, the largest political party in France was the Communist Party, the largest political party in Italy was the Communist Party, and the Communists, the Soviet Communists, had all sorts of allies and fellow-travellers among very influential groups as well).

The main goal should be to weaken the force, the cohesion, the self-assurance, the strength, of Islam, by using whatever natural fissures within Islam itself can be encouraged. Iraq, the Administration thought – without yet realizing, if it yet realizes, that Islam and not some perversion of Islam is the problem, and without realizing, if it yet realizes, that there is no nation-state called “Iraq” that is likely to survive once the all-powerful despot is removed, and that there is no “Iraqi” people even if the term is used both in Washington and, in a different way, by some in Iraq (each ethnic or sectarian group putting its own particular interpretation or spin on the word).

That can not be done by pouring men, and money, and materiel into Iraq for the silly “democracy” project. This idea, the idea that Iraq could be remolded, that it could be done in a year or even five years, when it would take several generations, at least, to instill any real democracy, if by that we want to include respect for the idea of man-made law, not subservient to the Shari’a, and the guaranteed rights of non-Muslims and of women, and of much else. And even then the best we could have – the very best – might be something like Turkey, which after Ataturk’s systematic stripping away of political and social power from the mosques, after all that he did, after all that his successors did, after the imposed Cult of Ataturk and of the Turkish Nation (given an entirely mythological history, going back a few thousand years, long before any Turkic peoples were even identified on the steppes of Central Asia), that was so clearly meant to replace the Muslim Cult of Muhammad, with Ataturk-worship replacing Muhammad-worship, and Ataturk becoming uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, for Turkish minds and hearts, still today Islam is alive and well, and slowly managing to undo the Kemalist knots with which it had been, for a while, tied down sufficiently for a secular class of Turks to arise. But that happened over 80 years, with no outside intervention, but from within, begun by an enlightened despot, Ataturk, and enforced by a clever set of laws that did a great deal to limit the power of Islam.
You write of how after World War II “we were just as ruthless in destroying the operating ideologies of Germany and Japan as we were in destroying their militaries. We outlawed Emperor-worship, and we outlawed Nazism. We remade the Japanese religion, and what I would call the German religion.”

This is wrong on several counts. Denazification was not pursued with anything like the rigor and ferocity it should have been. The German judiciary, for example, in up to its neck with Nazis, remained largely intact. Eleven men were hanged – exactly eleven – at Nuremburg. Millions of Germans were Nazis, tens of millions supported Hitler even if not members of the Nazi Party, and hundreds of thousands of Germans were directly implicated in the mass murder of Jews. In the latter category, none were subjecd to capital punishment in Germany either by the Allies after Nuremburg, or by the Germans (who suddenly acquired a deep respect for human life, and passed a law right away banning capital punishment).
As for Japan, MacArthur, that greatly-overrated general (a book published recently by four survivors of the Bataan March show just how he, MacArthur, was nowhere to be found when he should have been right there, and one learns a good deal more about this clever showman – a bit like Patton, rather than like General Omar Bradley), prevented the discharge of Hirohito, and while Emperor-worship went out, the Emperor remained.

The ideology of Nazism was defeated, but it did not disappear. Nor did Japanese Kodo disappear entirely from Japan – look at Mishima’s behavior, look at some of the unrepentant visitors to the shrine to Admiral Tojo and other war criminals.
But it is true that Nazism and Kodo were both largely discredited, and for a long time.
Has this happened with Islam? Of course not. Saddam Hussein was, if anything, more secular in his government (but it would be a mistake to call Ba’athist a rejection of Islam; it wasn’t and isn’t, and pan-Arabism is not an alternative to, as many believe, but rather an early subset of, pan-Islamism, with which it is intimately associated) than what has been put in place. All over the south, there is much more evidence of Islam and the Shari’a being enforced (murders of liquor dealers, women forced to wear the chador or abaya or whatever the damn thing is called in Basra and environs, more attacks everywhere on Christians, from Mosul to Baghdad to Basra in the south).

Islam cannot be destroyed. It can be weakened, and is most effectively weakened from within. That weakening can take place in a number of ways. Iraq provides two of them: the sectarian (Sunni-Shi’a) and ethnic (Kurd-Arab) fissures, which we are trying so hard to paper over, to prevent from expanding, are exactly the kind of thing we should welcome, should do nothing to discourage. The sheer naivete and craziness of American policy in Iraq right now (unless it is all fake, unless the Administration really has decided to leave in the next six months, as I ardently hope), is not to be believed. It is the apotheosis of American Dumbing-Down, of an entire government, and all those think-tanks, and all those solemn papers, and all those Centers for This and That, those Schools of Advanced International Somethningorother, those boys and men on the make and on the take, those promoters of Democracy, those Redoers of the World, those End-Poverty-Now boys, at their very own World Institutes or World Banks or World Somethingorother. Oh, they don’t know history, they don’t know what constitutes a civilization, they are too busy for any of that. They will redo the universe. Isn’t that what we are here for – to re-do the universe, with Yankee ingenuity.
Now when I claim that having the Sunnis and the Shi’a slug it out – or not, as may happen – and to encourage, or at least do nothing to discourage, as the Americans have repeatedly, the Kurds in their desire for autonomy or even indpependence, you misleadingly confuse this with something else. You call this attitude “Realpolitik” and then proceed to inform me that this “Realpolitik” from the past, from the 1980s and so on, in which the American government did nothing to undercut the despotisms of the Middle East, didn’t work. You are no doubt thinking of those so-called “realists” Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and James Baker.
But they weren’t “realists.” They weren’t practicing any kind of “Realpolitik.” They were, and are, characterized by 1) anti-Israel animus and indifference to its fate and 2) as a corollary to 1, they believe that throwing Israel to the Arab wolves will somehow solve “the problem” because 3) they have never studied, and do not know, anything about Islam, and indeed have a record of either intimate ties to rich Arabs or Muslim governments (look into Scowcroft’s clients at Kissinger Associates; look into the government he currently represents as a registered foreign agent; look into James Baker’s ties to the Saudis, and other rich Arabs, whether governments, or companies, or individuals). As for Brzezinski, the man who let the Shah fell, and with his friend Carter chose to believe that Khomeini would turn out just fine because he was a “religious man,” the Brzezinski who simplemindedly saw “Islam as a bulwark against Communism” and failed to realize that Islam was even more hostile toward the liberal West, and always would be.
You are trying to lump me with those false practitioners of a false Realpolitik, one that attempts to deal with Muslims and Muslim polities without investigating the tenets of Islam, the history of Islamic conquest, the immutable nature of Islam, the way in which Muslims in Western Europe may, through Da’wa and demography, inherit Western Europe – inherit its museums, churches, unverisites, defense establishments, inherit the history of the West. They show, all of these stupid people, these scowcrofts and brzezinskis, not the slightest understanding of any of this. Why, compared to them, even Bush and Rice seem to be geniuses. Even those who were so excited about how they were going to redo Iraq, and present a Shi’a-ruled state as a model for Sunni Arab states (oh, yes, it’s true – they thought everyone would be so grateful for the overthrow of the tyrant that this little business between Sunni and Shi’a wouldn’t matter that much).
Having told us how bad the practitioners of “Realpolitik” were – yes, they were, because they weren’t really practicing Realpolitik as it should be defined. They were, and remain, appeasers of Islam – every man jack of them, you then end:
“Realpolitik has proven itself to be a brutal policy and one which accomplishes the same thing as appeasement; it, merely, just puts off the pain. Eventually, these Islamofascists will have to be defeated in humiliating fashion.”
This is so nonsensical that I don’t know where to begin. “Realpolitik has proven itself to be a brutal policy and one which accomplishes the same thing as appeasement.” But I’ve told you – the Realpolitik” you are talking about, the Brzezinski-Baker-Scowcroft line of appeasement, wasn’t Realpolitik but was appeasement. So you are misnaming a policy of appeasement, and then triumphantly informing me, and the world, that this turned out to be appeasement.

Loyalty to the Administration is possibly what explains your inability to see the nature of the conflict, the instruments necessary to conduct the conflict successfully, the essentially endless nature of it, the need to exploit the fissures within the enemy camp, and what constitutes appeasement, and what does not.

The policy of remaining in Iraq, which is based on timidity, on a failure to face up to the nature of Islam and to be far more cold and ruthless in one’s plans – and what could be colder, and more ruthless, than hoping for a repeat of the Iran-Iraq War, and hoping as well that it goes on forever, and what could be more soft-headed and silly than thinking that ending “poverty” (all that reconstruction in Iraq) and bringing “democracy” will somehow, in some quite unspecified way, lead to a lessening of the world-wide threat, from the Christians and Hindus and other non-Muslims being attacked, wherever they live, whether in Indonesia, or Pakistan, or Kashmir, or Bangladesh, or within India itself, or in the Philippines, and all over sub-Saharan Africa, and of course will somehow help to prevent the islamization of Europe.
That’s what I call appeasement. Appeasement disguised as a muscular policy, but in its waste, in its foolishness, in its failure to take full advantage of what the situation in Iraq offers Infidels (hint: it’s not a stable nation-state called “Iraq”), a policy that sane people who recognize the full menace of Islam, and have not decided to continue as unthinking cheerleaders (more interested in scoring points against “MSM, leftists, liberals, Cindy Sheehan, put your own favorite target here”) for the Administration’s obstinate refusal to admit to its own ignorance of Islam and of Iraq, or even if it cannot admit it publicly, to quietly change policy, insisting all the while that “we have done what we can do and now it is up to the Iraqis.”

That's about all. If you want more, simply google "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" and "Light Unto the Muslim Nations." I haven't had any reason to change my views on Iraq, since I first began posting in 2003.

See if any of it makes an impression.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2006 11:37 PM

Hi Hugh,
Let me start by saying I admire and appreciate your work, and the work of Robert Spencer. In fact, I buy and read Robert Spencers books and I read Jihad and Dhimmi Watch almost everyday, so I am not unaware of the menace of Islam.

And, let's face it, I am not intellectually up to your level. And, in addition to that, I admit, I am no expert on history. My education is in Philosophy and Literature, and I have only begun to educate myself on history since 9/11.

However, there are some things I do know, and I do know we beat the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII, and although my explanation of our victory might have been brief, and lacking in details with regards to where we were insufficiently tough, the fact remains, and you admitted it yourself, that we did enforce change on the religions/ideologies of Nazism and Japanese Shinto Buddhism, after thoroughly humiliating their armies.

And, we forced each country to establish a Democratic Republic.

Now, you indicated that you think I might be a blind supporter of the Bush Administration. I admit, I am a Bush supporter, however, my version of what should be done to beat Islamofascism in the Middle East does not correspond with what the Bush Administration is doing. The Bush Administration is trying to be surgical and precise in it's war in Iraq, taking out only those terrorists who are a direct threat, or who are perceived to pose a direct threat in the future. I think they need to crush and humiliate the enemy.

Here is one of my assumptions. Human nature does not change, appreciably, over time. In the West, we believe it can and does, because we know that we live in a more Just world than did our ancestors. However, in my opinion, this is because we have established a good system of law and governance, which protects us from the encroaching chaos outide our bubble.

Now, just as human nature does not change, neither do the rules of war, as war is an outgrowth of human nature.

If the rules of war do not change, then we need to accept that fact. We need to fight war the way we know we will win. I don't believe it is a good idea to experiment with new, more humanitarian forms of war.

So, to the extent the Bush Administration is not fighting this war as ruthlessly as we fought the Civil War, and the wars of WWII, I am not a "supporter" of the Bush Administration. However, I am witholding judgement, to some extent, hoping that I am wrong.

It's looking more and more like I am not, however. The arrest of the magazine editor in Afghanistan, and the fact that it seems, everytime I see a new photo essay out of Iraq, more and more women are wrapped in burqas, seem to tell me that I am correct. We have not been brutal enough either militarily, or ideologically in Iraq.

You said that this war, being ideological, is more akin to the Cold War, than to WWII.

I disagree. The wars against Germany and Japan were about defeating evil ideologies as well.

The only reason we fought the Cold War in the way we did was because we knew we couldn't win going at the Soviet Union directly. The biggest reason we knew we couldn't win was the fact that the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. However, it also would have been damn near impossible to defeat the Soviet Army on a battlefield. They were too fierce and numerous. So, with time on our side, and the brilliant vision of Ronald Reagan and other architects of the targeted economic and ideological dismantling of the Soviet Union, we opted for the slow process of the Cold War.

It is my opinion that we do not have time on our side in this war. I believe the more time that passes, the more nuclear proliferation within the Middle East will make it inevitable that we will get hit by nuclear terrorism.

It seems to me we need to strike while we have the advantage, and that is now.

While Islam is all but monolithic in it's ideology, it's ideology derives it's power from it's wealth, which gives it the ability to extend itself into the four corners of the world. The wealth of Islam lies in it's oil. The most powerful Islamic nations, then, are Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What we need to do is destroy those three regimes, and any other regime such as Syria, or Egpyt which to pose a threat of mixing fanaticism and nuclear weapons. We need to remake their countries from the ground up the way we did with Germany and Japan, and the American South.

Now, I se a bit of the humanitarian in your depiction of the aftermath of WWII. You noted that Germany and Japan lay in ruins, with millions dead). Yes, this is true, and it is ugly, but it worked, and it worked to save lives which, in the long run would have been lost if we had not utterly destroyed those regimes. (We did not kill nearly as many people as they did.)

The precision with which we can fight now does mean that less people have to die, but, at the same time, we are being too precise in who we are going after. For instance, I can not, for the life of me, understand why we didn't take out Muqtada al-Sadr and his whole army in Najaf. Why, when we knew they were holed up in Mosques, we did not just level the Mosques, I will never understand. This kind of "war" betrays a lack of seriousness. It only tells our enemy that we are weak.

The reason I called your approach Realpolitik is because I see it as a practical, we won't get our hands dirty, approach to the war. I cited the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's because, in my opinion, and from what I know, that would be the equivalent of what would happen if we allow the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis to fight it out in Iraq. They will murder each other and murder each other, and in the end, they will have three despotic nations, who still periodically murder each other. And, at a certain point, they will aquire nuclear weapons, and then we will have to go and fight them anyway.

Here's something we need to realize, if we do not beat the power centers of Islamofascism, then we will eventually get hit by nuclear weapons. When we do, the war we fight will be far more brutal than anything I am calling for.

I don't want to see that happen.

Instead, I say we need to break those regimes and establish Democratic Republics in their place. If it could be done in a country as alien to the West as Japan was, then, it can be done in the Middle East.

Islam is a powerful ideology, but it does not hold power over Freedom, if we make our case for Freedom with sufficient force.

We must decide whether we believe our own Declaration of Independence; that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Do we believe that, and are we willing to trust in it as a matter of course, or are we going to do the practical thing and let the "barbarians" kill each other?

Is it possible that we have decided that the Declaration of Independence is just a fairy tale we no longer believe in?

Once again, I say that, if I am wrong in anything I am saying, I want to know. So, fire away.

:)

Posted by: pastorius at January 7, 2006 6:22 PM

Only two comments:

1) "The reason I called your approach Realpolitik is because I see it as a practical, we won't get our hands dirty, approach to the war."

That is not what "Realpolitik" means. It means essentially doing what you think you must, practically, leaving out moral considerations, for the advancement of the national interest. Amoral power politics might be the shorthand. In this case, "Realpolitik" makes sense if it advances the national interest without caring, for example, if one makes alliances with unsavory regimes and states, or to employ, or make deals with, unpleasant individuals. During the Cold War the American government allowed certain Nazi war criminals to be rehired, even to be employed by the Americans. This was Realpolitik that had no real justication, and that in every case known to me, wasn't worth the awful compromise. Not with Rudolph Gehlen, not with any of the others.

You use the word "Realpolitik" in an idiosyncratic way that has nothing to do with its accepted use.

Emphasis on "democracy" in Iraq is not "Realpolitik" but sentimentalism -- sentimentalism about democracy, combined with ignorance, at the top, about both the definition of democracy that means more than head-counting, and ignorance of all the things that had to take place, in the minds of men, before that kind of democracy, over several centuries, developed. It required an end to believe in the Divine Right of Kings. It required the American and French Revolutions. It required the rise of parliaments and limits on monarchs and the growth of middle classes and a free press and much else that is hardly present in Iraq and goes against the grain of Islam and the habit of submission, mental submission and all other kinds, that Islam inculcates.

2) "You said that this war, being ideological, is more akin to the Cold War, than to WWII.

I disagree. The wars against Germany and Japan were about defeating evil ideologies as well."

When I said that the Cold War was "ideological" in nature, and that the war of self-defense against Islam is primarily one not involving the military, but an ideological war, I never implied, as you seem to think, that the wars against Japan and Germany were not "ideological." But military defeat had to proceed, rather than accompany, the defeat of the relevant ideologies: Kodo (Japanese militarism based on Emperor-worship, and so on) and Nazism. The defeats were total, the destruction and loss of life sufficiently great, and the occupation (by the Americans in Japan, by the three main Allies, along with the French, in Germany), led to a policy of not-sufficiently-enthusiastic de-nazification, and re-education in "democracy" that took hold with enough Germans, Germans who in any case couldn't believe their luck in the American sector, at the naivete and generosity of their occupiers, and were in a mood, as long as they got away with the murders that they did get away with, to be good boys and girls or at least to play along. One is not quite so impressed with the supposed change of heart of all sorts of people, but at least whatever Germany ended up having, thanks to enormous American aid, seems to have produced a place different from that which produced Hitler and gave him his electoral success and the worship of a nation. Of course World War II and the Cold War, and the war of self-defense against the Jihad, are all wars against certain ideologies. But World War II was also a gigantic military campaign. The Cold War was not, and the war of self-defense against Islam is not, for a simple reason: the main threat is the spread of Islam through Da'wa and demography. The likelihood of military conquest is small. Damage can be inflicted only if certain kinds of weapons are acquired, and if they were to be used, the particular states linked to their use -- whether they use them directly, or pass them off to groups -- would one hopes, and believes, would be wiped out. But that would not wipe out Islam. Islam cannot be wiped out. It can, from within, be demoralized, divided, its adherents made aware that the Infidels are no longer to be fooled with taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, no longer to regard what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira with anything except horror, and that Muslims in the West will have to be constantly explaining what it is that they do or do not believe that any Infidel can find, and retrieve, with a click, from those canonical texts. It will be impossible for Muslims to continue to hide, in full view, before the world's Infidels, what Islam is all about -- not what they tell us it is about, but what we can see for ourselves, by reading the texts, reading the histories of Islamic conquest and subjugation of Infidels, observing how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries today, observe what is written in the Muslim textbooks, in the Muslim press, broadcast on Muslim radio stations and television channels. It can and is being translated, disseminated, made accessible to Infidels as never before -- and the best efforts of armies of apologists simply will not be able to keep up with the reality of Islam, now so easily apprehended.

3)"we need to break those regimes and establish Democratic Republics in their place. If it could be done in a country as alien to the West as Japan was, then, it can be done in the Middle East."

Again, you entirely miss the point. Japan was in ruins, the MIddle East is not. Millions of Japanese had been killed, a few tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed by the Americans. Kodo was discredited; the Emperor almost had to abdicate, but was permitted to remain (and Hirohito's behavior rewritten for public consumption) by MacArthur. And while Kodo was discredited, Islam is not only not discredited, but observed openly, with much greater fervor now, in Iraq, that it has been in the entire history of modern Iraq. That is a direct consequence of the removal of the despot who kept rivals, based in the Shi'a mosques, or even in the Sunni mosques, in check with this semi-alternative to Islam called Ba'athism.

4) for "it's" read "its"

Posted by: Hugh at January 7, 2006 11:31 PM