| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald examines why it is so difficult, if not impossible, to find Iraqi soldiers willing to cooperate with American troops:
The Bandar Beacon (Washington Post) has recently published an extraordinarily revealing article: “In Iraqi Town, Trainees Are Also Suspects: U.S. Troops Wary After Incidents Suggest Betrayal.” This article tells us a great deal about the fatuity, the waste, and the danger unfairly imposed on American soldiers and Marines by an Administration that is both too obstinate (in sticking to a policy that squanders resources and prevents the intelligent exploitation of divisions within Islam that are so obviously present within Iraqand encouragable outside Iraq) and too ignorant (how many people in the Pentagon, or in the State Department, are worrying about the islamization of Western Europe, and its military, political, and civilizational consequences? And how many of them are permitted to connect that theatre of the Jihad with the one in Iraq, and to comprehend how trivial Iraq really is, except possibly as a way to weaken the global jihad by encouraging Sunni-Shi'a and Arab-non-Arab Muslim divisions?)Below are some excerpts from the full story, and commentary just below each.
1. “‘There's two kinds of Iraqis here, the ones who help us and the ones who shoot us, and there's an awful lot of 'em doing both,’ said Hoover, 26, of Newark, Ohio. ‘Is it frustrating? Yes, it's frustrating. But we can't just stop working with them.’"
Comment: Why not? Because he, that soldier, has not been permitted even to think such things. American soldiers have had dinned into them that they cannot possibly leave Iraq because then it might lead to “civil war” and “instability,” and that, of course, would be a “bad thing.” Why? Oh, because it would. Just the way the Iran-Iraq War was a bad thing, presumably, for Infidels. Poor, misinformed soldiers –- deliberately misinformed, deliberately kept ignorant of Islam and of the ways in which, if the enemy were properly defined, one would come to understand that leaving Iraq and exploiting its internal fissures, both sectarian and ethnic, make the best and only sense.
2. "‘In some places they hide the fact that they don't like you. They don't hide it here,’ said Hutson, who stops by his base's medical station periodically for a shot of Toradol to soothe a shoulder injured when his vehicle flipped during one of the attacks.”Comment: So this officer, after fighting with and beside Arab Muslims in Iraq and having contact with all kinds of civilians, has realistically concluded that there are two kinds: the kind of Iraqis who show you that they hate you, and the kind who hide the fact that they hate you.
3. "‘It sounds strange, but more police have been killed lately, which means some of them are finally doing their job,’ one American officer here said."
Comment: Almost all recruits to the “Iraqi” army and “Iraqi” police are doing it not to “save” Iraq but to make money; there is no large “Iraqi” patriotic impulse, much as American government propaganda tries to create it, or to convince us that it exists.
3. “Horton said he gives Iraqi officers just minutes' notice when bringing them on a mission, and never tells them exactly where they will be going to prevent them from tipping off insurgents."
Comment: The American officer (Horton) doesn’t tell them because, based on previous betrayals of American forces, including information about the routes convoys will take to those setting I.E.D.’s, he doesn’t trust them. And he shouldn’t –- not now, not ever.
4. "‘I've seen them laughing when we come back in with a vehicle destroyed by a bomb,’ he said. ‘I've seen them stand 10 feet away and do nothing but watch when we are in the middle of a firefight.’
Comment: So these “Iraqi allies” laugh at the sight of a destroyed American vehicle, and no doubt find equally hilarious the dead American soldiers -– American soldiers who are being kept in Iraq to somehow make something of nothing for people who hate or at best dislike them. The Americans are being asked to create, by their own willfully blind government, a nation-state out of a collection of warring ethnic and sectarian groups, a nation-state that will somehow be a model for all the other Arab states. Yet those states, which are either Sunni-dominated or Sunni-ruled (except for the Ibadis so prominent in Oman, and the Alawite military caste that rules in Syria) or both, cannot possibly look with favor, much less model themselves on, an “Iraq” in which Sunni dominance has been transferred to the Shi’a.
5. “Over sweet tea in a grubby police station at the center of Hawijah last week, the station commander, Maj. Ghazey Ahmed Khalif, assured Horton and his team that things were quiet in town that day. But when Horton asked some Iraqi officers to accompany him on a drive through town, Khalif discreetly whispered something into a translator's ear."
"‘All of a sudden he remembers he got a tip about an IED,’ said Horton, using the military acronym for improvised explosive device, or roadside bomb. ‘If we hadn't asked his guys to come, put them at risk, no way he tells us about that.’"
Comment: Our Iraqi allies. Our loyal Iraqi allies. Our loyal and staunch Iraqi allies. The ones American soldiers are being asked to lay down their lives for.
6. "Soldiers working with the Iraqi army here report similar problems. Iraqi soldiers have been reprimanded for selling their government-issued ammunition in local gun markets and for hocking their boots, only to turn up for duty in leather loafers.
"Before a highway patrol to search for roadside bombs last week, an Iraqi unit accompanying U.S. soldiers refused to ride in American Humvees, which provide far better protection from bomb attacks than the unarmored pickup trucks normally used by Iraqi forces.
"Shaking his head and staring at the ground, Sgt. Ghazi Esa Muhammad, 25, explained that a local cleric had decreed that Iraqis killed in an ‘occupier vehicle’ would not go to heaven.
“‘Tell your guys, if they refuse to ride in the Humvees, they will go to jail for 10 days. It's not a choice,’ said Lt. Aaron Tapalman, 23, the patrol leader. ‘They want to be able to claim they are not associated with us,’ said Tapalman, after the Iraqi sergeant relented and told his men to mount up.
"About an hour later, the patrol came across a white bag on the roadside that Tapalman suspected might contain a bomb. When he asked some Iraqi soldiers to move it off the road, their commander balked, saying it wasn't his job.
"‘It is your job to protect the people,’ Tapalman said, increasingly exasperated. ‘I can go and move it myself, and you know what? I will, but don't you think your people should see you doing that kind of stuff. Someday we're not going to be here anymore.’ The Iraqi soldier declined again, apologetically, and drove away.”Comment: Let the Americans risk their lives. The Americans said they were here to help us. Well, then they’re the ones who should risk their lives removing explosive devices. Why should we? Hell, it’s not our country, this Iraq. We’re Sunni Arabs and Shi’a Arabs and Kurds. We’re not risking our lives for “Iraq.” The Americans can do that.
Conclusion:
Remaining in Iraq squanders every kind of resource: men, money, material, military morale and civilian willingness to engage in measures necessary to check the Jihad to spread Islam. Furthermore, it distracts from other matters, not only Iran (where the presence of American troops as hostages to Iranian retaliation gets in the way), but most importantly, the subject of Europe's islamization, with the military, political, even civilizational catastrophe that that would bring.
Stories such as those above show how dangerous and foolish it is to force American officers and men to work with, to train, and to fight alongside (or attempt to) those who do not wish you well, who wish you ill, who have given every visible sign of wishing you ill. There is no "Iraqi" patriotism. There is potential and actual betrayal of and treachery against the Americans by those to whom they have done nothing, and whom they have tried to help in removing a despot, in spending tens of billions in aid (and hundreds of billions to conduct the whole operation). To remain in Iraq will simply mean a further waste of American lives, vast amounts of American money (that could have been spent on energy projects -- $400 billion might have gone a long way to ending the oil wherewithal that has made the Jihad go from theoretically potential to practically possible), materiel, everything.
And those who have failed to criticize the Iraq policy for being such a squandering, in precisely the manner, and for the reasons given here at Jihad Watch for more than two years, are also to be blamed. For they, unable to conceive of the Jihad as the enemy, and willing to abide by those foolish phrases such as "a war on terror," have been unable to come up with any criticism of the Administration that makes sense.
They deserve each other. The leaders of the United States and of the rest of the Western world, with a few remarkable exceptions, have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.
Posted by Robert at May 2, 2006 1:20 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The leaders of the ... the Western world, with a few remarkable exceptions, have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN
And if they're not careful the rest of that quotation will be relevant, too:
"Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."
Replace "Medes and Persians" with whomever is appropriate for your own particular global location.
Posted by: Yojimbo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 2, 2006 1:52 PM
The book "War of Numbers" by Sam Adams, an intelligence analyst during the Vietnam war, shows that this sort of thing was going on then as well, but the leaders of our war effort did not want to admit it. It is the most insightful book on the Vietnam war I have ever read. If you want to understand the factors that led to our failure there, it is a great place to start. If you want to understand the origins of the current debacle in Iraq, ditto.
Posted by: Quijybo at May 2, 2006 2:02 PM
I'm a conservative republican, of the Reagan bent, but, having given up completely on the current bs adminstration, I hope the democrats change their position, and come out solidly anti war for the '06 elections and '08. Reason: American lives(cannon fodder for Bush's vision)are not worth it. The Republicans are locked into the fortunes of their president. The Democrats, if they have the wisdom to jettison their 'Hillary bs PRO WAR' public position, would trounce the Republicans, sending a message to W, possibly even stopping the appropriations to support the Iraq War. It's sad it's come to that, but enough is enough. What would be truly pathetic would be to see a McCain vs. Hillary campaign in '08, both running hard on 'the right' of W's position: more troops, open ended commitment ect. I also support a full investigation of W's pre war intel operation. Of course, it would be maddening, opening up allegation of the 'pernicious bogus neocon=Jewish allegation,' but, more important, it would stack the public's opinion to the more solid anti war stance on Iraq. Since our chimp in chief won't budge, then other options should be looked at. I wonder if I'm the only conservative who feels this way? To have our brave boys die for nothing, and it is nothing--not a noble cause, but to save the face of the idiots who planned and sustained this operation. I would like a reporter--or cluster of reporters--to read this Washington Post piece to W and get his reaction, especially to the parts about the Iraqis laughing when are vehicles return in tatters. In my very humble opinion, W is now worse than Carter, and this is saying quite a lot isn't it, for Jimmy was/is a true piece of work.
Posted by: biorabbi at May 2, 2006 2:06 PM
Well, their muslims. What do you expect.
Posted by: freewoman at May 2, 2006 2:18 PM
biorabbi said
What would be truly pathetic would be to see a McCain vs. Hillary campaign in '08, both running hard on 'the right' of W's position: more troops, open ended commitment ect.
If there is any hope of an Iraqi withdrawal, it will be under the guise of the "war is always wrong" crowd. This will be (and already has been, look at Iran) the legacy of the Iraqi invasion: when we need to defend ourselves with force, Iraq will be used as an excuse for why we should not. "There are always alternatives to war. Just reach out to them, try to understand their point of view. They are just oppressed and uneducated". This will be even more dangerous than either McCain or Hillary prolonging the war.
I am a liberal, but it sounds like both you and I come from a time when conservatives and liberals could have a difference of opinion and still consider each other loyal Americans. That's no longer true, and that division is another great danger.
I'm still waiting for any major politician of either party to make any non-gibberish statements about Islam and jihad. I'm hoping the Democrats are just being quiet for political reasons, and will soon find their voice. But I doubt it.
Posted by: special_guest at May 2, 2006 2:32 PM
It's a crazy situation, and a thankless task for the servicemen.
According to a poster at LGF, Italian communist organizations helped to plot the murders of Italian troops by Islamic terrorists. Here's the link he gives:
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2531
This is the West in a nutshell: a venal, stupid, and stubborn political class that, apparently, has yet to grasp there is a global jihad going on, an ignorant and politically correct media, and sections of the populace that are ill-informed and semi-hostile to their own nations and traditions - actually actively treacherous in a few cases.
Perhaps Mark Steyn was right when he said that the basic problem is the West's civilizational suicide, and Islam is just an opportunistic infection.
One can only hope the message that Islamization threatens us - and what that means - gets through to people eventually.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 2, 2006 2:36 PM
Hugh, you've got my temples throbbing, I'm ready to blow up in an apoplectic fit.
And Rumsfeld will surely come on tv again, to tell us how the media is distorting the situation in Iraq, only giving the negative side of the story when there are so many positive things going on. I can't take it anymore, something has got to change. It's costing too many lives of the men and women there now, and it's costing too much of our future security by diverting our resources into a bottomless black pit, called Iraq.
Posted by: special_guest at May 2, 2006 2:43 PM
Oh, and I meant "...under the aegis..." instead of "...under the guise..." above. For all the grammar freaks out there.
Posted by: special_guest at May 2, 2006 2:46 PM
"W is now worse than Carter..."
-- from a posting above
No, no, no. Don't say that. Don't think it.
Posted by: Hugh at May 2, 2006 2:48 PM
Is 'fatuity' something akin to one's being a 'fathead'? If so, the US Military might want to conduct some internal scrutinizing these days. There's quite a bit of work cut out for them in that department I suspect.
Posted by: pythagoras at May 2, 2006 2:54 PM
put down your crack pipes. you all have had one hit too many. if a story from the washington post puts you in this state there's no hope for you. let me see if i got this right. i'm supposed to take this story and extrapolate it over all of iraq. not only that, i am supposed to ignore the countless bloggs written by soldiers in the field, from the private to the captain, that refutes it. you don't want to watch jihad you want to run from it......
Posted by: patrick neid at May 2, 2006 2:56 PM
"you don't want to watch jihad you want to run from it..."
-- from a posting just above
Not at all. What we want is simple:
1) a recognition of ALL the instruments of Jihad, and not merely the one tactic of terrorism. That means the "wealth weapon." It means "pen, speech" (I'm using Muslim terms). It means Da'wa, or the Call to Islam. It means, above all, demographic conquest.
2) a correct articulation of the problem, so that this idiotic phrase "war on terror" is put paid to -- permanently.
3) a clever synecdoche which will not name Islam, but clearly implicate it, as a new way of discussing things. The "long war" will not do it. Call it the counter-Jihad, and then claim that "of course we all know that most Muslims do not believe in Jihad to spread Islam until it covers the globe. That's nonsense." (Of course, it isn't nonsense at all, but what will Muslims do? Own up to this central duty, or pretend it doesn't exist, or what? All kinds of confusion.)
4) make use of the weaknesses of the enemy. Was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing or a bad thing for Infidels? It was a very good thing. Would hostility between Sunni and Shi'a be a good thing for us in Iraq, or a bad thing? A very good thing. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if the two greatest beneficiaries of the removal of Saddam Hussein -- Saudi Arabia (in this corner, wearing black) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (in this other corner, also wearing black) -- were to pour aid into their respective Sunni and Shi'a co-religionists in Iraq, aid that might include men, money, and materiel, and also would focus the attention of both on this matter, would that be a good thing or a bad thing for Infidels? A very good thing.
Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if bombs go off in Bahrain, set by Shi'a against their Sunni rulers? If in Kuwait and Pakistan and Yemen and Lebanon Shi'a and Sunni, taking sides in Iraq, also were whipped up locally? A good thing, or a bad thing?
5) in a similar vein, would an independent Kurdistan (what some Arabs have muttered darkly amounts to a "second Israel") be a good thing in attempting to divide and demoralize the camp of Islam, or a bad thing? Would not a free state of Kurdistan inspire Kurds in Syria and Iran to rise up,and cause difficulties for the Alwaite despots, and the Shi'a despots? And in the case of Iran, would not an independent Kurdistan inspire more than Kurds in Iran, but also Baluchis, Arabs in Khuzistan, and even possibly Azeris? And furthermore, would not an independent Kurdistan also inspire Berbers, and black African Muslims, and raise for all non-Arab Muslims the matter that needs to be put under the spotlight. To wit, Islam with its universalist pretentions has actually been a vehicle for Arab supremacism (the taking of Arab names, the bowing toward Arabia, the memorizing of texts in classical Arabic, the modelling oneself, for all time, on seventh-century Arab manners and customsm), the most successful imperialism in human history.
6) forcing American soldiers to risk their lives for an abstraction -- "Iraq" -- when the "Iraqis" themselves do not fight for "Iraq" because the "Iraqis" themselves do not exist, is cruel. It damages military morale. It causes some very good officers and men, confused or disheartened, to leave the service prematurely. It forces generals to perform all sorts of contortions as they keep pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of a "stable Iraq" without really questioning the whole policy -- apparently either because they take seriously this dangerous "theirs not to reason why" approach that rewards those who soldier on without questioning, or because they know so little about the nature and scope of the menace of Islam that they really believe in the solution of a Light Unto the Muslim Nations Project (Shi'a ruled Iraq becoming a "model" for Sunni Arab states -- when it fact it will be, for them, a permanent outrage, to be undone as quickly as possible), which also requires that they not think too deeply about the islamization of Europe.
7) a story in today's New Duranty Times is all about new rules of engagement, whereby Americdan soldiers are now being asked to be extra-cautious in firing on suspicious targets, in order to "win minds and hearts" -- unwinnable minds, steely hearts. Win them by risking their own lives. A policy based on a deep failure to understand that whatever kindnesses and solicitude the soldiers show -- and they have already shown so much -- it will do nothing to win friends. The population is, save for the handful of Christians, and for the Kurds whose Kurdish identity now outweighs Muslim solidarity (so that they are willing for now to make common cause with Americans, for those Infidels are a theoretical enemy, while the Arabs have been a real one), full of people who will always be hostile to Americans. Some will smile, and many will wnat the Americans to stay -- they want the Americans to fight for them, to build for them, to do everything for them, and then, and only then, leave.
What nonsense. What hideous nonsense our government persists in.
at May 2, 2006 3:25 PM
Our soldiers are between a rock and a hard place, if they stray from the military code of conduct at all, they are prosecuted. They are being misled into believing muslims will fight as "brothers-in-arms". I would hate to try to fight this war, just another war with one arm tied behind our backs.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 2, 2006 4:11 PM
patrick neid said
you don't want to watch jihad you want to run from it......
No, I would like to fight the jihad. We are not fighting the jihad in Iraq, we are rebuilding a nation for the poor, downtrodden, oppressed Iraqis who suffered under Saddam Hussein. We are rebuilding a nation for the poor, downtrodden, oppressed Afghans who suffered under the Taliban.
If we were really fighting the jihad, we'd be watching news reports from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iraq and Afghanistan. We would be working to weaken the jihadists, not building highways and electrical substations and water purification sites for them.
And no, you cannot have the crack pipe back. It's still my turn.
Posted by: special_guest at May 2, 2006 4:46 PM
Fight for us.The sell is this fight for Iraq as weve astablished it or hope to astablish it.Chances are Iraq will countnue to unfold for years to come some ways in are favor other times not.It hasnt been tidy thus far.So i dont assume much better for the future.The average Iraqie has got a heck of alot of problems in daily life.just getting in line for any duties associated with the U.S. and current Iraq government can and does cost lives.I dont know if id put myself on the line for any such chances.So the Iraqie army police etc will countnue to be a rag tag bunch of fellows some of who will be able to be used for are objectives some others who will be against us.This will not change.The Iraq war has been going on for 12 or so years in one degree or another.How long will it take for objectives to be met.For that matter are the objectives based in reality.Iraq wont bring mid-east peace.Hasnt stablized oil markets,hasnt slowed Iran,nor Osama,hasnt checked syria,nor hamas,hezzbollah,the PLOs varies groups,nor brought demacrecy to Saudie,nor made any of the arab/muslum states populations more friendly to U.S. polcies.Isreal now has Hamas in charge of contested territories,given up Gaza to who ever wants it.Isreals naighbors are no closer to recongnizing its claims.The EU is no freindlyer,nor Russia less threatnig or vagley dangerous,China no lees bent on incresing econmic growth nor less likley to push its claim on Tawian,south and central America no more friendler nor accamadatind to U.S. polcies.So Iraqie soldiers fighting for us.Ya right.How can someone else fight for you.We cant convinse them to be more exseptable to are goels,wheter and to what degree are goels may be good for them.Its just to much to do.So what the heck are we in Iraq for? Answaer-Some vague notions of global order.
Posted by: Rench at May 2, 2006 4:52 PM
Sadly, all the downsides of withdrawl are obvious. The word of the US will lose value. There will be a perception of defeat among the believers. There will also people more stupid than Bush(sad but true)who will now claim: "force is never the way, don't trust the Iranian intel" and/or "like Iraq, we're inciting hate over there" and/or "no more wars for Israel."
But now, or in ten years, nothing will change the faces of the Iraqis who laugh at our demolished vehicles, our wounded kids. No, giving more blood in Baghdad will not change their minds or hearts. To those who admit it's a mess, but counter that we are killing Jihadists. Yes, the only good point to continue with Iraq, but this too is wrong; for those resources, bombers and troops could be spent on better use. Like strikes on Iran. Bolstering the Kurds. Guarding our borders(god forbid). Rebuilding our infrastructure/developing alternative energies(god forbid).
Of course, not to be yet more jaundiced, but, I hasten to add, there are potent political arguements to stay in Iraq. Bush would lose face as would his supporters. Bush would lose the other 34 percent of the population by changing course, and a limp wristed opposition might win in November. I guess my counterpoint to this is, is a single dead marine worth it?
Posted by: biorabbi at May 2, 2006 5:37 PM
Hugh takes an article about a single town in the heart of the Sunni traingle, and extrapolates that no Iraqis will work with us. That's a fair-minded analysis.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 2, 2006 6:43 PM
Give the Iraqi Army and police lots of medals, and citations to frame, declare success, and start phasing out.
The troops have learned the mettle of the next 'military' we will face- the Islamic Imperialist, in its most famous guises.
Knowledge hard won, but knowledge.
(None of any value was being gathered in any other way... as 9/11 proved.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 2, 2006 10:15 PM
How interesting. They delete my post and allow profitbeer to post THAT.
I didn't expect you to censor my post, which contained no insults, rude language or other unsuitable contents. Censorship just for disagreeing with some of your readers? Wow.
Welcome to a brandnew police state.
Shame on you, JihadWatch
Lol, I know you'll delete this too, but at least a few people will be able to read it before, so they get the right picture of you guys.
Posted by: melaniefromgermany at May 2, 2006 11:58 PM
-melaniefromgermany
Read some books and learn a few things before you post. All you do, spouting off with your libelous and untrue statements about American soldiers, is demonstrate your ignorance. If you think all the mohammedans in Iraq are poor victims of the US, go to the pro-jihadi sites. I'm sure they'll welcome your vile venom-spewing with open arms.
This is not your personal site. If you want to show everyone what an uninformed fool you are, start your own blog. Neither Mr. Spencer nor any of the moderators are beholden to you and are under no obligation to display your specious off-topic garbage.
You're most likely going to be deleted or ignored, little girl. Take your bile elsewhere.
Posted by: Eisenhund at May 3, 2006 1:03 AM
Dear members of jihadwatch
From the above article
“‘There's two kinds of Iraqis here, the ones who help us and the ones who shoot us, and there's an awful lot of 'em doing both,’ said Hoover, 26, of Newark, Ohio. ‘Is it frustrating? Yes, it's frustrating. But we can't just stop working with them.’"
Now replace "Iraqis" with muslims and we got some similarities here. Anyone notice them??
A full scale military conflict in Iraq and a globalized taqiyya-terrorist onslaught, set so wholly apart in the global media, but brought together, even if unconsciously, in the simple truth of a soldier's statement.
Posted by: thehindu at May 3, 2006 1:43 AM
-melaniefromgermany,
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to come into other people's property (blog) and disrupt it, any more than I am free to come into your home and yell my opinions into your ear. If you don't like Hugh's policies, you are free to start your own blog, and see if anybody is interested in visiting
----
On the subject of the thread: what is needed in Iraq is the transformation of the culture into something that is fitted for co-existance with us in the 21st Century. The culture-adjustment may involve removing Islam from having a central place in the culture.
Millenia ago, the cost of having a failed culture was that it made you vulnerable to having members of a more stable culture come into your country and take over. It remains to be seen what the world will look like in 50 years: with Islam having conquered, or with the West having finally gotten thoroughly fed up
Posted by: PapaBear at May 3, 2006 9:03 AM
Papabear said
what is needed in Iraq is the transformation of the culture into something that is fitted for co-existance with us in the 21st Century.
No, what is needed in Iraq is for us to get our soldiers and resources out of there as fast as possible, and let them build whatever sort of hell-on-earth society they want for themselves. We've done our part, got rid of Saddam, gave them democracy on a plate, now let's get out. How would one "transform [their] culture"? Does one enter their cellebellum and remove any synapses having to do with Islam? And do that one by one for every citizen of Iraq? Yet the Bush administration agrees with you 100%. Yes, by all mean, let's save the Iraqis from themselves, no matter what the cost to us. They certainly deserve it. I'm just overflowing with love for the Iraqis.
Posted by: special_guest at May 3, 2006 11:57 AM
Amazing. I find myself in agreement with the "Bring 'Em Home" crowd. "Fitzgerald: Fatuity, waste, and danger" is a rational and persuasive argument for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.
We are putting precious American people in harm's way to prolong the death throes of a contrived country that was stitched together from scavenged parts. Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish "Iraq" do not make a country, any more than Chechen, Russian, Latvian, Estonian, Georgian, Lithuanian, etc., "republics," held together by the Red Army and the KGB, made a legitimate Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Then there's the equally-compelling, self-serving argument: What rational (non-Jihadi) American does not prefer to have rabid Islamists burn their petrodollars blowing and hacking each other to pieces, as opposed to crashing airliners into American buildings and setting off IEDs in American shopping malls? Sure, it's a shame, but, if they didn't like it, they wouldn't do it.
I'm not terribly comfortable finding myself in any agreement with Hanoi Jane and Company, but, even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
Posted by: RedStateInfidel at May 3, 2006 3:15 PM
RedStateInfidel said
Amazing. I find myself in agreement with the "Bring 'Em Home" crowd. "Fitzgerald: Fatuity, waste, and danger" is a rational and persuasive argument for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.
And another light bulb turns on. Fantastic. Hugh got me turned 180 degrees on this too. One day the troops he saved will owe him a very large collective beer. Not to mention us citizens, who can spend the money that would have been flushed down Iraq, for more productive things like protecting ourselves. Just give Hugh 0.01% of the money saved from Iraq, that's all, he could stay immersed in great literature for the rest of his days.
I'm not terribly comfortable finding myself in any agreement with Hanoi Jane and Company
This situation has gone way beyond party politics. We are all Americans (or British, or Australians, or Canadians, etc.) first, that's all that matters anymore.
Posted by: special_guest at May 3, 2006 4:12 PM
hugh et al,
while this will come as no surprise, i disagree in spirit with your objections as opposed to particular points. which is to say i disagree with your tactics.
personally i think the tactics being employed in the war against radical islam, while not complete, are very good. from a military point of view splitting the middle east in half and using iraq as a staging ground is the way to go. radical islam/terrorism is based primarily in iran, iraq, syria, pakistan, afghanistan and saudi arabia. for now we won't bother with the lesser players--yemen, somalia, sudan etc. setting up a killing field, and iraq is definitely a killing field, allows us to have a significant presence in the area. by dividing syria from iran we will, in the very near future, cause the collapse of both with their attendant civil wars to follow. pakistan already has started to fall in line--more time definitely needed. the Saudis are a completely different kettle of fish. as the world's largest exporter of oil they get different treatment. why? a disruption of oil flows will assuredly cause a severe worldwide recession threatening our own house of cards. plus the house of saud, numbering in the thousands, is equally divided between the Wahhabi's' and standard moslems. there's a family civil war coming there on its own once syria, iran and iraq are taken care of.
once israel completes its fence hamas et al will be dealt their dead blows. lebanon will liberate itself when iran ceases its monetary support for hezbollah.
as moslems demand more in europe i think the response there will probably be a pogrom. that's one thing europe is very good at going back a 1000 years.
all in all, despite the warts, i think things are going as well as can be expected.
Posted by: patrick neid at May 3, 2006 5:13 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)