That is why the president of Iraq wants all militias
disbanded, there will always be snitches to let them know where the Iranians are, the sooner they can be found, the sooner they can be killed off.

Posted by: Lulu at July 6, 2006 7:01 AM

The US forces have on many occasions found munitions manufactured in Iran, documents implicating Iranian support and other items showing the hand of Iran in Iraq. One has to stand back and DUH.
The sands of time in the hourglass are running out for Iran and the Religion of Peace. A big showdown looms in the future. Death is what the Religion of Peace deals in. We should give it to them (no questions asked).

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 6, 2006 7:53 AM

The constant refrain of the Administration is that "if we cut and run" the "terrorists will win," and "we are fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here at home." Judging by the Jihad-prompted attacks "here at home" -- i.e., all over the Infidel world, including the ones that in the past few years took place in London, Madrid, Moscow, Amsterdam, Paris (the metro), very likely Lyon, and the plots uncovered in, inter alia, Rome and Berlin, Milan and Turin, Manchester and Vrginia, Texas, New York, Oregon, New Jersey, and so on, there is no evidence -- none -- that "we are fighting them over there" so "we won't have to fight them over here."

And by the way, who is "them"? [To make a point, grammar takes a holiday]. Is "them" the Sunnis of Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit, Baquba, Baghdad? Or is "them" the Shi'a in Basra and Baghdad and Mahmoudiya and Diyala? Or is it the non-Iraqi Sunnis who came in to help kill the Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs"? Or is "them" the Iranian agents who are already all over Iran, but are reported above to have moved as a discrete and armed group, into Khani-Sad?

If "them" (#1) wishes to kill "them" (#2), and "them" (#2) wishes in turn to kill "them" (#1), why are American troops being asked to risk their lives, and sometimes lose them,in order to prevent this?

Is it because the Administration once had an idea, and now the idea has "them" (#3), and so it is that #3 must protect #1 from #2, and #2 from #1, will both sides are just as happy to see the forces of #3 (that's us, that's the Americans) squander their own resources, trying to make this idiotic Iraq the Model work.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the terrorits plot wherever they want. They do not need "victory" (whatever that would be, for the minute we leave, #1 and #2 will be at each other's throats, and the Camp of Islam will be divided and distracted, but far more so than it was during the Iran-Iraq War).

Meanwhile, it is the United States, squandering so many resources -- men, money, materiel, attention (oh, we can handle everything, we can handle North Korea, and Iran, and Chavez in Venezuela, and political instability in Mexico which of course will have not the slightest effect on immigration, and the Da'wa and demographic changes that may lead to a loss of Western Europe, its people, its universities, its museums, its weapons, to Muslim control within the next few decades).

It is not hard to imagine what would really happen in Iraq if the Americans pulled out. It would not be a "disaster." It would be the opposite, for Infidels, of a disaster. But people unused to study -- had they studied Islam more, had they studied Iraq more, the Light Unto the Muslim Nations scheme, the Democracy-Is-On-the-March idea, would not have been so ardently believed in, and clung to long past the sell-by date -- are also incapable of intelligently imagining the outcome in Iraq. Not the outcome for "Iraqis" but the outcome for us. And since it is we whose interests must be promoted, and not those of the Camp of Islam, that is all that matters.

"Foreseeable future"?

This Administration, or those in it who keep stubbornly and stupidly clinging to the notion of remaining in Iraq, those who squander rather than husband, resources that are not theirs to decide to squander, those who would, in their stubborn stupidity, actualaly work to prevent the sectarian and ethnic divisions within Iraq that work in our favor (was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing, or a bad thing?), cannot foresee "the future." They have been wrong and wrong in their every prediction about Iraq. For them there is not even a "foreseeable present."

And that is why, for them, there will not be a "foreseeable future."

Posted by: Hugh at July 6, 2006 7:58 AM

We are "protecting" the construction of the various buildings and embassies that we are making in iraq, and it will be a beautiful place once it is finished. If some jihadis don't manage to blow it up.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 6, 2006 8:12 AM

In Iraq, the USA should declare victory and leave. If the Iraqis complain, let them plead their case to the worthless UN or the even more worthless Muslim neighboring countries. They are doomed.
If the UN condemns the US for leaving, they they should take it upon themselves to provide a solution of their own designation.
The only two viable solutions as I see it for the US is A) declare victory and depart or B) level everything , declare victroy and depart.
Once the US leaves, the Democrats in the USA will be happy, the member UN nations will be happy, the Muslim countries will be happy. The only ones Unhappy will be the Iraqi Muslims, but then they are Muslim by choice and they have their Koran which says it is an honor to die.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 6, 2006 9:11 AM

"Once the US leaves, the Democrats in the USA will be happy, the member UN nations will be happy, the Muslim countries will be happy."
-- from a posting above

O no they won't. But they will not be able to protest, having protested so much that they wanted "US out, US out." Once the American forces are out, even if there is a lull while Iraqi minds, Sunni and Shi'a are temporarily concentrated, within a few months there will be a reversion to type, and the Sunnis will remain convinced that they are the majority and the Shi'a a minority, and the election results a trick engineered by those Americans (it is very easy, in a Muslim country, to believe all kinds of ridiculous or impossible things -- the Will To Believe is very strong), and the Shi'a militias, without the Americans to hold them back, will behave just as they would wish (the American officers who spent so much time bringing civilized ways of doing things to "Iraqi" police and "Iraqi" army recruits, will be amazed to see how all of it is so quickly thrown off, but they shouldn't be. It is a reflection not on their heroic efforts, but on minds on Islam and the attitudes and atmospherics that arise naturally in Islamic polities).

The two great beneficiaries of the removal of Saddam Hussein were the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Saudi Arabia. One is the champion of the Shi'a, the other the most powerful, and malevolent, Sunni nation. The Sunnis in Iraq think they will prevail; the Shi'a in Iraq think they will prevail. May they both remain convinced, may Iran send in money, "volunteers" and equipment to ensure that the Shi'a remain in the ascendant in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia send in money, "volunteers" from Egypt, Jordan, Syria as well as Saudi Arabia, and equipment, to ensure that that "Shi'a crescent" about which the Jordanian king has expressed the worries of all the Sunnis, never emerges. Abdullah of Jordan, being the most plausible interlocutor with Washington, has been chosen to make the case for a change in American policy in Iraq, one that would favor the Sunnis. So far this ploy has not worked, and so far it has been taken with a slightly larger grain of salt than was apparent when the advice given to the Americans by all those smiling and affable Shi'as in exile, of the Chalabi school, was passed around on Pentagon platters. Only American interests, which is the same as the interests of Infidels, should be considered, and as has been noted here before, Infidels don't have a dog in this fight between Sunnis and Shi'a. Our dog is the fight.

Posted by: Hugh at July 6, 2006 9:36 AM

Of course the fact that Iran has its hand in Iraq is old news, so I won't bother addressing that.

However, in regards to some statements by Hugh, I would just like to add that I agree -- there is no evidence that we are not fighting jihad and Islam right here on our own soil. In fact, JW and my blog are evidence that we most definitely ARE fighting a war right here on our own soil.

We do not make the needed moves to safeguard our country for many reasons and the guilt lies on both sides of the aisle. On one side we have rich oil men protecting channels with Saudi Arabia and inroads for cheap labor from Mexico. On the other side, we have the Socialists and Hippie-elite protecting the rights of the "enlightened barbarians" that have taken up residence in Arizona, Texas, Michigan and Virgina. Muslim lobbyists are abundant and for good reason: they know damn well that they are winning ground.

The enemy IS right here, right now and gaining strength with each passing day. We spend blood and treasure overseas against targets in Iraq that are now better left alone, while ignoring the evil alliance of North Korea, Syria and Iran? How can this be?

The southern border is a nightmare (did anyone see the border-state sheriffs' statements before Congress on CSPAN yesterday?) and the Federal Government stutters. Where are the construction teams and the barbed wire, Mr. Bush?

We pinch Iran between more than able military sites and yet we sling words not missiles.

Now North Korea is emboldened and so are the Iranians. Can it get better before it gets worse? Of course it can't.

We must act, here and abroad but with new strategies. Here we must outlaw Islam and deport these cultists -- not 10 years from now -- TODAY.

Overseas we must deliver pain to these regimes that will extort the entire world soon with nuclear weapons. First strike policies against North Korea are definitely warranted right now in my estimation and I would not remove nuclear weaponry off the table. If the nuclear arsenal of North Korea can be pinpointed it should be wiped off the map by any means necessary and that problem erradicated for at least a good decade as a result.

We lack the will to act because we listen to Politically Correct sycophants far, far too much, and for that we will pay in blood if we do not soon grow resolve, courage and the wisdom to do what must be done.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 6, 2006 10:59 AM

Brilliant analysis, Hugh and Foehammer, I agree will every word, and I can tell you that many in the conservative movement in America are slowly reaching the same conclusion.

Hugh, is there any strategic advantage or disadvantage, to being in Iraq, in relation to taking out Iran's nike, by air? Would it be easier for Israeli jets to fly over an American controlled Iraqi air space? or is having troops on the ground more of liability?

I have had this discussion several times with co-workers and am interestes in both your opinions.

Foehammer, your blog is on my top ten, I especially find the Mp3 audio downloads of relavent ant-jihadi commentators very conviennent.

Posted by: El Cid at July 6, 2006 1:21 PM

The Shi'ites hate the Sunnis as heretical, if not complete apostates to Mohammad's pure transmission line of Islam, while the Sunnis hate the Shi'ites for the same reason, in mirror form.

Past Caliphs, like Abdullah Al-Mamun (813 A.D.), when there was a Caliphate, have tried to bridge this gap, and failed.

If the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches were as mad as the schismic Muslims, bombs would be going off in Rome as bearded, Cyrillic-spewing monks attacked the Pontiff, and gilded onion domes in Russia would be blown up by albino priests from Opus Dei.

Islam is like bad sci-fi.

May they meet the same end as the Martians in H.G. Wells' work.

Intellectually.

By the virus of doubt.

(As some within the Ummah finally begin to really re-read the Koran and think about its patent absurdities, rank immoralities, and un-scientific follies. And spread the word: this stuff sucks!.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 6, 2006 1:36 PM

A British officer, killed in Afghanistan in the last few days ( we're losing rather a lot of men lately - and strangely enough, most of them officers) was a Muslim of Pakistani extraction. His brother stated on radio that he was first and foremost a Muslim and then a British citizen. There was nothing contradictory in the soldier's position:
He died defending a regime based on a constitution which recognises the paramountcy of shariah law. The same holds true in Iraq. The outrage of Muslims at the infidel daring to invade umma territory (using any old argument about colonialism, military expansionism, greed for oil etc as a cover) tends to obscure thi fact. I think we should pull our boys out and leave the Muslims to stew in their own grease - reserving the right to destroy from the air, at any time, such terrorist training camps or weapons factories jihadists should care to set up in these places. The same would go for targetted assassination of terrorist organisers. I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is one law for Muslims and one for the rest of the human race.

Posted by: wallyUK at July 6, 2006 3:27 PM

l cannot believe how so many have no patience, and waiting for this movie to be over. You now have an elected government taking over power in Iraq. Some say it was better with Saddma, well the killing went on but in quiet ways as compared to now. Within a year you will have more troop reductions, and in time the rest will follow. You cannot cut and run now, as it will only embolden the enemy. you just have to read the comment by Bin Laden over Somalie when Clinton was in charge. he had those men pulled out so fast, did not want to have a percieved body count on his watch, oh no, that do nothing president just passed along his problems over to the next president. This war is on many fronts, from China aiding N.Korea, to N.Korea tied in with Iran, and then you have the local socialite from Venezuala.
The econcomy runs on oil, and it dictates the policy our governments work with. The war will be won in spite of the media, NYT, Dems, and your regular left over 60's hippie. geesh my older brother was a hippie,he managed to grow up, and not a peace nik anymore. You might disagree with some of the policies of Bush, well HE is doing something, and not chasing interns.

Posted by: Lulu at July 6, 2006 4:03 PM

ARE YOU SEEING CINDY SHEEHAN!!!

HEAVEN FORBID!!!

SHE IS A MOONBAT NOT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH BY REASONABLE PEOPLE.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 6, 2006 4:45 PM

CINDY SHEEHAN represents the left of the Democrats and all that is bad with the country and West in general. When some posts sound like her, you want to just shake your head in disbelief.

Posted by: Lulu at July 6, 2006 5:05 PM

I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is one law for Muslims and one for the rest of the human race.

Until global sharia is attained.

To avert that, some major event must happen, and it won't be pretty. Probably nuclear, but maybe bio.

But, whatever kind of stunt these nut-balls pull off, once it does happen, then we must legislate the practice to be a felony crime punishable by immediate deportation. If the Euros sqawk at that, let them take 'em. Yeah, I know, it's unconstitutional but, hey, even the U.S. Constitution can't withstand Islam.

Islam is a relentless force. How can we win we refuse to fight? How can we fight if we refuse to let ourselves even talk about Islam?

In Iraq, we won the war but lost the occupation. How can you occupy human poison? But that point is trivial, cuz now they're occupying us.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at July 7, 2006 8:13 AM