Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Why are we in Iraq?

July 27, 2006

Fitzgerald: Why are we in Iraq?

"When my children ask me why their dad is over in Iraq and he can't be here with us. I want to give them an educated honest answer. I have found that history is the most logical answer and the only truth I can find on this subject. Then I ran out of answers and all I could say was 'I don't know anymore.' I believed all the propaganda. But I figured that I would set forth the effort to get to know the Jihad and the Koran to have some logic as to where these radical people where coming from. To tell you the truth I was hoping to find that I was wrong and being some what of a bigot." -- a query by an army wife, at Jihad Watch

The reason their father, and all the other officers and men, are still in Iraq long after they should have come home, is that Bush had an idea, and now the idea has him. Neither he, nor Rice, nor Rumsfeld, nor -- when they were still there -- Wolfowitz and Feith (both long out of it) could properly identify the menace as Islam, because none of them properly understood the belief-system of Islam. They could not permit themselves to understand it. They had to believe, rather, that it was a “perversion” of the faith, that the real Muslims were such people as Allawi and Ambassadar Rend al-Rahim Francke and Ahmad Chalabi. No one understood that those Muslims-in-name-only had spent decades in the West, were thoroughly secularized as well as westernized, and while they did not dare to become apostates, they had as little to do with the Islam of the masses in Iraq and elsewhere, as does, for example Fouad Ajami or Kanan Makiya. But, as unrepresentative Muslims taken hopefully to be representatives, and with the inability to figure out how to talk about Islam without giving offense to all those considered to be, quite optimistically, “moderate Muslims,” these Muslims too managed to prolong Western confusion.

The so-called tough-minded were not tough-minded at all. They were sentimentalists who could not comprehend that Rodney King was wrong, and that there are reasons why we can’t all “get along.” The main reason is the belief-system of Islam, that contains as a central doctrine the religiously-sanctioned duty of Jihad to spread Islam until it everywhere dominates, and Islam rules. That this doctrine had fallen into desuetude was owed not to a change in the doctrine itself: it does not change, it cannot change, it is based on immutable and canonical texts, and all the efforts to change or reform those texts have met with total failure. Rather, its temporary disuse was based on the appearance of the wherewithal, chiefly ten trillion dollars received by Arab and Muslim states from oil revenues, and what those revenues could buy.

In addition, the analysts of the day were deeply immersed in the Cold War, a period when Islam was seen only as a “bulwark against Communism.” During that time, Saudi Arabia, for example, was presumably as our “staunch ally.” Its alliance with us, however, was really for quite different reasons from the ones we assumed were its foundation. For reasons having nothing to do with ours, the Saudis helped to fund and supply the Afghani muhajedin in their fight against the Soviet Army. Decades of thinking that “Turkey” was represented adequately by its Kemalist generals, and Pakistan represented by ramrod-straight Sandhurst-educated moustachioed generals also held (quite wrongly) to be “pro-Western” when what they really were was “pro-Western-military-aid,” had its effect on Western analysts. And those analysts lacked both the leisure and the mental flexibility to begin to study Islam aright, as they should have, on the morning of September 12, 2001. Instead, it was bombs away in Afghanistan, and “Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance” that had been “hijacked” by “extremists” at home. Something of that sort continues to be said even today. What is even worse, policy continues to be made on the assumption that if only something could change in Muslim societies – an end to “poverty” and “injustice” (quite a program) and of course, the introduction of “democracy,” midwifed by the American government – what ailed Muslim peoples and polities would be cured. Because whatever was wrong with those peoples and polities couldn’t be Islam. That would not be possible. Islam is a “religion” and all things called “religions” have to be Forces For Good. That is what Bush appears still to believe, and what so many others, including some in the army and in Homeland Security and in the police, still believe, or are forced to pretend to believe. It is a prescription for failure and for fiasco after fiasco.

And it was not only the Cold War view of Islam as an ally and not an enemy, a view hard to shake, that played a role and plays a role still (just look at the vaporings of Brzezinski, whose animus toward Israel cannot entirely explain his vacuity on the subject of Islam – or rather, his complete ignorance on the subject of Islam). Nor does the fault lie only with the laziness of officials, though anyone who sees how official Washington works, with those hard-working staff members preparing those little 2-3 page executive summaries, will understand that that simply will not do when something as involved as the contents of Islam, and the history of Islam, must be assimilated. It is impossible to imagine Bush, or Rice, or for that matter Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz, having ever read a single book all the way through on the subject of Islamic tenets, much less five or six. They don’t do it; clearly, they haven’t done it. Yet it is that book-reading that will help them to begin to make sense of everything that happens – in the Arab war on Israel, in Kashmir, in black Africa (especially in Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, Niger), in the alarmed and unsettled-by-Islam countries of Western Europe, and of course in Iraq.

Despite the dark mutterings of David Duke, of Pat Buchanan, of Walt and Mearsheimer, it is hardly a “Jewish lobby” that has been directing American policy. Carter and Brzezinski browbeat Israel into accepting the diktat of Saint Sadat, and the American government has spent the last three decades trying to push the Israelis into one agreement after another, always based on surrender of land or other rights. The Americans under Carter never tried to keep the Shah upon his throne. American policymakers never understood the supreme relevance of Islam, and of course never did a thing about energy policy other than put its trust in what the well-financed Saudi lobby insisted was our “staunch ally” Saudi Arabia. That the Saudis teach hatred of non-Muslims in their school texts, and that their brand of Islam is even worse, even more malevolent, in its hatred of Infidels, than the non-Wahhabi brands (which are vicious enough), was overlooked. After all, those Al-Saud princes and princelings and princelettes were so presentable, and their receptions and little gifts and promises of more gifts were so very well known, and the port-and-cigars shtick of tennis-playing Prince Bandar was so well-practiced, that it would have been churlish to see Saudi Arabia as it was, as it is, as it always will be. It is the Saudi lobby that has throttled, ever since 1973, attempts to realize that without some kind of national energy policy OPEC will continue to receive those trillions, significant parts of which go into funding not only arms purchases, but also campaigns of Da’wa and mosques, madrasas, and propaganda all over the West, which helps weaken the immune system of Infidels to the Muslim invasion they seem helpless to stop or control or reverse.

You ask what you should tell your children as to why their father is in Iraq. Here’s why: Iraq War #1, which was rational and justified, ended in early 2004. That war, to destroy the regime, and to search for and destroy all major weaponry, made sense. It also made sense, though no one has argued anywhere, but as has been argued here several hundred times since early 2004, that the removal of Saddam Hussein made a Sunni-Shi’a clash inevitable, and that there was nothing to be done to keep it from happening though it might be delayed or temporarily suppressed by American forces, and that it was to be welcomed as one of the best ways to divide and demoralize and therefore weaken, the camp of Islamic jihad – a camp to which Iraq will always belong, with or without this “Iraq the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations” Project that the Bush administration so obstinately clings to despite all the evidence that shows how impossible, and how undesirable from our point of view, are these attempts to make Iraq into something it cannot be are.

The reason their father is in Iraq now is because, since the beginning of April 2004, the American government, not comprehending what it set in motion by removing Saddam Hussein, has insisted on remaining for what might be called Iraq War #2. Because the enemy was never properly recognized, Iraq was not seen as the ideal place to exploit sectarian and ethnic divisions. The American government was bent not on a war of self-defense against the Jihad, but rather, a messianic campaign to transplant the Liberty Tree of democracy in the sandy or rocky soil of Iraq and of Afghanistan. For all the talk about a “tough” reaction, there was nothing “tough” about it. It was sentimentality, Rodney-King sentimentality, all the way – and on top of it, a shallow understanding both of Western democracy and of the Framers, as Bush and Rice ever more crazily made analogies between the crude Iraqis and the highly intelligent products of Western civilization who gathered in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention.

The inability to identify the enemy, and to substitute instead this ridiculous and dangerous phrase “war on terror,” has had consequences both for perception, and for policy. Even now it is unclear if Bush, or for that matter such Congressional loyalists as Lieberman and McCain, have at long last begun to see how wrongheaded, what a squandering of resources, the continued American presence in Iraq is. They do not even now seem to realize how messianic are the goals of America in Iraq, or how those goals are merely one more evasion, one more way to avoid seeing Islam plain and taking the kind of measures, and employing the various instruments, that were used aside from combat during World War II and the Cold War, including economic warfare, and of course propaganda to demoralize the enemy.

Given that Lieberman is in so much trouble, wouldn’t you think he would at least begin to consider the war in Iraq not from the viewpoint of those viciously opposed to him, but from the viewpoint of, say, this website, where the war is opposed, but opposed because it is ineffective, it squanders resources, it prevents the exploitation of the divisions in Islam just waiting to be exploited? He still has time, he and McCain, to figure out that they do not have to go down with the obstinate Bush policy in Iraq, do not have to sacrifice themselves. But will he?

The policy today, the policy of supporting local leaders because, while Muslim, they are not as fanatical as others, and for the moment need our aid, and of trying to “get rid of terrorists” in Iraq and Afghanistan, is futile. The policy includes:

1) killing what are assumed to be a finite number of terrorists, identified almost exclusively with the single terrorist group Al Qaeda, when in fact the number of such groups is very large, and the membership in those constantly name-shifting groups is endlessly replenishable;

2) curing the conditions that supposedly cause Muslim unhappiness, since these, it was assumed, must explain “terrorism” and the hostility toward Infidels that that “terrorism” embodies. The first condition that needed to be cured was said to be "poverty." It was pointed out to no avail that terrorists tend to be better educated and better off economically than most Muslims, and that illiterate villagers untouched by modern ways were least likely to participate in the worldwide Jihad, or to be a threat beyond their own villages. It was likewise ignored that the threat of Jihad comes most from those states – Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia – that have benefited the most from oil money. That money is used to fund both the qital (combat) instrument of Jihad, but also all those other instruments of Jihad: the funding of mosques and madrasas, and of an army of Western hirelings prepared to mislead Infidels about Islam, and of campaigns of Da’wa that identify and target the most vulnerable members of Infidel societies, the psychically and socially and economically marginal.

Those who make policy for the American government should not have been surprised that “democracy” in anything other than the most vulgar sense of head-counting, would not and could not take root in the sandy soil of Iraq. How could it? Of course, the Shi’a, who make up 60-65% of the Iraqi population, were happy to pretend to be believers in democracy, for it gave them an easy and in the eyes of the powerful, and still present, Americans, a way to take that power in a fashion that seemed, to those Americans, to be the right way to do it. What was lacking were all the other things – the enshrined rights of individuals, the location of a government’s legitimacy (as a matter of principle and not of mere expediency) in the will of the people, and the protection of minority rights based on a rule of man-made law. All of these are lacking in Iraq, and are lacking precisely because of Islam.

The failure to identify Islam, or the duty of Jihad, as the threat, the menace, the enemy, and to examine honestly the immutable texts from which it is derived, rather than calling what is going on merely a “war on terror’ (as if the war against the Nazis had been merely a “war on the blitzkrieg”), has helped cause the fiasco in Iraq. That fiasco increases the longer American forces remain, and the longer men’s lives, war materiel, and money is squandered on a false vision, a false hope, and false messianism.

And what makes it particularly maddening is that Bush and all his advisors begin from the unsupported and unsupportable premise that Islam is not, and cannot be, the enemy (it can be, and it is, but one can do it cleverly, through the synecdoche of calling for a “war of self-defense against those who promote Jihad” which is a mouthful, but much better than “war on terror”). They have not been able, starting from this false premise, to understand the nature of Iraq, or the appearance and growth of sectarian and ethnic divisions over economic and political power, which were inevitable once the iron regime of Saddam’s Sunni-run despotism was undone. Instead of recognizing or even deliberately welcoming such divisions, the Administration has for nearly three years been doing whatever it can to prate about “the Iraqi people” (no such thing) and the “model of Iraq.” What model? Of what? And why would anyone in his right mind think that Sunni Arab states would delightedly take as their model of anything the land of Iraq, in which power had just been transferred from the Sunnis to the despised Shi’a? Who could possibly have thought that? The Administration has opposed the breakup of this fictional nation, and has done all it could to prevent those very divisions within Iraq that nevertheless cannot be healed -- for there is no way to give the Sunnis what they demand, there is no way to give the Kurds what they require, short of full independence. And that independent Kurdistan could be of great benefit to American policy, rightly conceived, as an example to other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers of Algeria, of what they too might achieve -- not to mention its electrifying effect on Kurds in Iran, and therefore on Baluchis, Arabs, and even Azeris in Iran, who together make up nearly 50% of the population of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Anyone now in Iraq who is still is working manfully to create an “Iraqi” police force or an “Iraqi” army must, at some point, have had his doubts. And he is right to have his doubts. The policy is wrong. The “Iraqis” do not exist. A few brave Arabs working or fighting beside the Americans, and who perhaps have earned their trust or even admiration, should not be mistaken for such statements as “these guys are great” or “this is going to work out” and other naïve conclusions based on the slimmest of anecdotal evidence. The real, non-anecdotal evidence suggests that aside from the Kurds and Christians who have furnished so many of the drivers, cooks, other staff (and not only in the Green Zone) as well as interpreters, there are very few among either the Shi’a or the Sunni Arabs who view the Americans with any real, and permanent, gratitude and friendship. Their interest is in using those Americans either to protect them or to fight for them, in what is clearly inter-communal strife of no business or interest of ours -- except insofar as such strife, should it attract outside volunteers, money, and materiel, might usefully help to divide and demoralize and weaken the general camp of Jihad and, what’s more, might spread Sunni-Shi’a hostilities to other places. And that would be a result to be welcomed, not deplored.

The Administration cannot coherently defend an incoherent policy. So it just keeps on parroting phrases about a “new Middle East,” or attacks others for not “staying the course.” They look sillier and sillier with each passing day and each passing billion that is wasted in Iraq -- which if applied to alternative energy programs, might ultimately do much to deprive the worldwide Jihad of the money that has, for its existence and spread, made all the difference.

The Administration’s messianic mission has been toned down, but it still remains. It remains because to openly wish for the ethnic and sectarian divisions to widen and spread is something that the sentimentalists in the Pentagon and elsewhere apparently cannot bring themselves to do. They cannot accept these divisions as the gift that they are, a gift just waiting to be exploited.

That failure, that unwillingness to see dissension sown in the enemy camp, is partly a result of not identifying Islam as the Enemy Camp. But it is. It is because Islam itself divides the world uncompromisingly between Believers and Infidels, a fact that will not be diminished by the Administration’s determination to create Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. And whether or not Al-Maliki “thanks us” or not, whether or not he praises, or takes back his praise (under obvious prodding) of Hizballah, he remains a true Muslim. His attempt to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with “terrorism,” and his further inability – how could he, really? – to admit to the split between Believer and Infidel, and the duty of the former to end all barriers to the dominance of Islam in all the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, and to make sure that ultimately, Muslims rule, does not change what is written in the immutable texts.

Time is short. NATO is not paying attention to what is happening in Europe – and the lumbering giant is stuck to tarbaby Iraq. The longer it sticks, the more it is coming to resemble a mammoth, or what remains of him, in the La Brea Tar Pits.

That is why your husband, and their father, is still in Iraq. That is why the American electorate may, in a dangerous reaction, vote in not those who want to fight the war of self-defense against the Jihad more cleverly and much more variously, but rather vote in those who see no need to fight such a war of self-defense at all.

That is perhaps the worst effect of this fiasco. Yet, every day there is a reason offered up on a platter for the Americans to announce, plausibly, the need for them to depart. It could be Al-Maliki praising Hizballah. It could be the behavior of the Mahdi Army. It could be the latest mutual atrocities of Shi’a and Sunnis in Baghdad or outside Baghdad. It could be anything at all. But the decision to get out of Iraq should be based on the recognition that we have won, we have set in motion something that cannot be easily undone, and that ensures that the Sunnis and Shi’a will be fighting over the economic and political spoils left free for the grabbing when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. It is a Metternich, a Mahan, a Mackinder in reverse who would not only not see the advantage of this course, but do everything to prevent it.

But that’s what, for the moment, we have, and not only in the Executive branch, but in Congress as well. You asked what to tell your children. I’m not sure what, of the above, you can tell them. Perhaps you should just say: mistakes are being made, and soon they will have to be corrected, and then their father will come home. Not exactly a satisfactory answer, for them, for you, for him, for any of us.

Posted by Hugh at July 27, 2006 8:05 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(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.)

The historian must take the long view. It's simply to early to tell whether or not Democracy in Iraq will take....and if so, will it be culturally and regionally transformative.

Posted by: Cornelius

at July 27, 2006 8:23 AM

Reading Hugh's articles is the next best thing to calling Churchill back from the dead - certainly less messy.

Posted by: Shy Guy

at July 27, 2006 8:24 AM

Quite comprehensive! And although you’ve said these things before, it is timely to re-state them again. The administration’s rationale for nations-building is being questioned as a mountain of evidence seeps into the consciousness of the American people begging for an integrated explanation.

The old canard, that fighting Iraq War #1 was the problem, doesn’t hold water. After seeing the intended death sentence for religious conversion in Afghanistan (where we fought the “good” war,) the election of Hamas, the Hezbollah aggression against Israel, the continual attacks on civilians from Bombay to London, and the broad acceptance of the goals and means of these attacks within the Islamic community, Americans realize that there is more to the story than “it’s just a few extremists.”

Now is the time to re-iterate the message. “It’s the religion, stupid.”

Posted by: JasonP

at July 27, 2006 8:44 AM

Stated them before? Stated them several hundred times, often using -- quite deliberately -- the exact same phrases, ever since the first year was up, the year of Iraq War #1, when it was already time to go home, and let the Sunni-Shi'a split take its natural, inevitable, utterly predictable course. Go back into the Archives and see for yourself -- start, say, around April 2004, or google "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" or some such dead-giveaway phrase.

Usually I hate to repeat the same phrases when I could so easily avoid it. At this website, however, for important reasons, I go out of my way to do so.

Posted by: Hugh

at July 27, 2006 8:58 AM

Applause.

I was thinking that all of us can fax/email this article to the White House and as many senators as we can. Surely some will read it. Surely some will get it.

Posted by: arjun.sevak

at July 27, 2006 9:07 AM

Hugh,

Thank-you for another outstanding article. The truth is that we must begin to ask the questions.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at July 27, 2006 9:15 AM

Thx, Hugh.
I heard a great soundbite from Senator Shumer yesterday on Mailiki. It went something like: "Seeing that we've sacrificed 2500 lives, 18,000 wounded, and spent over 300 billion in Iraq, I think it's appropriate to ask Prime Minister Maliki exactly where he stands on the War on Terror."
I agree with Hugh that we must not vote out the conservatives only to get people who won't do anything at all, but if the Democrats keep on with such coherence as shown above, I may have rethink my political allegiance.

Posted by: jewdog

at July 27, 2006 9:51 AM

I've come to agree with Hugh's views on our involvement in Iraq, we should have left them to their own devices. But the central problem remains, when will somebody in office in this country speak "truth to power" and identify Islam as the enemy, the root cause of all these problems? Wether or not we are in Iraq, this remains a central reason why a coherent response to Islam's threat to Non-Muslims is nowhere to be seen.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, can you imagine the response of the mainstream media and the political establishment if someone, specially a Republican, started talking about Islam they way we do here at JW? The firestorm of criticism that would generate would be something to see. It would take a truly courageous person, someone strong and secure in their convictions. Someone able to articulate the facts as well as Robert, Hugh and the JW/DW staff do. Given that the first instinct of 99% of the politicians is to protect their chances for re-election and cover their butts, you'll be hard pressed to find someone with that kind of courage and vision.

With more and more Infidels growing aware of Islam's true nature, the recent polls showing a growing mistrust of Muslims by Infidels in Western countries, I'm thinking it's going to take a mass movement from the ground up, more and more citizens daring to speak out, write to Congress and media organizations to get the political and media organizations to face Islam. Islam needs to become an issue, one the politiicans can't ignore. And this website is a terrific asset. You won't find a site with a more factual, even tempered and logical approach than this one. I recommend JihadWatch at least once a day to somebody. Some people think I'm an Islamophobe but I really don't care. A number of people have told me already my arguments and their visits to JW have opened their eyes. It's a gradual process, but it's something we can all do, and must do.

Resistance isn't futile, it's our only option.

Posted by: Proud Infidel

at July 27, 2006 10:09 AM

Wish Hugh's wisdom,insight and clarity of thought could be grafted on to the somnolent infidels around.

I have interacted with some and got feedback from many who routinely hobnob with the "moderate muslims".NONE of them have even an iota of gratitude towards America or the West in general.Ditto for Hindus.Whatever benefits and creature comforts enjoyed are *believed* to be their royal due!

Also their naked, visceral hatred towards Jews and Hindus(Christians too) is barely concealed.
If this is the "moderates" mindset.......we have plenty of reasons to feel alarmed.

Logic,fairness,peace and compassion....in short all virtues repel them.

Posted by: Crows&Cows

at July 27, 2006 10:49 AM

Thank you for the information.As the Army wife in question,I set out on this goal to educate others asking the same questions I am.I thought it was time to stop sitting idly by and just trusting the propaganda being fed to us.But like I said before,In my readings I have come to find that there is no real peace in Islam.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 10:53 AM

“Perhaps you should just say: mistakes are being made, and soon they will have to be corrected, and then their father will come home. Not exactly a satisfactory answer, for them, for you, for him, for any of us.”

Or, you could tell them we are now fighting against the same enemy or at least the same type of people that harmed our nation on 9/11 in Iraq instead of in the United States -where they could easily be with funding from oil rich nations.

You could also mention that W is giving them (muslims) a last chance to embrace there God given gift of freedom and make their “religion” more passive before they become too vile and are wiped out.

To allude to the campaign in Iraq being a mistake I think is reckless, was fighting in Vietnam a strategic mistake in our eventual victory in the Cold War? We at least stopped to give the Soviet’s and their clients a fight before they rolled into Burma, Thailand and India. We likely will not know whether our role in Iraq was a mistake, holding pattern for something else better or a victory in the making for several more years.

One thing is certain, the entire M.E. needed change, and it’s far better to fight these radicals in Iraq against our military then on the streets of Charleston, SC (or some other city) against our police and citizens.

Posted by: El Cid 91

at July 27, 2006 11:25 AM

El Cid 91,

You wrote:

"You could also mention that W is giving them (muslims) a last chance to embrace there God given gift of freedom and make their “religion” more passive before they become too vile and are wiped out."

Unfortunately, President Bush is not intending or doing any such thing.

Even the few in the administration and US gov't, and Washington wonkland who have figured out that "War on Terror" is a misnomer, have not understood the essential malevolence of islam.

In Quadrennial Defense Review testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on March, 14, 2006, the Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, in Washington, D.C., Andrew Krepinevich, repeatedly used the phrase "radical islamist" (perhaps excusably diplomatic, considering the setting) and then stated the following severe misunderstanding: "[Radical Islamists are]... those advancing a perverse and dangerous distortion of the Islamic faith."

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/T.20060314.QDRTestimony/T.20060314.QDRTestimony.pdf

They just don't get it. Does the CSBA accept book donations? Do they read history? Shouldn't that be a large part of their job or of the qualifications for their job(s)?

These are the "non-partisan"/politically disinterested people who advise our representatives and senators, through their testimony. In spite of their self description as "The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit public policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. CSBA is known for its scholarship, experience, and credibility.", they are fools.

Posted by: del

at July 27, 2006 11:57 AM

I have lived under Islam, but when I honestly tell people around me that it is a vicious religion, the first reply I hear is that it doesn't sound real.

Many said, "It won't happen here!Not here!"

I remember: Few years ago, a young lady at Red Cross shelter in Mulibu, California, was interviewed on TV. The reporter asked her what she thought about her situation in the shelter. She said it did not occur to her that fire would swallowed up her entire neighborhood because she thought such things only happen to those who are poor.

Great!

Posted by: ssa

at July 27, 2006 12:10 PM

what is going on merely a “war on terror’ (as if the war against the Nazis had been merely a “war on the blitzkrieg”), has helped cause the fiasco in Iraq... And what makes it particularly maddening is that Bush and all his advisors begin from the unsupported and unsupportable premise that Islam is not, and cannot be, the enemy (it can be, and it is, but one can do it cleverly, through the synecdoche of calling for a “war of self-defense against those who promote Jihad” which is a mouthful, but much better than “war on terror”).

Hugh

Since we all know that in this age of sound-bites, a mouthful just wouldn't do, why not instead just call this a 'Jihad on Jihad'? Not only is that pithy (to borrow a Bill O'Reilly line), but it also embeds what I'd describe as a 'taqiyya-offsetting mechanism'. In other words, if any Mohammedan apologist tried explaining away Jihad as an 'inner struggle', we can shoot back some counter taqiyya at them stating that that meaning applies to both the 'Jihads' in the above term. If they use it in a malevolent context, the same applies. In other words, assigning two different, even contrasting meanings to the same term would be an intellectual exercise best left to those taqiyya artists, rather than our side having to contort our message in a way aimed at convincing the public at large that we aren't messengers of hatred.

Most importantly, it potentially allows for the most aggressive policy against Islam, by allowing every tactic that's used by the armies of Islam against us to be used back on them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 27, 2006 12:46 PM

I notice that Mr. Maliki's hand is out for more Jizya.

I do not favor any more reconstruction money. Let them pump more oil....my children and grandchildren should not have to pay Iraq's bills for them.

Posted by: treehugger

at July 27, 2006 12:48 PM

You can invent any name for it. Call it war on teror, or war against jihadists, or war against Islam. It will not make any difference, until the general public have the resolve to fight full heartedly.

We have strong military. Tactically, we dealt servere blow to the Viet Cong, but the final outcome is that we left Vietnam defeated because the public did not have the stomach to win. They believe when the news said that we lost.

Your will not win, unless you know how stop the media from poisoning people's mind.

The Viet Cong General said that they took to war to the American Living Room.

This is a dejavu.

Posted by: ssa

at July 27, 2006 1:07 PM

Del,

I agree, it is unlikely that Bush will wipe out the muslims -it will be someone else later more Hobbesian and it will likely be after many Westerners sour on muslims -which seems to be happening already.

This vile "religion" has to do something to make itself more passive or it will not exist in the next century which would be fine with me. Given the degree of hostility it exudes it is likely on the way out anyway, if not for their oil they would literally have nothing.

I realize we are likely not planning for war with all of islam but I bet we could beat them with equipment and tactics from the WW2 -the muslim militaries are pathetically un-inovative and have to use our MSM to further their cause.

Posted by: El Cid 91

at July 27, 2006 1:49 PM

Infidel Pride,

I've noticed on Fox lately that 'Islamo-fascism' (or in O'Reilly's case, 'Islama-fascism') has been replaced by 'Islamic fascism.'

It's a start.

Posted by: Cornelius

at July 27, 2006 1:50 PM

Hugh said

Usually I hate to repeat the same phrases when I could so easily avoid it.

Just as your repetition of the mantra is excusable, please excuse our repetition as well: Another excellent article, right on the money.

Robert has intimated that JW is gaining some contacts within the Administration. And surely, after having books on the NYT bestseller list for months, there must be someone with some authority who is learning some of the basic facts of Islam (not the ficitious "To kill one man is to kill all mankind" misquotations). Maybe gaining knowledge on the clock is verboten, but in their off hours couldn't there be one CIA analyst who could read a book or two?

My point is, you have been stating the (now) obvious for a couple of years regarding Iraq. Where is the glimmer of recognition inside the Administration? I understand they disagree with your (and now, thanks to you, my) point of view, but can they offer a rational rebuttal to the concepts you raise? So far, the only rebuttals I hear are the "cut and run" non-sequiters. This isn't about running away, this is about facing the real enemy, not some bogus "radical religionist" who is enslaving the mass majority of phantom "moderates".

Yes, this is all repetitious, but our patience is running thin, and the anger is beginning to grow.

Posted by: special_guest

at July 27, 2006 2:22 PM

This same question was brought up for debate in the United American Committee Forum several months ago, and we received the following reply, which I found interesting:

"They say a politician really screws up when he tells the truth. That's exactly what happened the other day when POTUS let the cat out of the bag that we'll be in Iraq until at least 2009. For those us working in Iraq, this wasn't news. The real question to me is why can't we leave? We can't leave because we replaced Sadaam as the strong central power and this country cannot possibly survive without this. After the Iraqis don't get it together, we'll eventually move to partition the country, I think. However, much more blood shed will need to come before this happens. There's no political way for ANY President to come right out and say this. Here's a list of other "stay put" reasons POTUS can't say in mixed company:

1. We have to stay in Iraq to maintain a strategic military forward operating capability.

2. We need to stay in Iraq to resist (not stop) Iran's influence among the Shia majority.

3. We need to stay in Iraq because leaving will make Lebanon and The Balkans look like a Sunday picnic in comparison if the Shia and Sunni and Kurds are allowed to fully go at it.

4. We need to stay in Iraq to keep pressure on Syria and to assist the Sunni majority in that country to revolt against Assad's Shia minority Baathist regime (not to be confused with the Sunni Baathists of Iraq). Toppling Assad and putting the Sunnis in power in Syria is a key piece to re-equalizing the power balance in the region among the Shia and Sunni and could very well help to establish new boundaries for a greater Sunni homeland that would incorporate Syria and Central Iraq. We can cut this deal with the Sunnis by trading our military support in exchange for a. Stopping the Iraqi insurgency and b. turning over the WMD's Sadaam transferred to and hid in Syrian territory before his demise (We need to grow up intellectually and realize that territorial boundaries mean very little to Arabs who share a common heritage/myth of Bedouin roots).

5. We have to stay in Iraq to ensure the oil keeps flowing and to prevent the Iranians from blocking vital sea lanes in the Persian/Arabian gulf (especially in the straits of Hormuz).

6. We have to stay in Iraq so that when the central Iraqi national government fails, setting up a greater Kurdistan will not cause Turkey to go into convulsions over this. Remember that we are legally obligated by NATO to protect Turkey's national security. We can never allow Turkey to lose territory or security as the result of creating a Kurdistan (The Kurds live in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran). Nevertheless, allowing for a Kurdistan to emerge is not only the right thing morally, it is also the smart thing politically and will lend itself to stabilizing the region. The Kurds are strong US allies and even cooperate with Israel even though most are Sunni by religion.

7. We must stay in Iraq to meet the probable inevitable confrontation with Iran over their sponsorship of jihad/terrorism in the west and their march toward obtaining nukes. We must be able to strike them at a moments notice and you can bet the war planners are working overtime to get ready for this.

8. We need to stay in Iraq to confront the jihadist head on. They need to feel pain from our superior strength because this is all they can understand that will deter them. They are barbarous and cannot be reasoned with in any other way. They must be exterminated or opposed until they can be exterminated. We have taken the forward ground of the battle space and we must not give it up except to our agents who we install and who have proven trustworthy. Some military units of the Iraqi central government can be trusted in the battlefield but this will not last when the government fails.

9. Finally, we must stay in Iraq, because leaving would be akin to committing Superpower suicide. Failing in Iraq would signal that America's best days are over and that America can be taken down by third-rate caliphate-pushing thugs. No, we must never let this happen. We must realize that if we are to stop the global cancer of Islamo-fascist Jihadism, we must start by stopping them in Iraq. If we can't stop them here, we can't stop them at all. In the immortal words of Gene Krantz, Mission Control Supervisor of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission where the greatest of all miracles occurred and we saved our Astronauts: Failure is not an option. So, neither is abandoning our forward operating position in Iraq if we want to beat the Islamists."

Right or wrong, it appears that this individual is arguing that we have practical, self-serving interests for staying in Iraq beyond the fanciful "Light Unto the Nations" project and the completion of "Iraq War #1". This brings to mind subjects raised by Ralph Peters and Christopher Hitchens, which are, respectively, the realignment of the dysfunctional borders in the Middle East, and the consequences of leaving a power vacuum in Iraq. As far as the latter subject is concerned, are we willing to risk a soon-to-be-nuclearized Iran filling this vacuum, given that the Sunnis appear to lack the necessary military power to prevent the Islamic Republic from seizing Iraq's territory and natural resources? Do we think the ambitious Ahmadinejad would stop at the borders of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

Posted by: Mike

at July 27, 2006 2:24 PM

Hugh Fitzgerald has been arguing that the US abandon the reconstruction and democratization projects in Iraq from early on. He has also consistently argued, as he does above, that attempts should be made to sow dissension among the ethnic and sectarian divides in Islam; but, of course, neither of these recommendations seem to have any impact on policy.

But, folks should read the Iranian response to accusations from Al Anzar and Saudi Arabia that the actions of Hezbollah are 'adventurous'. Iran accuses Sunnis of furthering the American and 'Zionist' strategy of dividing Islam. Muslims, the Iranian mullahs, who take the Qur'an and Sunnah to heart think as warriors, as Mohammed did. Ironically the Iranians (and surely others) see the potential effectiveness of such a strategy (that does not exist) and actually use it in an argument for unity, that is, unity with Hezbollah and Iran in the lead.

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD121606

Such a debate rages among our enemies and our leaders appear oblivious to its significance. And recently Saudi Arabia has backed away from their prior condemnation of Hezbollah, and claims that war may be necessary if the conditions are right, and the conditions, of course, have to do with the bad behavior of Infidels. The 'you are dividing Islam and cooperating with Infidels argument' seems to have had some effect.

Western leaders, NATO, the EU are caught in a vicious comedy of errors, unable to comprehend the language of their enemies.

Hugh Fitzgerald's commentary and arguments are sometimes hard to read; it is painful to face up to these things. The horrifying consequences distract the mind, divert attention, and kindle a desire to think about something else. People will tend to accept the weaker argument or pass over obvious facts when they are afraid. There is such a thing as intellectual courage, I think; the ability to think through carefully and reason coherently, without anger and prejudice, about matters that literally hurt the mind. We should admit to ourselve that intellectual courage is among the most difficult of virtues; the mind loves to wander away from what is painful, and when the mind does discover causes to horrors, distress, impatience, and hatred can seize thoughts and cloud judgment.

Seeing the primary cause to the calamities of the world, Islam, is only a first step. The next step is sound policy. Hugh Fitzgerald has been offering valuable advice on both for some time now. We seem to have enough trouble with the first, most basic step.

Posted by: JTF

at July 27, 2006 3:06 PM

Well his first hand account on a daily basis is to try and stop the Sunni's and the Shi'a from killing each other.In his opinion leaving now would just mean civil war.I would say bring our boys home,close our borders up tight and let them have at each other.But that in tow is not the answer.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 3:22 PM

Well, it looks like once again, I'm going to have to play the lone dissenter gadfly here on JW:

Hugh's theory looks good on paper. As a Master's thesis it would be great. But we're not facing a paper problem. We're facing murdering jihadists on a daily basis now, who are playing on an existing world chessboard that they exploit and Hugh refuses to accept. It also does no good to beat ourselves up over "what might have been" had Carter or Reagan or somebody done a better job with the energy issue. We're here, we're stuck with a zillion big SUVs and Hummers drinking gasoline thirstily, and with a baby-boomer generation that can't imagine austerity and howls every time the price of a gallon of gasoline rises another quarter.

We're also stuck with a map of the world in which the world's nations don't divide neatly into "us" and "them," despite Bush's rhetoric. There are nations who owe their existence and wealth to Great Power politics and colonialism, and don't want that changed. In particular, as I have reminded Hugh at least three times already, Turkey, a member of NATO whose territorial integrity the U.S. is pledged to defend, is adamantly against any independent Kurdish state. Turkey got a piece of what would have been Kurdistan in 1922, and they aren't about to give it up. Nor do they want any other Kurdish state either, since that might encourage Kurds living in Turkey to get antsy. As Turkey's ally, the U.S. is pledged to support and even defend the stability and the existing national boundaries of that country.

Hugh's theory that the U.S. should be trying to fragment the Muslim world, dividing Kurd against Sunni against Shi'a, is simply not sellable to our allies, nor to the U.N. (in which those Muslim nations and their own Third World allies are a powerful voting bloc), nor to OPEC (which sells the oil that the West runs on). Destabilizing the Muslim world would be viewed by the existing Muslim nations of OPEC as a direct threat. An oil embargo in retaliation, plus a huge rise in oil prices (like the tenfold rise in the 1970's), would collapse the fragile U.S. economy, without draconian economic measures that America's baby-boomers see absolutely no need for.

Even if America did buy into Hugh's theory about dividing the Muslim world against itself, who else would join us in that campaign? Europe? With or without Turkey? Russia, which has more to fear from Muslim instability since it's right on their borders? Canada, which long ago surrendered itself to multiculturalism and Third World worship?

That's the difference. During the Cold War, we could divide the Communist world, playing Yugoslavia and China off against the USSR and so on, because that policy was understood and accepted by many of our allies. (In fact, some of them were ahead of us in that.) If we go Hugh's way, we go it totally alone--against a worldwide Muslim umma backed up by the trillions of dollars of unearned oil wealth. I don't like those odds.

Sorry, folks. We have to play the cards we've been dealt. We can't pick up and move Israel elsewhere. We can't just wave a magic wand and create safe, inexhaustible nuclear fusion overnight. We can't pretend that the world's nations don't have their own interests in the Middle East that often conflict with ours. We have to face reality.

Posted by: Steven L.

at July 27, 2006 3:43 PM

On another note...When he talks of the children.Having small children myself I often ask him about the children over there.Children roam the streets (where he is at) very very young(like 2y 3y old).The city streets are filled with feces urin and trash.My husband came up with an idea "toys for trash" 9 but never got credit for).In exchange for bags of trash the soldiers would give the children toys.An effort to clean the city up a bit.Its a shame the media seldom shows the good things being done in Iraq.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 3:47 PM

They did get a whole lot of trah : )~

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 3:49 PM

Steven L,

Thank you for another view on this matter.I enjoyed reading it.As I have all the other posts.Still have many questions but so many have been answered since I found JIHAD WATCH.I just got tired of relying on the media for my daily dose of propaganda.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 4:02 PM

Proud Infidel asks:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, can you imagine the response of the mainstream media and the political establishment if someone, specially a Republican, started talking about Islam they way we do here at JW? The firestorm of criticism that would generate would be something to see.

You know the old saying, "Only Nixon could go to China." Only someone with a long history of anti-Communism could break with the past and make peace with a Communist nation without being politically vulnerable.

According to that principle, it would have to be a staunch liberal Democrat figure who makes a break with his own past and leads the way on Islam. Someone like Howard Dean. With all the Left has invested in him, they would be flummoxed if he spoke out on it.

Posted by: Steven L.

at July 27, 2006 4:07 PM

Even if America did buy into Hugh's theory about dividing the Muslim world against itself, who else would join us in that campaign? - SL

Steven, you talk as if the Muslim world wasn’t already divided, isn’t volatile by its own inclinations, and is inherently stable without our actions.

Posted by: JasonP

at July 27, 2006 4:22 PM

According to that principle, it would have to be a staunch liberal Democrat figure who makes a break with his own past and leads the way on Islam. Someone like Howard Dean. With all the Left has invested in him, they would be flummoxed if he spoke out on it. Posted by: Steven L

Sayeth the braindead, stuck in the past ideologue.

There are plenty of "Islamophobic" "leftists", and I think it is trite and simplistic to characterize a Democrat as a Leftist, and trite to characterize all Republicans as Rightists.

It is such tactics, that are used as tools to divide and conquer, by those (in power, and with resources) who really have no interest or concern about us in the middle (or those in the lower) class.

The definition, the boundaries of what is POPULARLY considered LEFT or RIGHT Have been (purposefully) distorted.

I am unchanged since 1964 when I was a Goldwater Conservative, however today I find myself apalled, angry and disgusted with those who call themselves "conservatives" or right wingers.. they are an abortion and an abomination..

Sad, and telling, that a Goldwater Conservative is now on the leftside of the political spectrum, so radical and irrational the "right has moved and become".

Second subject, pedal your apologia and apologetics elsewheres, for that is what your posts are unabashed, shameless "stay the course" apologetics for a failed, divisive political party and administration that instead of unifying and strengthening the country is ripping it apart and dividing it to placate it's irrational and (Mullahlike) base.

Posted by: Nariz

at July 27, 2006 4:28 PM

Proof that the "left" (Democrats) get it, and Republicans (who must stay the course and support the traitor in chief) don't.

The controversy surrounding Iraq Prime Minister al Maliki's address to congress.. Totally supported by the Republicans it was only the Democrats who dissented and only Democrats boycotted the address.

As you know Al Maliki backs Hizbollah (naturally since he is a puppet of Iran) and has condemned Israel's defensive actions in Lebanon.

And the speaker of the house in Iraqi Parliament has stated that all of the suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, beheadings, sabotage are Jewish false flag operations and al Maliki has not demurred on that, and the Iraqi parliament to a man voted to support that statement.

And still you defend Dubya and want to stay the course, spill more of our precious blood and waste more of our precious resources for Iraq and who is going to pay that bill, because Dubya and you can't admit error? Our children that's who.

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time, another is throwing good money after bad.

You and Cornelius (and the Republican party) are doing both.. for no other real reason than political power, or the ability to bestow gifts and favoritism.

Posted by: Nariz

at July 27, 2006 4:35 PM

Steven,

An interesting point. Yes, it would carry quite a bit more weight if Dean or some other Democrat icon came out and said what has to be said. However, given that Howard Dean is a member in good standing of the pacifist, appeasement minded Left that controls the Democratic Party these days, and that the Left sees anyone who mentions Islam's true nature as an Islamophobic racist, there's little chance it will be a Democrat that comes out and says what needs to be said. I'm sure there are people on the Left who are aware of the reality of Jihad, but other than author Bruce Bauer and a few others, they aren't speaking out. The only one who might is Joe Lieberman, but the Left is trying to run him out of the party by being too conservative.

Despite the Republican Party's continued blindness to the truth about Islam and the inability of it's politicians to articulate it, I see right wing conservatives in general as much more aware of the problem and more willing to speak about it. Like you said in your well thought out response to Hugh's post, we have to play the cards we are dealt. I just don't see a Democrat being the one who stands up, as much as hope one of them will. If anyone does stand up, it's much more likely to be a Republican.

Whoever the heck stands up, it better be soon!

Posted by: Proud Infidel

at July 27, 2006 4:47 PM

Steven L., thanks for a well-written post, I enjoyed it as much as I disagree with it.

It also does no good to beat ourselves up over "what might have been" had Carter or Reagan or somebody done a better job with the energy issue.

I don't recall anyone here writing about what Carter or Reagan could have done 20 or 30 years ago. The comment is that we should be starting a Manhattan-style Project now, so that we can end our dependence on foreign oil asap. Big difference between whining about spilled milk and getting out a rag to clean it up.

If we go Hugh's way, we go it totally alone--against a worldwide Muslim umma backed up by the trillions of dollars of unearned oil wealth.

Two comments: one, we lost the initiative immediately after 9/11 to build a broad coalition when the world was temporarily sympathetic to our cause. It was our (or GWB's) decision to mis-identify the enemy and to "go it alone" with our "coalition" of UK and Trinidad and Tobago. Second, eventually, it will not be the U.S. that cobbles together a broad coalition, it will be the jihadists. Eventually, it will be impossible even for the French/Swedes/Spaniards to ignore the danger that Islam presents to non-Islamic people (according to the teachings of the Qur'an).

We have to face reality.

Not sure what you're implying. That we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely, regardless of how many lives are lost, regardless of how much of our money and resources are spent there, regardless of how little it directly impacts the jihad being waged worldwide, regardless of how much the Iraqis still hate us? I would argue that those who first said how good things were going to go, then how good they were going (Cheney: "the insurgency is in it's final stage" a year ago) are the ones who need to face reality. Even the ones who claim, okay it's not going well, but we have no choice but to stay there until Iraq is a stable multicultural democracy, are also the ones who have to face reality.

I commend Hugh for being one of the very, very few voices out there who actually has faced reality.

Posted by: special_guest

at July 27, 2006 5:29 PM

Hugh, I opposed the Iraq war before it started. I believed it would unleash a hornet's nest. Did you likewise oppose it from the outset? If so, kindly point out your writings that so indicate.

SHOULD HAVE LEFT OUR ALLY SADDAM

If on the other hand you favored the war, what was your justification for it other than to remove/depose our former ally Saddam (against Iran), the so-called "butcher of Baghdad?" After all, Saddam was no worse than “good guy” Qaddafi. Why didn’t we leave him there?

THE NEO-CON DISASTER IN IRAQ

My position is that now we are there. We are entangled. We simply cannot leave Iraq until there is some stability. The military dependant wife asked what are we fighting in Iraq. The better question to ask is why we went there to begin with? To say it is Islam is the only reason Iraq is a disaster is a disingenuous way of attempting to deflect from the terrible quagmire that neo-cons have thrust upon on.

Your disdain for the UN leads one to infer that you probably desired to attack Iraq to perhaps spite the UN. Fine. But don't turn around now and indicate the problems are simply: it’s all Islam stupid. So pack up and leave boys, ‘cause it’s mission accomplished.

THE US IS A GREAT POWER, NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC

The US is a hyperpower that attempts to influence the world as a just power; it cannot act like a small power like Argentina (in the Falklands). The US has responsibilities that it has assumed in this war. The world opinion that you perceive as such an irrelevance, is anything but what you say it is.

Moreover, leaving Iraq now strengthens the jihadists, not the reverse. But that fact has, of course, escaped you.

THANKS A LOT FOR IRAQ, NOW WE CAN’T TOUCH IRAN

Iran is a terrible threat now, and neo-cons have weakened us tremendously. Were you part of the arrogant neo-cons that argued that Iraq is not a fool’s errand? I believe I know the answer to that question. You cannot have it both ways.

BANNING?

Will this discussion now lead to my being banned as I have been warned for daring to post on this site? Or can one not have a discussion on this website and not get banned when one does not call for the extermination of every last Moslem and end his post with a requisite “GOD BLESS THE US AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND JESUS COME SOON AND PREVENT BILL GATES AND BUFFET FROM DONATING TO AIDS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPING THE WRONG PRODUCTS AND ESTABLISHING A NEW WORLD ORDER, COME JESUS, SOON AMEN”?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at July 27, 2006 6:22 PM

Unfortunately, pulling out of Iraq now would cause more harm than good. Iraq would likely collapse and either be taken over by Iran or the terrorists. It's hard to gage Iraq because the media puts such a spin on everything,( both in the US and abroad). Obivously,when there is a war along with war's aftermath, it is going to take time to get things to where they should be and negative things happen. Yet, today people want instant success and if they don't have it, they call it a failure. People during WW2 realized that things take time. I myself believe at this time that Iraq wasn't necessary to fight at that time and was not worth it in terms of loss of lives and money. However, as I said, I don't have all the facts and others don't either because of all the spin out their so my view might change if I knew everything, same with other folks.

Posted by: corli

at July 27, 2006 6:41 PM

Kafir

Your posts are increasingly approaching the same value as Naseem's - just there for one to psycho-analyze.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 27, 2006 6:43 PM

"Sad, and telling, that a Goldwater Conservative is now on the leftside of the political spectrum, so radical and irrational the "right has moved and become"."

-Nariz

Surely what it means to be a conservative has been so twisted and grossly distorted by religious politics that conservativism is not akin to anything it once was. Gone are the secularists. Likewise, fiscal discipline is out the window as a relic of a by gone era. The mantra of today: spend more and more on the disaster they caused in Iraq. Gone too are the days of at least attempting to separate church and state as government begins the pay-rolling of religion. Not content with a justifiable limit on abortion such as parental notification, "conservatives" cannot resist the temptation of obliterating the right in toto. While claiming to simply oppose gay marriage (and offering nothing in exchange), conservatives want to again make homosexuality itself a crime. See: http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/sullivan/2003/04/22/santorum/index.html
Unable to defend their stupid wasteful war in Iraq, they again turn to the idiotic issue of banning flag burning. Such are the "conservatives" of our times. I will find it nearly impossible to vote for a Republican even though I have been a registered Republican (and sometimes Libertarian) for 12 years.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at July 27, 2006 6:53 PM

Unable to defend their stupid wasteful war in Iraq,
Kafir

I guess you play into medial propaganda too!

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 7:11 PM

Enemy, did you bother to notice I would fully support an attack on Iran? What propoganda are you talking about? Iraq is a disaster, is it not? I am neither a Democrat, nor a propogandist.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at July 27, 2006 7:16 PM

Infidel Pride,

Refute what I am saying if is such psychobabble. And while you are at it, inform us all if you were in opposition to the Iraq war (surely you were infinitely more knowledgeable about Islam than we uneducated peasants were). Almost certainly, my position was correct, whereas yours, (I anticipate) was flawed. Now you claim to be the ME savant. Undoubtedly, you wrote a great deal about how Islam would make a victory unattainable. I await your post with anticipation. I also can't wait to read your personal attacks, as you have no other way to refute what I write but to resort to such tactics. Such attacks are a sign of intellectual weakness.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at July 27, 2006 7:38 PM

Well like I have said before...I may not know as much as you all here granted I am sure most of you are my elders.HOWEVER...when you say the war in Iraq is stupid and wasteful I agree to some extent.BUT a lot of the public play into the media propaganda that portrays us as doing nothing good over there.When there are schools built,voting and not to mention more rights for women.When it comes to general"humanity" not politics there has been some good done.I would never say any of the soldiers died for a stupid worhtless mission.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 7:46 PM

I am neither a Democrat,
Kafir

I am glad to read your point of view.Thats what I am here for.I value everyone's opinion.But I was just wondering what you meant by that statement?

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 7:58 PM

There is a saying-"Don't throw good money after bad".
Time to admit, I think that Iraq was a mistake of horrendous proportions.The Iraqis say themselves 'they were better off under Saddam's brutal regime'-at least electricity worked and Al Quaeda was too frightened to venture there.
Recent comments by Mr Maliki show he isn't in the least grateful to U.S or that he hates Israel less as a faithful Muzzie though of course his hand is outstretched for more Jizya-only thing stupid Infidels are good for.
As for U.S & Euro Dhimmibats pontificating about 'Democracy and Multi Culturalism' to people who relish their tribal hatreds & vendettas, whose religion 'calls for fragrant blood sacrifices for Allah'-well the ordinary Iraqi thinks the Infidels must be crazy, besides they'd much rather have a decent electricity supply and walk the streets without being blown up by bombs.

Posted by: Morgane

at July 27, 2006 8:15 PM

I guess some think I like the fact that he is over there in the middle of a radical Islam Jihad.I think I would rather him be in the Congo kicking militant butt but thats neither here nor there.As it is agreed Islam is sick sick stuff and possibly the largest mental disorder not recognized by doctors..My husband tells me all the time how he thinks they are all liers.But when dubya tells you to go you go like it or not.Its his mission.Possibly mission impossible but his mission none the less.I still refuse to say its all for nothing...YET.I think time will tell and none of us are in a position to say either way.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 8:23 PM

Kafir

My views were not different from Hugh's. Saddam was not an ally. It would have been one thing if in 1991, the US had acquiesced in his conquest of Kuwait, allowed, if not encouraged him to conquer KSA and threaten Syria, Jordan and the GCC states, and bought all his newly possessed oil, including Iraqi. That may or may not have dealt a death blow to Islamic forces in the region, but the real problem would have been selling Israel down the Euphrates. In short, not only would he have been a very unreliable 'ally' (in the same sense that we think of Saudi Arabia as one), but he would almost certainly have been a threat to Israel, thereby bolstering Islamic triumphalism. As a result, Operation Desert Storm was justified. And once that started, he was history as an 'ally' in the 80's war with Iran.

Fast forward to 2002. Within Iraq, Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and looking to re-arm. On one hand, he held Iraq together, and on the other, funded al Aqsa and backed Arafat. As a result, by no objective analysis was he good for Infidels. In the 80's, with his war on Iran, he pretty much burnt up Iraq's economy, as well as diverted Arab cash to his war chest. But with that war over, he was free to dedicate himself completely to the Jihad. In fact, in the months during Operation Desert Shield, he changed the flag of Iraq to include 'Allah-u-Akbar' to it - something that remains to this day. While one may be correct in assuming that it was a cynical ploy to gain Islamic support, fact remains that he was trying to gain support against the US and the West, and what better way to do that than under the platform of Jihad!

So Saddam had to go. I supported part I of that war - ousting him. After December 2003, when he was captured from that spider hole, I believe that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner on that ship was perfectly accurate. After that, the US had no business staying there. Since there was no Iran-Iraq war like in the 80's diverting Islamic oil cash from the Dawas and Madrassas in the West, the best alternative would have been a Shia-Sunni civil war, with Kurds left free to steal their independence almost unnoticed. Throw into that mix Iranian revolutionary guards, Hizbullah, Badr Brigades, and any other assorted Shia militias on one side, and on the other, the Syrian and Egyptian Ikawan, al Qaeda, Saudi funded infiltrators, etc. This would have been an important battle that every Arab would have had a stake in, and as much of their resources as possible would have been diverted from Madrassahs in bilad-ul-Kafir to this worthy undertaking.

You mention above:

We are entangled. We simply cannot leave Iraq until there is some stability

On what basis do you make this statement? Which other country in the world in history has been under any obligation to leave the enemy country in a better state than under which they found it? It's never happened in history, and it's no more incumbent on the US to do it, then it is on, say, Burundi. Just because the US has a history of being better than the rest of the world does not imply that it has to.

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Iraq is an artificial country, with no historical basis prior to WWI, and no rationale for its existance. Same goes for Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, et al. In an ideal world, the people of these countries would have the opportunity to determine what sort of a geopolitical layout they prefer, and work from there. However, given the wonder that's Islam, it was never going to happen: you'd have Shia vs Sunni, Arab vs Kurd, Wahabi vs Hanafi and what have you. None of this was ever the creation of the US, and being non-Arab infidels, solving such problems is outside the scope of US capability. Working on a perpetual-motion engine would be more meaningful.

Finally, Kafir, your references to 'Neo-Cons' reek of Judeophobia. Your hostility to religion is well known, but are you trying to draw an equivalence between being critical of Muslims, and tarring certain policies that you disagree with as being the work of Jews? Because if you are, frankly, it stinks. One expects that from the deranged Left, which is pathologically Judeophobic and Islamophilic. Given that you aren't exactly the latter, I am stunned that you are the former. You are welcome to see this as a personal attack, but I don't think that assailing such a despicable attitude comes under that category.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 27, 2006 8:35 PM

Sorry if I disagree with all the incredibly thoughtful and intellectual perceptions of why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. My simple explaination to the lady's children of why daddy is fighting in Iraq is that daddy is fighting against and enemy who wants to enslave us and all free people of the world.
Regardless of what misguided or guided policy put our brave soldiers over there, the fact that "real enemies" are continuing the hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The zombies of death of Islam have arisen like sour cream out of whatever political face those countries posessed before our soldiers of freedom were sent there. Though their political bosses may have had blurred vision of why we were there, those fighting men and women do not. They have the same vision as their ancestors who were willing to give their life so their children can live in freedom against an enemy that wishes to enslave them under the tyranny of politics or religion. The rebels in Somolia and the blessed Ethiopians in Africa are also present day soldiers of freedom in this same battle.
In Iraq, in Iran, in Afghanistan lovers of freedom still exist, not in the puppet governments that still expound the totalitariansim of Islam,but quietly under the iron fist of oppression. It is when they overthrow the tyrants that true Democracy can take place there. Our soldiers are indeed fighting our true enemies in Iraq as they are in Afghanistan and as the Israelis are in the ME and the Ethiopian army in Africa.

Posted by: Briars

at July 27, 2006 8:54 PM

Infidel Pride ,

I agree on a lot of what you are saying..

After December 2003, when he was captured from that spider hole, I believe that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner on that ship was perfectly accurate. After that, the US had no business staying there.Infidel Pride ,

I do not think we should still be over in the middle of that Jihad.But we are and still better to see whatever good we are doing and not let our troops think that being away from their families for years was worthless as Kifar stated.Iraq is a mess will always be a mess.You can support the troops and not support the war.Just never tell an army wife her husbands mission is worhtless and stupid...I guess some think that they are just over there sitting around with the Iraq's and playing Islam monopoly drinking soda.Not fighting a war on terrorists.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 8:55 PM

Infidel Pride, I'm Jewish but I'm agnostic on the neo conservative label. I think nit wit would be a better definition. Neoconservative 1. nitwit, complete nitwit. 2. messianic believer in the transforming nature of democracy which must be initiated at all costs. 3. Term used a slam for such nitwits. 4. Term used as a slam for Jewish nitwits and Christian nitwits who believe in neoconservative. 5. Term used a code word for Jews by some individuals.

So Pat Buchanan uses the term one way, but to me, neocons are just idiots specified in a certain manner. So are Peace Now, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, Justin Raimando. Sure, they would be terrified to be compared with the evil, pernicious "neocons," but their just fellow flat earth idiots, all probably eat quiche and read the same Tom Friedman books at Barnes and Nobles while sipping their lattes, talking about giving away the Sheva Farms, that witty column by some fellow idiot. All idiots. All useless.

It's ok. Some Jews are neocons, so are Christians. Can't Jews and Christians be idiots.

Of course, Bush maybe the last neocon standing. He never refuses to defend democracy as a transforming agent. He did it with Putin's slam about democracy; he did it today. He's a true beleiver. This is why I laugh when Buchanan talks about the neocon cabal capturing a good man-Bush. He's the last and greatest true believer of this ideology.

Posted by: biorabbi

at July 27, 2006 9:01 PM

Biorabbi

Given that the term 'neocon' tends to be used more towards Jews than on Conservatives of other faiths, like Christian, Athiest, Buddhist, Hindu et al, I tend to look at it more negatively than I otherwise would. It's one thing to slam someone for his/her POV, and quite another to attach a label, that's supposed to mirror Neo-Nazi, while characterizing that person.

And I don't agree that Neo-Conservatism is such a bad idea in and of itself. For instance, the application of democracy in any society - the Sharansky formula - has been proven successful in Eastern Europe, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines and a whole host of other countries. Where the theory falls short is when it's sought to be applied to Islamic entities. There, the failure to factor in the myriad dynamics that together constitute Islam - from the fanaticism of its average follower to the Inshallah fatalism of this cult - that totally changes the dynamics of the normal reactions to such developments has served to discredit this movement. But while Islamic entities are a glaring exception, they shouldn't be used as a demonstration that giving people democracy and hopes for a better life is a losing formula for success.

If the current policy in Iraq were to be applied in, say, Venezuela, I think it would stand a much better chance of success.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 27, 2006 10:05 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever ,
I certainly hope you do not get banned.I struggle with a lot of what you say as truth and some as garbage.I would like to discuss further..if you prefer another place let me know : )

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 10:08 PM

Know your enemy

I glossed over the original question about what is one to say to one's kids. No, I'd never tell anybody that their warrior relative - out in the field - is fighting for a worthless cause. But I am unsure about whether one can support the troops and not support the mission. Let's take 2 examples - Iraq and Serbia.

In the case of Iraq, as I mentioned above, not only do I support the war, I believe that the mission is successful, accomplished, that your husband should be congratulated on a job well done, and brought home. Therefore, the question of my not supporting his mission doesn't arise. Rather, on the issue of what's he still doing there, I believe that the original goal has been way exceeded, and that although one will continue to wish the best for the troops, one does recognize that when they are asked to do something impossible, it should be expected that they will not be successful. This is by no means the same as wanting them to fail - just a tacit recognition of the impossibility of the task at hand.

Serbia is a better example of what you describe. A lot of people on this site have expressed support for Serbia, and regret that the US went to war against them. I'd never wish that any American serviceperson came to harm at their hands. At the same time, while not supporting them is unthinkable, I did feel torn about rooting for the Serbs to get pummeled. It's possible to argue that one could morally support the US troops against the Serbs, since that's what they had been sent to do, but stopping there, and not supporting the Bosnians or Kosovar Muslims against the Serbs. However, I'm ambivalent about whether it would have been right or not in such a situation to arm the Serbs against the Kosovars, since those weapons could potentially be used against our troops.

Which brings up an intriguing question - if the US Army is sent anywhere to wage a Jihad on behalf of a Muslim country against an Infidel country, should we support it? Or should we support the Infidels in their resistance against being Islamized?

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 27, 2006 10:18 PM

Sorry, I was addressing Keep Enemy Close

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 27, 2006 10:20 PM

Infidel Pride ,
I would have to support my husband and the troops in any situation. Its not the troops that decide to go its dubya and the DOD that decide where and why we go.If he where to say no to a mission he would be punished.Beleive me he hates it there and can't stand the Iraqi's but he has to do his job.People did not understand that when they spit on the soldiers returning from Nam.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 10:34 PM

My views were not different from Hugh's.
-IP
Your level of congruity to Hugh’s views on this subject are not really relevant to this discussion. However, I would still like to hear whether Hugh supported the war. And if so, whether he intuited that Islam would be the problem that it is. The answer, I believe, is yes to the former, and no to the latter.

Those who supported the war refuse to humble themselves even in the face of their horrible miscalculation, and instead attempt to an easy out: Islam. How convenient for them. Did they not see this problem earlier? They obfuscate the Iraqi albatross they helped place around the US’ neck by claiming that the problem was not the invasion you see, but rather that we “stayed too long.” Has it occurred to you that military specialists might have not believed that the country could withstand the immediate withdrawal of US troops after Hussein’s capture? Perhaps they still don't believe that to be the case today? And has it occurred to you that the US has obligations over and above those of other nations? I'd also like to know more about your brilliant military strategy, that is, how you anticipated the capture (a lucky and unexpected event) as being the point after which we could exit. Are we to believe that after devastating the Iraqi armed forces, and capturing the bad guy, the invading hyperpower could simply walk away from a nation state that was in the midst of ruin? What if the nation was about to implode with implications for neighboring nations?

The new critics of Bush had Bush’s ear and instructed him that Iraqis would thank Americans for their liberation. Oddly, they seemed to have lacked the clairvoyance about the outcome of the Iraq war they now claim they have. Now the same suspects are criticizing Bush for wanting democracy in the ME. What Bush really means is not democracy. He wants “freedom” in Iraq. Bush probably does not know that democracy comes from the Greek word demos, which means of the people. Sure, Bush’s call for democracy in the ME may be naïve, but it is a noble goal. If so much money has been spent so far, and our only achievement we can point to is the capture of Saddam, they surely we are all the poorer for it. It is also far more noble ambition than allowing a nation that you attacking to descend into chaos and sectarian violence because you don’t care about them. I will remind you all, that whether they are Moslem or not, Iraqis are human beings.

That Iraq was a creation of colonial rule is not really relevant either. Post Colonial nations like Ecuador are products of a similiar type of Colonialism. If you were unhappy with say, the leaderhip in Quito, would you seek to dismember the nation of Ecaudor? Do you suggest that all lines be redrawn now in most of Africa and Latin America too? Consider also that an Iraqi identity had been formed, whether you want to believe it or not. Additionally, there are some countries -- Poland comes to mind -- whose boundaries are largely unnatural. However, I do not believe we should challenge Poland's territorial integrity.

“Saddam was not an ally.”
Funny. I seem to remember otherwise.

“While one may be correct in assuming that it was a cynical ploy to gain Islamic support, fact remains that he was trying to gain support against the US and the West, and what better way to do that than under the platform of Jihad!”
Saddam also cracked down on prostitutes. Ok, but it was no different that Christianists’cynical ploy of going after abortion, flag burning and gay marriage in the US during an election to bolster their support with the masses.

“Finally, Kafir, your references to 'Neo-Cons' reek of Judeophobia. “

Spare me the Jew hating routine. The label of "Judeophobia" (as silly a term as Islamophobia) reeks in itself. Judaism is not any more sacred than your practice of Hinduism, not one iota. I criticize all religions, especially those that engage in violence. To the extent that Judaism is causing major problems in the world, for such policies as settlements causing upheaval in occupied territories, that criticism will continue.

I have written few, if any, rants about Hinduism (should be criticism for its underground caste system which I deplore) and Buddhism. Do you think I don’t mention those faiths because I am an adherent of those faiths? I am not. Moreover, stop trying to paint me as an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. Israel is not above all law. Criticism of the war in Iraq is also needed. To say that one who mentions Iraq as a failed policy is a Jew hater is nonsense. Are you also suggesting that those in Bush’s cabinet, or those from whom he receives council (collectively known as neo-cons) are Jews? If so, isn’t that belief in itself anti Semitic? Where are you going with this? Again, for the record, I am not opposed to the state of Israel.

Noticeably absent from your discussion are two things:

1) World public opinion, which you seem to think, is irrelevant, is very important. Consider also that the premise of the war was to go after WOMDs. None were found, and few probably existed. Now we hear that the premise of the war was to capture Saddam.

And in light of the public opinion, you gloss over the obligations that the US has in entering a war that the world opposed. You seem to believe that the US can walk in, break the vase in the market, and walk out without paying for it.

2) Iran. You fail to mention that Iraq is not only a horrendous drain on our economy, but it is rendering us increasingly impotent against real enemies like Iran and NK, and those still extremely hostile enemies in the world which you are overlooking (and combined are infinitely more important that Moslem countries): China and Russia. Iraq is weakening us relative to these very quickly rising foes.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at July 27, 2006 10:38 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever ,

Do you claim a faith?I was just wondering when I read your posts I dont notice any one beleif system.I was just curiouse how your compairs to the ones in question.

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 27, 2006 10:56 PM

Kafir nonbeliever,
You come across as the most confused individual I have ever come across on JW.

Posted by: arjun.sevak

at July 27, 2006 11:20 PM

"America" would not have to divide the muslim world; the muslim world is and has always been divided. All America needs to do is LEAVE IRAQ and let the muslims who live there sort out their internecine hostilities.

Why should this attempt to remake the Middle East succeed when so many others have failed? As much as I want this noble effort to succeed, it cannot. Nothing is impossible over time, but true democracy in the Middle East will never occur until Islam is removed from the equation. Islam and democracy, at least the type of democracy we enjoy, are antithetical. Sure, the people can go to the polls and elect sectarian representatives, but that is not democracy. As long as there are Sharia states, the centuries-old clashes between Islamic sects will continue.

The experts in the Bush administration should have carefully studied the chronicles of Middle Eastern history before attempting to "free" the Iraqis. They should have learned what the word "freedom" means to an Iraqi muslim. Why not step back and let the Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, and Sufis fight it out among themselves as they have for centuries? Why should we care if they kill each other by the millions? Let them focus their hate and rage on each other and then clean up their own mess when it's over. They will join the civilized world when they get tired of fighting and killing, and maybe the pure joy they derive from bloody conflict will divert their attention from inflicting it on the West.

As important as oil is to our economy, the line must be drawn somewhere. It is absolutely ridiculous that the entire West is being held hostage by the primitive Islamic world because they have oil. We have it too but somewhere along the line, someone decided that it would be cheaper to squander billions on nation building and submit to blackmail for the privilege of buying Middle Eastern oil at exorbitant prices instead of drilling our own.

Posted by: Susanp

at July 27, 2006 11:26 PM

Nope, no faith. It's just the typos above that I have lost faith in.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at July 27, 2006 11:51 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever ,

Thanks : )To each his own .

Posted by: Keep enemy close

at July 28, 2006 12:25 AM

"But the central problem remains, when will somebody in office in this country speak "truth to power" and identify Islam as the enemy, the root cause of all these problems?" proud infidel wrote at about 10:05 a.m.
I guess that will happen when we vote someone into office who clearly believes that way, right? Same with fixing the southern border, like Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorada would do if noone else does. Get it? We do still have a Democracy here and can fix this whole problem at the polls if someone will just step up to the plate and politically 'call a spade a spade.'

Posted by: bobjohnson

at July 28, 2006 12:34 AM

Vote. Prepare yourselves. The Gov't will not save you. There is a multi-front cultural war going on in America now, ala UN/Eurabia. The only way to win is to keep getting this information out into the public, not keeping it penned up on a fringe web site. Tell your friends, coworkers, leave print-outs on the bus, etc.

My family didn't come to America after fighting British on the Scottish Borders, Irish in Northern Ireland, and Redcoats/Indians in America to hand this country over to those without the same ideals as the founding fathers, free men fighting for the rights of all. Free from tyranny, whether royal or religious.

Leave Iraq to the savages. Double Israel's military aid. Build the dang wall of Mexico or a longer moat. Stop bleeding the coffers of the people to rebuild a false country in the Middle East, and use it to build our defenses at home. We can make this country impenetrable with the billions we've blown in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the enemy strikes, we should lower the hammer. Not worry about what the UN or Eurabia thinks. What help have they ever been to us? Let Britain clean up the mess it made in the Middle East by running away in the middle of the night. Send the UN to Eurabia.

Ban the Quran man.

From the Horses' Mouth

Posted by: soapsuds

at July 28, 2006 1:27 AM

Your level of congruity to Hugh’s views on this subject are not really relevant to this discussion. However, I would still like to hear whether Hugh supported the war. And if so, whether he intuited that Islam would be the problem that it is. The answer, I believe, is yes to the former, and no to the latter.

I don't know about Hugh. My answer is yes and yes. I didn't believe that once liberated, Iraqis would be democrats. I did believe that once liberated, Shia would be Shia, Sunni would be Sunni and Kurd would be Sunni Kurd.

And has it occurred to you that the US has obligations over and above those of other nations? I'd also like to know more about your brilliant military strategy, that is, how you anticipated the capture (a lucky and unexpected event) as being the point after which we could exit.

What obligations? Who came up with those? Truth is - these are self imposed obligations that the US has done throughout its history. However, we'd have done well to punt this one.

Show me one other country that does what you demand that the US do. And do spare us that juvenile term 'hyperpower' - one that the US hating Europeans came up with.

As for Saddam's capture, I supported the US troops being there as long as he was at large. Had he been at large today, I'd still be supporting our having troops there. But not for the reason you seem to - building an Arab Switzerland.

Are we to believe that after devastating the Iraqi armed forces, and capturing the bad guy, the invading hyperpower could simply walk away from a nation state that was in the midst of ruin? What if the nation was about to implode with implications for neighboring nations?

Yes for the first question. As for the follow-up, let's look at Iraq's neighbors: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Of these countries, I don't see how it was detrimental to US interests for any of these countries to be destabilized. One could make the point that destabilizing Kuwait, Turkey (which refused to let US troops access via the north) and Jordan aren't positive for US interests. However, neither are they detrimental to US interests.

The new critics of Bush had Bush’s ear and instructed him that Iraqis would thank Americans for their liberation. Oddly, they seemed to have lacked the clairvoyance about the outcome of the Iraq war they now claim they have. Now the same suspects are criticizing Bush for wanting democracy in the ME. What Bush really means is not democracy. He wants “freedom” in Iraq. Bush probably does not know that democracy comes from the Greek word demos, which means of the people. Sure, Bush’s call for democracy in the ME may be naïve, but it is a noble goal. If so much money has been spent so far, and our only achievement we can point to is the capture of Saddam, they surely we are all the poorer for it. It is also far more noble ambition than allowing a nation that you attacking to descend into chaos and sectarian violence because you don’t care about them. I will remind you all, that whether they are Moslem or not, Iraqis are human beings.

You are confusing the advocates of the war who had the president's support with those here who supported it only to the point of overthrowing Saddam. Also, Saddam being overthrown turned out to be good for Shia and Kurd, regardless of the IEDs and the internecine conflict they face today: those are uncertainties that they face, as opposed to the certain death chambers that they faced under Saddam.

That Iraq was a creation of colonial rule is not really relevant either. Post Colonial nations like Ecuador are products of a similiar type of Colonialism. If you were unhappy with say, the leaderhip in Quito, would you seek to dismember the nation of Ecaudor? Do you suggest that all lines be redrawn now in most of Africa and Latin America too? Consider also that an Iraqi identity had been formed, whether you want to believe it or not. Additionally, there are some countries -- Poland comes to mind -- whose boundaries are largely unnatural. However, I do not believe we should challenge Poland's territorial integrity.

Like Susanp pointed out above, that's not the point. There are no centrifugal forces at work in Ecuador trying to pull that country apart. And if there were, there would be no reason for any other country in the world - US included - to prevent it from coming apart. The proper response to your point is - should the 'international community' have forcibly prevented Czechoslovakia from coming apart? In case you think that the velvet revolution was not worth overturning because it was peaceful, should the same people have prevented Slovenia and Croatia from separating from Yugoslavia?

Iraqis being human beings has nothing to do with this. An oppressive regime that they were under was overthrown. After that, it should be upto the Shia Arab, Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurd to decide whether they wanted to live together, or separately. If they could do it peacefully like the Czechs and Slovaks, good for them. If they couldn't, like the Serbs and Croats, that's a shame. But just as nobody intervened in Yugoslavia, nobody needed to force Iraq to stay one country.

“Saddam was not an ally.”
Funny. I seem to remember otherwise.

Very cute, but in the 80's, since the US knew that it was on the wrong side of the Arabs vis a vis Israel, they tried to compensate by indirectly taking their side on Iraq. This was mainly driven by Egypt's Mubarak, who tried to exploit the opening provided to him by Syria and Libya's support to Iran. As a result, Iraq got a lot of indirect US support via Egypt, while Israel made it a point to see that Iran wasn't at a big disadvantage.

However, that indirect support did not mean Iraq was an ally - they were still a Soviet client, and in 1986 (if I remember right), it was an Iraqi missile that hit an US ship. Not something that an ally would do. What turned this relationship from neutral to hostile was the invasion of Kuwait.

Spare me the Jew hating routine. The label of "Judeophobia" (as silly a term as Islamophobia) reeks in itself. Judaism is not any more sacred than your practice of Hinduism, not one iota. I criticize all religions, especially those that engage in violence. To the extent that Judaism is causing major problems in the world, for such policies as settlements causing upheaval in occupied territories, that criticism will continue.

The reason I used the term 'Judeophobia' as opposed to anti-Semitism, which you used further down, was to prevent you from pulling an 'Arabs are Semites, and so I'm not anti-Semite' number on me. I didn't say anything about which religion is superior to which other - I happen to respect people of all faiths, including Athiests, but excluding Muslims, so I fail to get the point you're trying to make. And Jewish settlements aren't what's responsible for upheaval in the occupied territories - it's the rabid anti-Jewish ideology that saturates Islam that has always been at the root of this problem. If you doubt this, check out the obvious fact that the recent abductions of Israeli soldiers took place from Gaza and Lebanon - both of them places that Israel had evacuated. Even if Israel was to be re-located to the Arctic, the hatred that Muslims have of the Jews, and for that matter, all infidels (something that you seem to be increasingly forgetting) isn't going to go away.

Moreover, stop trying to paint me as an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. Israel is not above all law. Criticism of the war in Iraq is also needed. To say that one who mentions Iraq as a failed policy is a Jew hater is nonsense. Are you also suggesting that those in Bush’s cabinet, or those from whom he receives council (collectively known as neo-cons) are Jews? If so, isn’t that belief in itself anti Semitic? Where are you going with this? Again, for the record, I am not opposed to the state of Israel.

As noted above, I never said you are an anti-Semite. Criticism of Israel is legitimate - particularly for its inability to recognize that what it's always faced to this day is a Jihad, not a legitimate grievance of a disenfranchised populace. However, the label 'Neo-Con' has been used by the Left as a parallel to 'Neo-Nazi', and very explicitly targets Jews in the administration. Just look at the comments of ex Senator Fritz Hollings, who once launched a diatribe against Wolfowitz, Pearle and Krauthammer. So when I see it used, I do call people on it.

As for you not being opposed to Israel, let's take the war on now. Israel had a few soldiers abducted, first in Gaza, and then in Lebanon. What do you think they should do? What do you think China, for instance, would do, if some Taiwanese crossed the Taiwan straits, abducted some Chinese soldiers and made off? Are you willing to wager that China wouldn't overrun and probably annex Taiwan?

Noticeably absent from your discussion are two things:
1) World public opinion, which you seem to think, is irrelevant, is very important. Consider also that the premise of the war was to go after WOMDs. None were found, and few probably existed. Now we hear that the premise of the war was to capture Saddam.

First of all, define world opinion! Define 'world'. Do you really believe that a fruit vendor in Ecuador, or a rickshaw puller in Bhutan, or a Masai tribesman in Kenya really gives two hoots about what happens in Lebanon? That eliminates most of the population in just about every country (Islamic countries that are rooting for the Islamization of the world don't count), and leaves it to their elites. Of these elites, much of this opinions are arrived at by a few corrupt regimes, like the OIC, the Arab League, the Non Aligned Movement, and then, since the world diplomatic circuit is a private club, these countries vote in herds against Israel. Do you really think half the countries in the world, say in Sub Saharan Africa, or Latin America, really have an interest in Israel being obliterated? Do you really think that they aren't doing what they are doing to stay in the good books of OPEC, 9 of whose members are OIC members, and the other is Venezuela?

The premise of the war was to overthrow Saddam's regime. Iraq was a perfectly legitimate target because it was a terror sponsor: Abu Nidal was executed a few weeks before the invasion, and Abu Abbas, of Achille Lauro fame, was captured after the fall of Baghdad. And there was Saddam's $25m per pop booty to suicide bombers. Under the Bush doctrine principles alone, he deserved to be taken out.

I had never given too much importance to Chemical or Biological weapons, but the discovery some weeks ago is satisfactory enough for me. In any case, suppose no weapons had ever been found, it would have been okay for the US to just leave.

2) Iran. You fail to mention that Iraq is not only a horrendous drain on our economy, but it is rendering us increasingly impotent against real enemies like Iran and NK, and those still extremely hostile enemies in the world which you are overlooking (and combined are infinitely more important that Moslem countries): China and Russia. Iraq is weakening us relative to these very quickly rising foes.

This is the only part of your post where I agree with you, but the situation would not have been better had the US picked on Iran instead of Iraq. After all, Iraqi sponsorship of terror, as mentioned above, would have continued. But once the regime was overthrown, the US should have pulled out of Iraq, so that it could deal with the Iran and North Korean crisis.

Russia is a paper tiger - we saw that in Chechnya, and we saw that in Serbia. Their support for Iran is out of spite. If the US decided to go to war with Iran, and sent missiles at Teheran, Natanz, Yazd, Isfahan, Qum and Mashed, do you really think Russia will want to join the war on Iran's side? Why would they, when they didn't do that in Serbia, and still have their hands full in Chechnya?

I agree that China is a threat, but it is not an existential threat the way the Jihadi threat it. Nonetheless, it will have to be dealt with almost immediately after the Jihadists are done.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at July 28, 2006 2:05 AM